Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,290

    Default Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    I would think this would be of interest, but naturally the usual suspects are going to do their usual things.

    Summary: Due to the recent long cooling phase, the existing climate models are clearly inaccurate. This paper attempts to reconcile the climate models with observational data from 2000 to 2009, leading to significantly lower warming estimates.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1836.html

    Free for a short while...

    Open summary from one of the authors:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/1...-less-than-2c/

    Readers may recall that last December I published an informal climate sensitivity study at WUWT, here. The study adopted a heat-balance (energy budget) approach and used recent data, including satellite-observation-derived aerosol forcing estimates. I would like now to draw attention to a new peer-reviewed climate sensitivity study published as a Letter in Nature Geoscience, “Energy budget constraints on climate response”, here. This study uses the same approach as mine, based on changes in global mean temperature, forcing and heat uptake over 100+ year periods, with aerosol forcing adjusted to reflect satellite observations. Headline best estimates of 2.0°C for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and 1.3°C for the – arguably more policy-relevant – transient climate response (TCR) are obtained, based on changes to the decade 2000–09, which provide the best constrained, and probably most reliable, estimates.
    The 5–95% uncertainty ranges are 1.2–3.9°C for ECS and 0.9–2.0°C for TCR. I should declare an interest in this study: you will find my name included in the extensive list of authors: Alexander Otto, Friederike E. L. Otto, Olivier Boucher, John Church, Gabi Hegerl, Piers M. Forster, Nathan P. Gillett, Jonathan Gregory, Gregory C. Johnson, Reto Knutti, Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann, Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens, and Myles R. Allen. I am writing this article in my personal capacity, not as a representative of the author team.
    The Nature Geoscience paper, although short, is in my view significant for two particular reasons.
    First, using what is probably the most robust method available, it establishes a well-constrained best estimate for TCR that is nearly 30% below the CMIP5 multimodel mean TCR of 1.8°C (per Forster et al. (2013), here). The 95% confidence bound for the Nature Geoscience paper’s 1.3°C TCR best estimate indicates some of the highest-response general circulation models (GCMs) have TCRs that are inconsistent with recent observed changes. Some two-thirds of the CMIP5 models analysed in Forster et. al (2013) have TCRs that lie above the top of the ‘likely’ range for that best estimate, and all the CMIP5 models analysed have an ECS that exceeds the Nature Geoscience paper’s 2.0°C best estimate of ECS. The CMIP5 GCM with the highest TCR, per the Forster et. al (2013) analysis, is the UK Met. Office’s flagship HadGEM2-ES model. It has a TCR of 2.5°C, nearly double the Nature Geoscience paper’s best estimate of 1.3°C and 0.5°C beyond the top of the 5–95% uncertainty range. The paper obtains similar, albeit less well constrained, best estimates using data for earlier periods than 2000–09.

    Secondly, the authors include fourteen climate scientists, well known in their fields, who are lead or coordinating lead authors of IPCC AR5 WG1 chapters that are relevant to estimating climate sensitivity. Two of them, professors Myles Allen and Gabi Hegerl, are lead authors for Chapter 10, which deals with estimates of ECS and TCR constrained by observational evidence. The study was principally carried out by a researcher, Alex Otto, who works in Myles Allen’s group.

    Very helpfully, Nature’s editors have agreed to make the paper’s main text freely available for a limited period. I would encourage people to read the paper, which is quite short. The details given in the supplementary information (SI) enable the study to be fully understood, and its results replicated. The method used is essentially the same as that employed in my December study, being a more sophisticated version of that used in the Gregory et al. (2002) heat-balance-based climate sensitivity study, here. The approach is to draw sets of samples from the estimated probability distributions applicable to the radiative forcing produced by a doubling of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations (F) and those applicable to the changes in mean global temperature, radiative forcing and Earth system heat uptake (ΔT, ΔF and ΔQ), taking into account that ΔF is closely correlated with F. Gaussian (normal) error and internal climate variability distributions are assumed. ECS and TCR values are computed from each set of samples using the equations:
    (1) ECS = F ΔT / (ΔF − ΔQ) and (2) TCR = F ΔT / ΔF .
    With sufficient sets of samples, probability density functions (PDFs) for ECS and TCR can then be obtained from narrow-bin histograms, by counting the number of times the computed ECS and TCR values fall in each bin. Care is needed in dealing with samples where any of the factors in the equations are negative, to ensure that each is correctly included at the low or high end when calculating confidence intervals (CIs). Negative factors occur in a modest, but significant, proportion of samples when estimating ECS using data from the 1970s or the 1980s.
    Estimates are made for ECS and TCR using ΔT, ΔF and ΔQ derived from data for the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970–2009, relative to that for 1860–79. The estimates from the 2000s data are probably the most reliable, since that decade had the strongest forcing and, unlike the 1990s, was not affected by any major volcanic eruptions. However, although the method used makes allowance for internal climate system variability, the extent to which confidence should be placed in the results from a single decade depends on how well they are corroborated by results from a longer period. It is therefore reassuring that, although somewhat less well constrained, the best estimates of ECS and TCR using data for 1970–2009 are closely in line with those using data for the 2000s. Note that the validity of the TCR estimate depends on the historical evolution of forcing approximating the 70-year linear ramp that the TCR definition involves. Since from the mid-twentieth century onwards greenhouse gas levels rose much faster than previously, that appears to be a reasonable approximation, particularly for changes to the 2000s.
    I have modified the R-code I used for my December study so that it computes and plots PDFs for each of the five periods used in the Nature Geoscience study for estimating ECS and TCR. The resulting ECS and TCR graphs, below, are not as elegant as the confidence region graphs in the Nature Geoscience paper, but are in a more familiar form. For presentation purposes, the PDFs (but not the accompanying box-and-whisker plots) have been truncated at zero and the upper limit of the graph and then normalised to unit total probability. Obviously, these charts do not come from the Nature Geoscience paper and are not to be regarded as associated with it. Any errors in them are entirely my own.


    The box-and-whisker plots near the bottom of the charts are perhaps more important than the PDF curves. The vertical whisker-end bars and box-ends show (providing they are within the plot boundaries) respectively 5–95% and 17–83% CIs – ‘very likely’ and ‘likely’ uncertainty ranges in IPCC terminology – whilst the vertical bars inside the boxes show the median (50% probability point). For ECS and TCR, whose PDFs are skewed, the median is arguably in general a better central estimate than the mode of the PDF (the location of its peak), which varies according to how skewed and badly-constrained the PDF is. The TCR PDFs (note the halved x-axis scaling), which are unaffected by ΔQ and uncertainty therein, are all better constrained than the ECS PDFs.
    The Nature Geoscience ECS estimate based on the most recent data (best estimate 2.0°C, with a 5–95% CI of 1.2–3.9°C) is a little different from that per my very similar December study (best estimate 1.6°C, with a 5–95% CI of 1.0–2.9°C, rounding outwards). The (unstated) TCR estimate implicit in my study, using Equation (2), was 1.3°C, with a 5–95% range of 0.9–2.0°C, precisely in line with the Nature Geoscience paper. In the light of these comparisons, I should perhaps explain the main differences in the data and methodology used in the two studies:
    1) The main difference of principle is that the Nature Geoscience study uses GCM-derived estimates of ΔF and F. Multimodel means from CMIP5 runs per Forster et al. (2013) can thus be used as a peer-reviewed source of forcings data. ΔF is accordingly based on simulations reflecting the modelled effects of RCP 4.5 scenario greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosol abundances, etc. My study instead used the RCP 4.5 forcings dataset and the F figure of 3.71°C reflected in that dataset; I adjusted the projected post-2006 solar and volcanic forcings to conform them with estimated actuals. Use of CMIP5-based forcing data results in modestly lower estimates for both ΔF and F (3.44°C for F). Since CO2 is the dominant forcing agent, and its concentration is accurately known, the value of ΔF is closely related to the value of F. The overall effect of the difference in F on the estimates of ECS and TCR is therefore small. As set out in the SI, an adjustment of +0.3 Wm−2 to 2010 forcing was made in the Nature Geoscience study in the light of recent satellite-observation constrained estimates of aerosol forcing. On the face of it, the resulting aerosol forcing is slightly more negative than that used in my December study.
    2) The Nature Geoscience study derives ΔQ using the change in estimated 0–2000 m ocean heat content (OHC) – which accounts for most of the Earth system heat uptake – from the start to the end of the relevant decade (or 1970–2009), whereas I computed a linear regression slope estimate using data for all years in the period I took (2002–11). Whilst I used the NODC/NOAA OHC data, which corresponds to Levitus et al. (2012), here, for the entire 0–2000 m ocean layer, the Nature Geoscience study splits that layer between 0–700 m and 700–2000 m. It retains the NODC/NOAA Levitus OHC data for the 700–2000 m layer but uses a different dataset for 0–700 m OHC – an update from Domingues et al. (2008), here.
    3) The periods used for the headline results differ slightly. I used changes from 1871–80 to 2002–11, whilst the Nature Geoscience study uses changes from 1860–79 to 2000–09. The effects are very small if the CMIP5 GCM-derived forcing estimates are used, but when employing the RCP 4.5 forcings, switching to using changes from 1860–79 to 2000–09 increases the ECS and TCR estimates by around 0.05°C.
    Since the Nature Geoscience study and my December study give identical estimates of TCR, which are unaffected by ΔQ, the difference in their estimates of ECS must come primarily from use of different ΔQ figures. The difference between the ECS uncertainty ranges of the two studies likewise almost entirely reflects the different central estimates for ΔQ they use. The ECS central estimate and 5–95% uncertainty range per my December heat-balance/energy budget study were closely in line with the preferred main results estimate for ECS, allowing for additional forcing etc. uncertainties, per my recent Journal of Climate paper, of 1.6°C with a 5–95% uncertainty range of 1.0–3.0°C. That paper used a more complex method which, although less robust, avoided reliance on external estimates of aerosol forcing.
    The take-home message from this study, like several other recent ones, is that the ‘very likely’ 5–95% ranges for ECS and TCR in Chapter 12 of the leaked IPCC AR5 second draft scientific report, of 1.5–6/7°C for ECS and 1–3°C for TCR, and the most likely values of near 3°C for ECS and near 1.8°C for TCR, are out of line with instrumental-period observational evidence.
    ================================================== =============
    Here’s a figure of interest from from the SI file – Anthony

    Fig. S3| Sensitivity of 95th percentile of TCR to the best estimate and standard error of the change in forcing from the 2000s to the 1860-1879 reference period. The shaded contours show the 95th percentile boundary of the TCR confidence interval, the triangles show cases (black and blue) from the sensitivity Table S2, and a smaller adjustment to aerosol forcing for comparison (red).

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern, VA.
    Posts
    3,585

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,290

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    Given the BBC's pervasive CAGW leaning, this article is fairly balanced (for them).

    Of course, the question at the end is a false one: the skeptic view isn't that global warming isn't happening. It is that:

    a) It isn't as bad as the IPCC has been saying
    b) It isn't 90%+ due to humans, also as the IPCC has been saying
    c) The human influence isn't almost entirely due to CO2 (again IPCC)

    The physics of the greenhouse effect of CO2 shows that temperature increases should only be 1.3 degrees C for every doubling of CO2. The IPCC estimates are higher because the consensus believes that net secondary effects are multipliers (as opposed to neutral or dividers). Thus the recent long spate of cooling is problematic for the IPCC and the consensus not just in that the temperature projections from the models are significantly off, but that the underlying principles (such as net positive secondary climate effects) are increasingly questionable.

    The paper is of interest because the previous range assumed 100% net positive secondary effects - hence the temperature range was well over the 'basic' effect of CO2 doubling. The fact that the range now straddles the 'basic' effect means that the net positive secondary effect assumption (I say assumption because there is no conclusive proof either way - it has been assumed by the consensus and IPCC from the beginning) is no longer default.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern, VA.
    Posts
    3,585

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    GW is all political, and a way to raise taxes.

    None of the viewpoints will matter in a few years as PCO takes hold. we'll be forced to conserve, to use less fossil fuels, and to use viable alternative like nuclear. The world has to get off this anti nuclear binge. New nuclear technologies and smaller units hopefully will allow us to ramp it up before oil prices get out of control.
    Last edited by vt; 05-21-13 at 05:27 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,290

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    Quote Originally Posted by vt
    GW is all political, and a way to raise taxes.

    None of the viewpoints were matter in a few years as PCO takes hold. we'll be forced to conserve, to use less fossil fuels, and to use viable alternative like nuclear. The world has to get off this anti nuclear binge. New nuclear technologies and smaller units hopefully will allow us to ramp it up before oil prices get out of control.
    I actually think many of the CAGW proponents mean well. It is just that the CAGW position is, ironically, the environmental equivalent of austerity.

    And equally true is that a full blown carbon tax/high energy price would achieve the same results as PCO - only without the possibility of the cost being ameliorated via some type of progressive tax scheme.

    As I've noted before - $10/gallon gas is irrelevant for wealthy people. $10/gallon gas will severely affect most people and absolutely cause reduction in overall consumption - witness Europe.

    However, a progressively increasing tax on energy usage per person is a completely different story.

    Thus the political and societal effects of PCO - with or without CAGW, as well as the various options within these two categories, are not irrelevent.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,536

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    Frack Job

    by MICHAEL D. YATES

    Two schools, one a vocational technical high school and the other an elementary school, sit on tracts of land a few blocks from the house in which I grew up, in Ford City (Armstrong County), Pennsylvania. The communities served by them are, for the most part, not particularly prosperous. Household incomes, wages, home prices, rents, and levels of education are below the state average; while poverty, unemployment, and air pollution are above it.

    Many property owners in the area are elderly women, living on small pensions and social security. Their property taxes finance the schools, and as these rise, the tax burden can be considerable. This encumbrance is made subjectively worse by the fact that these older taxpayers no longer have children in school.

    For the local school board, rising costs—including those for the ever growing number of administrators—and a limited and potentially rebellious tax base have created a budget crisis. The current budget shows a deficit of five million dollars. However, the board has come up with an ingenious way to deal with its revenue shortfall.

    To help pay its bills, the school board is courting (or being courted by) two energy companies, with an eye toward leasing public property for natural gas hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking.” According to the school district’s solicitor, the two “frackers,” which are owned by members of the same family, are “offering” to acquire leasing rights on tracts of land near the two schools. “We’re trying to do what we can to bring some money in,” said Board president Joe Close. “Superintendent Stan Chapp said the district projects it could earn up to $1.5 million on it during the next 15 to 20 years.”



    The frackers have been busy in Pennsylvania and across the nation—buying and selling leases, greasing the palms of friendly politicians, convincing local residents to sell property rights to them, and ruining the landscape. As the Natural Resources Defense Council states:


    Natural gas producers have been running roughshod over communities across the country with their extraction and production activities for too long, resulting in contaminated water supplies, dangerous air pollution, destroyed streams, and devastated landscapes. Weak safeguards and inadequate oversight fail to protect our communities from harm by the rapid expansion of fossil fuel production using hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.”
    Fracking has also been implicated in earthquakes. In arid regions, it uses an inordinate share of the local water supply. And it releases methane, a major contributor to global warming. A group of scholars at Cornell University have argued that fracking might be environmentally “dirtier” than mining and burning coal.

    Should the school board reach an agreement with the two energy companies, school kids and those living nearby will soon be hearing explosions, drinking contaminated water, suffering increased air pollution, and watching the woods turn into wastelands. Fires from the wells might light up the night sky. And it is not difficult to imagine that students will be fed large doses of propaganda extolling the virtues of gas drilling and all the jobs it generates. Perhaps, like McDonald’s, the energy corporations have prepared educational materials for the schools. The Vo-Tech already offers a program in “Natural Resources Technology”; among the “10 ‘Hot’ Career Opportunities” listed for this area of study is “Gas Exploration Manager.”

    It would be nice to think that the citizens of the school district would protest this blatant intrusion of an extraordinarily environmentally destructive business into the public schools. But I doubt that they will. The poverty of the area and the lack of decent jobs have hardened people. They are for whatever saves them money or gets them some. The frackers are seen, not as parasites wreaking havoc on the earth, but as sources of jobs and windfall income. Some coal truck drivers have begun to haul water for the gas drillers, who use millions of gallons for each well. Homeowners, approached by company agents, have sold the right to use their land to the frackers, often for paltry sums of money. My sister took $600. And then put her house up for sale. As Louis XV said, “After me, the deluge.”

    If put to a vote, I have no doubt that taxpayers would vote overwhelmingly in favor of the school district leasing the land to the two energy companies. The less they have to pay for education, the better. They won’t be much concerned with the environmental consequences of fracking. The Ford City region is already beset by severe pollution. Carcinogenic chemicals from the old Pittsburgh Plate Glass plant have been leaching into the nearby Allegheny River for years. Some of the highest levels of harmful airborne particulate matters in the nation plague residents. Strip coal mining and coal hauling despoil the land and spread dust and grime everywhere. Residents routinely burn trash in their backyards, delivering more pollutants into the atmosphere. And as a map published recently in the Scranton Times Tribune shows, Armstrong County’s water is already contaminated by fracking. Yet despite all this, there is no popular movement apparent; people seem to accept the poison and even get angry with anyone who points out the obvious. We once witnessed a man who, rather than paying someone to tear down an old house he owned and hauling the refuse away, was burning it, bit by bit, in a circular pit. No one but us seemed to notice or care.

    As those at the top of the economic heap become fantastically wealthy, they use their money to create a society that will allow them to continue to add to their fortunes. Every institution and every facet of life must be controlled and, if possible, turned into an opportunity for making more money. Those without money find themselves in such perilous circumstances that they soon enough become willing to take whatever crumbs the plutocrats give them and to do whatever the rich want them to do. Turning a blind eye to the harm done by natural gas hydraulic fracturing no doubt seems a small price to pay for lower taxes, some jobs, and a few hundred dollars for giving the frackers access to your land.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,536

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    what can we expect over the next decade:

    energy extraction by whatever means wherever it is profitable

    leverage such as the above

    few answers to the long-term energy questions

    real energy conservation - to remain verboten!

    it's too tightly bound up with the reserve currency status of the dollar and global military dominance, or at least the supposition of the same.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    279

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    Quote Originally Posted by don View Post

    real energy conservation - to remain verboten!

    it's too tightly bound up with the reserve currency status of the dollar and global military dominance, or at least the supposition of the same.
    Could you please expand on that? Why don't we have real energy conservation???

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern, VA.
    Posts
    3,585

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/20...e_Ideas_Market
    http://s.wsj.net/img/dotted_grey_main.gif); padding: 0px; position: absolute; background-position: 0px 0%; background-repeat: repeat no-repeat;">





    • July 9, 2013, 2:16 PM
    The Global-Warming Debate: Matt Ridley Responds


    AFP/Getty Images

    A post on slate.com criticized Matt Ridley’s Mind & Matter column, “Science Is About Evidence, Not Consensus,” in the Saturday-Sunday Review section of the Wall Street Journal. Below, Mr. Ridley responds:
    Sadly, Phil Plait’s understanding of the literature in this area is very superficial and out of date. He also fails to rebut my arguments entirely. Indeed, he admits I am right in the first case:
    “First, it’s true that in the distant past (hundreds of thousands of years ago) a rise in carbon dioxide sometimes did follow a rise in temperature.” Actually, this is invariably the pattern in the ice core record, not “sometimes.”
    Moreover, as you can see on John Kehr’s excellent graphs here, the inconvenient truth is that at the end of the Eemian interglacial temperature fell steadily for thousands of years before CO2 levels fell at all. The argument that a small warming at the start of an interglacial causes a CO2 release which causes a large warming is one that has been tested and found entirely wanting. To quote from an excellent essayon the topic: “Now, the standard response from AGW supporters is that the CO2, when it comes along, is some kind of positive feedback that makes the temperature rise more than it would be otherwise. Is this possible? I would say sure, it’s possible … but that we have no evidence that that is the case. In fact, the changes in CO2 at the end of the last ice age argue that there is no such feedback. You can see in Figure 1 that the temperatures rise and then stabilize, while the CO2 keeps on rising. The same is shown in more detail in the Greenland ice core data, where it is clear that the temperature fell slightly while the CO2 continued to rise.
    As I said, this does not negate the possibility that CO2 played a small part. Further inquiry into that angle is not encouraging, however. If we assume that the CO2 is giving 3° per doubling of warming per the IPCC hypothesis, then the problem is that raises the rate of thermal outgassing up to 17 ppmv per degree of warming instead of 15 ppmv. This is in the wrong direction, given that the cited value in the literature is lower at 12.5 ppmv.”
    None of this contradicts the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will in the absence of other factors cause net warming, something I have always accepted. But as I have repeatedly made clear in my writings, that’s not at issue—at least in my mind. What is at issue is the question of whether current CO2 rises can cause dangerous warming, which I no longer think is likely, though it remains possible. Why do people like Mr. Plait try to pretend that I am some kind of closet denier, rather than take on this argument, for luke-warming, and address it seriously? They are simply wasting their fire on a straw man.
    As for the hockey stick, Mr. Plait repeats long-discredited defenses of the graph, including the suggestion that other selections of data have confirmed it. Surely he knows (if only because it is in my article) that these confirmations rely on including Tiljander’s lake sediments or bristlecone pines, but that if you leave these now-debunked data sets out, then the effect vanishes. Please read Climate Audit to verify this. Here’s a quote:
    “As CA readers are aware, the ‘big news’ of Mann et al 2008 was its claim to have got a Hockey Stick without Graybill’s bristlecone chronologies (camouflaged as a ‘no-dendro’ reconstruction). CA readers are aware that this claim depended on their use of contaminated modern portion of the Tiljander sediments and that the original claims for a ‘validated’ no-dendro reconstruction prior to 1500 fell apart, even though no retraction or corrigendum to the original Mann et al (PNAS 2008) has been issued.As we learned (from an inline comment by Gavin Schmidt in July 2010), Mann et al have conceded that these claims fell apart, but did so using a “trick” (TM- climate science.) Instead of acknowledging the false assertions at the journal in which the assertions were made (PNAS), they acknowledged the failure of the no-Tiljander no-bristlecone reconstructions deep in the Supplementary Information of a different paper (Mann et al, Science 2009) – a trick for which the term ‘Mike’s PNAS trick’ is surely appropriate (though the term ‘Mike’s Science trick’ also merits consideration.)”
    And I am gobsmacked to find Mr. Plait showing the Marcott et al graph, when this was comprehensively demolished within weeks of publication as evidence for unprecedented temperatures: See a good summary of the scandal here.
    Note that the authors themselves said:
    “[The] 20th-century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
    I am sorry, but Mr. Plait really should do his journalistic research better. He has missed important developments on both questions.
    Matt Ridley





    [/COLOR]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern, VA.
    Posts
    3,585

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/unprec...summer-record/

    So much for the ice is melting and the North Pole disappearing. To the GW fanatics this is science we are discussing here. Of course we need to get nore nuclear to reduce need for fossil fuels but the GW supporters don't like nuclear either.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hades/Arizona
    Posts
    3,785

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    Quote Originally Posted by vt View Post
    http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/unprec...summer-record/

    So much for the ice is melting and the North Pole disappearing. To the GW fanatics this is science we are discussing here. Of course we need to get nore nuclear to reduce need for fossil fuels but the GW supporters don't like nuclear either.
    The new Ice Age is already upon us! Tuesday's high for Phoenix is only forecast to be 99F! Sub 100 temps in August? The earth is DOOMED! ;-)

    Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hades/Arizona
    Posts
    3,785

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    Quote Originally Posted by vt View Post
    http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/unprec...summer-record/

    So much for the ice is melting and the North Pole disappearing. To the GW fanatics this is science we are discussing here. Of course we need to get nore nuclear to reduce need for fossil fuels but the GW supporters don't like nuclear either.
    According to this site, the rate of decline in arctic sea ice this summer was greater than normal on the Atlantic side, but average or below normal on the Eurasian coast side:
    Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

    Science Daily explains what really happened with that so-called lake forming at the North Pole:

    North Pole Not Flooded -- But Lots of Melting in the Arctic

    July 30, 2013 — Santa's workshop at the North Pole is not under water, despite recent reports. A dramatic image captured by a University of Washington monitoring buoy reportedly shows a lake at the North Pole. But Santa doesn't yet need to buy a snorkel.
    Share This:
    39

    "Every summer when the sun melts the surface the water has to go someplace, so it accumulates in these ponds," said Jamie Morison, a polar scientist at the UW Applied Physics Laboratory and principal investigator since 2000 of the North Pole Environmental Observatory. "This doesn't look particularly extreme."

    After media coverage in CBS News, The Atlantic and the U.K.'s Daily Mail, Morison returned from overseas travel late last week to a pile of media inquiries. Over the weekend the team posted an explanatory page on the project website.

    One of the issues in interpreting the image, researchers said, is that the camera uses a fisheye lens.

    "The picture is slightly distorted," said Axel Schweiger, who heads the Applied Physics Laboratory's Polar Science Center. "In the background you see what looks like mountains, and that's where the scale problem comes in -- those are actually ridges where the ice was pushed together."

    Researchers estimate the melt pond in the picture was just over 2 feet deep and a few hundred feet wide, which is not unusual to find on an Arctic ice floe in late July.

    In the midst of all the concern, the pool drained late July 27. This is the normal cycle for a meltwater pond that forms from snow and ice -- it eventually drains through cracks or holes in the ice it has pooled on.

    The now-infamous buoy was first plunked into floating ice in April, at the beginning of the melt season, about 25 miles from the North Pole. Morison drilled a hole about three football fields away for a second camera, which is pointing in a different direction and shows a more typical scene. Since then the ice floe holding both cameras has drifted about 375 miles south.

    The U.S. National Science Foundation has funded an observatory since 2000 that makes yearly observations at fixed locations and installs 10 to 15 drifting buoys.

    The buoys record weather, ice, and ocean data, and the webcams transmit images via satellite every 6 hours. Images show the ice, buoys and yardsticks placed in the snow to track the surface conditions throughout the summer melt season. Maybe the instruments will survive the summer without getting crushed by shifting ice to record data for another year. Maybe they will fall in the water and eventually wash ashore. Researchers place the buoys to try to maximize their useful lifetime.

    While researchers say the so-called lake at the North Pole is not out of the ordinary, there is a lot of meltwater that could affect the sea ice in coming weeks, in the closely watched lead-up to the September ice minimum.

    Last summer the sea-ice hit a record low in extent since measurements began in 1979. This year the melting started a bit later than usual, Schweiger said, but picked up in the last couple of weeks. Late summer is usually the strongest period of shrinking because the ice is already thin.

    "Whether we're going to see another record or not is still up in the air," Schweiger said.

    He flew over the ice last month in a joint project with the U.S. Coast Guard to drop instruments that measure oceanic and atmospheric conditions and ice motion.

    Morison was last on the ice in April when he deployed the buoys. His forecast for this summer, based on years of experience, is included on a list of expert predictions compiled by the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration's Seattle office.

    Morison will not change his June estimate that this summer will come close to, but not pass, the 2012 record, but he is having his doubts. Looking at the photos from the recent flyover shows more melt along the Alaskan coast, and his experience suggests that ice is fragile.

    "I think it's going to be pretty close to last year," Morison said. "Up in the Canada Basin the ice looks like Swiss cheese, with lots of holes. Even though the ice extent is pretty good, our thinking is that if there's a big storm event we're going to see a rapid breakup of that ice and it's going to disappear pretty quickly."

    The UW team manages another sea-ice tracking tool. The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center publishes daily images and calculations of sea-ice extent and area, while the UW group combines those satellite images and other data to tabulate sea-ice volume. For many people, the UW's monthly updates are a go-to source for getting the latest numbers on sea ice.

    And while the North Pole lake news stories don't exactly hold water, UW researchers say that it at least shows public interest and concern.

    "While the hoopla about Santa's swimming pool was off the mark," Morison said, "it is the long-term observational record from these buoys that provides the perspective needed to understand what really is going on."

    Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,290

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    This whole 'Santa's workshop is under water' crap is yet another example of the shameless tactics used to push an agenda. Lump this in with the photoshopped polar bear pics, the photoshopped electricity plant stacks venting steam, the New York/San Francisco under water doomporn, and so forth.

    As I've posted numerous times before, an ice-free or ice-lite Arctic has happened multiple times just in the 20th century.

    Furthermore the science today is clearly pointing to non-temperature effects causing low ice Arctic summers - it appears to be primarily a function of how much ice is blown into the Atlantic by wind.

    Edit: I should also note that higher temperatures in the Arctic - and elsewhere - are not a function of the daily high temperatures increasing, but a function of daily low temperatures increasing. As the average temperature is the average of the daily high and daily low, the result is a higher temperature in the records.

    Why does this matter?

    Well, for one thing, if CO2 greenhouse effects are indeed so dramatic, there should be at least some increase in the daily high temperatures. It does not need to be identical to daily low, but there should be some effect.

    For another thing, there is more than a little evidence that daily low temperatures are directly affected by urban heat islands - i.e. siting:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/2...he-laboratory/

    WUWT readers may recall that I wrote about this experiment being performed at Oak Ridge national Laboratory to test the issues related to station siting that I have long written about.


    NOAA’s ‘Janus moment’ – while claiming ‘The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record’, they fund an experiment to investigate the effects of station siting and heat sinks/sources on temperature data
    This effort promises to be greatly useful to understanding climate quality temperature measurements and how they can be influenced by the station site environment.

    From the USCRN Annual Report: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/u...ual_Report.pdf

    Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon writes about the the first results of this experiment presented at the recent AMS meeting in Austin, TX. The early results confirm what we have learned from the Surface Stations project. Nighttime temperatures are affected the most.
    Two talks that caught my eye were on the land surface temperature record. They attacked the problem of land surface temperature accuracy in two completely different, but complementary ways.

    One, by John Kochendorfer of NOAA at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, is a direct test of the importance of siting. They’ve installed four temperature sensors at varying distances across a field from the laboratory complex. The experiment has only been running since October, but already they’ve found out a couple of interesting things. First, the nighttime temperatures are indeed higher closer to the laboratory. Second, this is true whether the wind is blowing toward or away from the laboratory.

    It’ll take a lot more data to sort out the various temperature effects. One way the buildings might affect the nighttime temperature even when the sensor is upwind of the buildings is infrared radiation: the heated buildings emit radiation that’s stronger than what would be emitted by the open sky or nearby hills.
    More here: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2...-temperatures/

    Biases Associated with Air Temperature Measurements near Roadways and Buildings

    Wednesday, 9 January 2013: 9:15 AM Room 15 (Austin Convention Center)
    John Kochendorfer, NOAA, Oak Ridge, TN; and C. B. Baker, E. J. Dumas Jr., D. L. Senn, M. Heuer, M. E. Hall, and T. P. Meyers

    Abstract


    Proximity to buildings and paved surfaces can affect the measured air temperature. When buildings and roadways are constructed near an existing meteorological site, this can affect the long-term temperature trend. Homogenization of the national temperature records is required to account for the effects of urbanization and changes in sensor technology. Homogenization is largely based on statistical techniques, however, and contributes to uncertainty in the measured U.S. surface-temperature record. To provide some physical basis for the ongoing controversy focused on the U.S. surface temperature record, an experiment is being performed to evaluate the effects of artificial heat sources such as buildings and parking lots on air temperature. Air temperature measurements within a grassy field, located at varying distances from artificial heat sources at the edge of the field, are being recorded using both the NOAA US Climate Reference Network methodology and the National Weather Service Maximum Minimum Temperature Sensor system. The effects of the roadways and buildings are quantified by comparing the air temperature measured close to the artificial heat sources to the air temperature measured well-within the grassy field, over 200 m downwind of the artificial heat sources.
    Note that this isn't some skeptic, it is the NOAA performing the study, and they note that preliminary results show that nighttime low temperatures increase directly as a function of proximity to a building. If nighttime low temperatures are due primarily due to greenhouse effect - i.e. the IPCC position - then the siting should not make a significant difference.
    Last edited by c1ue; 08-03-13 at 11:20 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    HNL
    Posts
    5,571

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    Quote Originally Posted by c1ue View Post
    ...... this isn't some skeptic, it is the NOAA performing the study, and they note that preliminary results show that nighttime low temperatures increase directly as a function of proximity to a building. If nighttime low temperatures are due primarily due to greenhouse effect - i.e. the IPCC position - then the siting should not make a significant difference.
    and just never mind proximity to the ocean... uhhh.... make that icesheet... of concrete and asphalt that has covered-over vast stretches of suburbia over the past 50years.

    that couldnt possibly have much of anything to do with it... ya think?


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-23-12, 11:28 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-14-11, 07:43 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-27-11, 01:54 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-18-10, 02:19 PM
  5. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-16-09, 12:48 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Opinions expressed herein are those of the posters, not those of iTulip, Inc., its owners, or management. All material posted on this board becomes the intellectual property of the poster and iTulip, Inc., and may not be reposted in full on another website without the express written permission of iTulip, Inc. By exception, the original registered iTulip member who authored a post may repost his or her own material on other sites. Permission is hereby granted to repost brief excerpts of material from this forum on other websites provided that attribution and a link to the source is included with the reposted material.

Nothing on this website is intended or should be construed as investment advice. It is intended to be used for informational and entertainment purposes only. We reserve the right to make changes, including change in price, content, description, terms, etc. at any time without notice. By using this board you agree that you understand the risks of trading, and are solely responsible for your own investment and trading decisions. Read full legal disclaimer.

Journalists are not permitted to contact iTulip members through this forum's email and personal messaging services without written permission from iTulip, Inc. Requests for permission may be made via Contact Us.

Objectionable posts may be reported to the board administrators via Contact Us.

-->