Simply Uncertain

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:10 AM GMT en Febrero 21, 2012

Share this Blog
12
+

Simply Uncertain

This past week I had a short letter published in Scientific American. The letter concerned a statement made in an article that climate models do not include clouds. This is an incorrect statement that has been around for many years, and it shows up, in my experience, in more science-focused publications. I remember an exchange of letters in Physics Today in 2005. As best as I can tell, the statement is traced to a historical document that stated the first climate models written in the late 1960s contained specified clouds – meaning that they did not change as the climate changed. By the end of the 1970s, cloud parameterizations were becoming standard in climate models, and the interplay between clouds and solar radiation emerged in the 1980s as one of the most important metrics of model performance.

My letter goes on to state that the uncertainty in climate projections associated with the physical climate model is smaller than the uncertainty associated with the models of emission scenarios that are used to project carbon dioxide emissions. This statement is worthy of more discussion. Let me start with a couple of reminders. In all of these endeavors looking to the future we use models. Models are constructed based on observed behavior and are tools for projecting future outcomes. By “physical climate model” I mean a mathematical representation based on the laws of physics. Most simply, in this case, how is solar energy absorbed by the Earth, redistributed, and then emitted back to space? More generally, laws that govern physics, chemistry and biology are incorporated into climate models.

Another important ingredient in making climate projections is what is our future emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? “Emission scenario” models are based on assumptions of population growth, economic development and sources of energy to drive the economy. Historically, one type of scenario is called “business as usual” and simply extrapolates curves of past energy use into the future. If we take emission curves that, for example, stop in 2005 and project them forward, we see that in the last couple of years we are ahead of those emissions. Generally, business as usual is assumed to be the worst case. We have several emission models based on various assumptions about development and deployment of technology. Current efforts in climate science are striving to make emission models and physical climate models talk to each other – to interact.

Physical climate models are based on the laws of physics and that does provide strategies for determining cause and effect. If cause and effect can be determined to a high degree of certainty, then we can be quite certain about predictions. The economic models, that I know, are based on observations of economic systems that are then represented through a set of mathematical relationships. These relationships are often represented by statistical methods, strive to represent human behavior, and include measures of value that rely on how much humans value something. In atmospheric science, for example, there are a set of “primitive equations” which all agree describe the motion of the atmosphere. Such a set of physically derived equations do not sit at the basis of economic projections. I hope I have stayed out of trouble here. As in a number of previous entries, I draw your attention to Daniel Farber’s Climate Models: A User’s Guide. Farber is neither climate scientist or economist, a fact that I always view as providing a measure of objective evaluation. He evaluates model robustness.

I want to discuss this uncertainty issue a little bit more, and will rely on an old standard figure from the 2001 IPCC Report. This figure has a lot of information about uncertainty.



Figure 1: From 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report Variations of the Earth’s surface temperature: year 1000 to year 2100

The figure shows the temperature since the year 1000 forward to year 2100. The temperatures from the past are from observations of different types. The temperatures in the future are from model projections. There are a set of different physical climate models all using a standard set of emission scenarios. I have marked three types of uncertainty on the figure.

In light blue I point to a measure of observational uncertainty. This is the gray spread around the bold red temperature line. This gets smaller as more and more observations become available over time. Going into the future there are the individual colored lines of different models and on the right of the figure are the ranges associated with those models for the set of emission scenarios. The envelope of all of the models with all of the emission scenarios is pointed out by the green arrows. A simple estimate of uncertainty is the spread of the models. This uncertainty grows with time, and the spread when all of the scenarios are included is larger than the spread of any individual model. If one were to look at the individual models, you would see much the same thing. In the absence of different scenarios the models would have a significantly more narrow spread.

There are a number of important points in this simple approach to thinking about uncertainty. Looking at the spread of all models with all scenarios, the spread at, say, 30 years in the future is quite well defined by the lines of the individual models. It takes 30 or 40 years before the difference in the scenarios makes a difference. As a rule of thumb a simple description of uncertainty is that in the next couple of decades “internal variability,” that is, the spread is mostly due to things like El Nino and La Nina is most important. Then there is a length of time where the spread is due mostly to model differences. And as time approaches a century or longer, the spread due to emission scenarios begins to dominate. I note that model differences are always important, and that this difference is strongly related to details of the treatment of clouds. This uncertainty is expressed in how fast does it warm?

The physical climate model is like a telescope into the future; it provides actionable knowledge the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. As the models improve, that future comes into more and more focus. There are physical relationships that allow a high degree of confidence to be attributed to some aspects of climate projections. For example, the surface of the globe will warm, in any carbon dioxide emission scenario. On this global scale, both model uncertainty and emission scenario uncertainty address the issue of how fast the surface will warm. Neither suggest any plausible scenario where the Earth does not warm. And simply to make the point, this plot does not suggest that the warming stops at 2100; that's just as far as the information is plotted. At local spatial scales, scales for which the models were not designed, the uncertainty analysis follows a much different logic than presented here.

r

Old Entry on Uncertainty and Definition of Model Types

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 468 - 418

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog Index

468. Birthmark
5:33 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting nymore:
The baseline in 1997 was 1961-1990, sometime after that they moved it back to 1901-2000. Which lowered the baseline for global temps and raised the warming anomaly. Period end of story.

I know you never do but can you back up your claim they raised the global baseline? They must have raised it from 1801-1900 LOL

It did not raise the anomaly in the slightest. The anomaly with respect to the 1961-1990 baseline is precisely the same. If the anomaly appears numerically larger using the new baseline it is due to the fact that the warming had already begun prior to the old baseline. Therefore, the new baseline is probably more realistic if one is trying to ascertain the amount of warming.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
467. Birthmark
5:31 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting nymore:
Well can you or they tell me with absolute truth exactly what each of these contribute to cooling.



Absolute truth is the province of philosophy, not science. Science, at its best, is a learning process. Absolute truth is impossible in science since absolute truth requires that we know everything about the thing that can ever be known. Obviously, we are in no position to make such a claim.

Do you find a specific fault with the paper or have any valid reason to believe that there are non-trivial unknowns in play?
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
466. Birthmark
5:27 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting nymore:
Can you give me one good reason why they would move the baseline backward?

Because they wanted a longer baseline and moving it forward really wasn't an option, was it? :)

In point of fact, they did move the end of the baseline forward by 10 years to the year 2000, no? By doing so they include the big El Niño year of 1998. It also means that the entire 20th century in now the baseline.

If you're really concerned, perhaps you should look for the explanation on their website. If it's not there, then ask them in an e-mail. Find out what they say the reason is, then form a conspiracy theory.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
465. nymore
4:38 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Do you still not understand how baselines and anomalies work? When a temperature baseline is raised, departures from average become smaller on the warm side, and larger on the cool side. IOW, raising the baseline temperature has the effect of making warm anomalies less noticeable, and cool anomalies more noticeable.

The baselines were raised because the planet is warming, period.
The baseline in 1997 was 1961-1990, sometime after that they moved it back to 1901-2000. Which lowered the baseline for global temps and raised the warming anomaly. Period end of story.

I know you never do but can you back up your claim they raised the global baseline? They must have raised it from 1801-1900 LOL
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
464. nymore
4:34 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

So what, specifically, in the paper is wrong?

What is it that you think is unknown that should have been included?
Well can you or they tell me with absolute truth exactly what each of these contribute to cooling.


Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
463. nymore
4:30 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:


You do realize, don't you, that that's only possible if there was warming? D'oh!
Can you give me one good reason why they would move the baseline backward?
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
462. Neapolitan
4:28 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting nymore:


Does this surprise you. I showed a few blogs ago how NOAA/NCDC moved their global baseline from 1961-1990 to 1901-2000 to make the anomaly appear almost 0.1C higher.

What do you expect from U.S. gov't agencies. There is never any accountability. Just garbage agendas on both sides of the aisle. I personally would not believe them if they told me water was wet.
Do you still not understand how baselines and anomalies work? When a temperature baseline is raised, departures from average become smaller on the warm side, and larger on the cool side. IOW, raising the baseline temperature has the effect of making warm anomalies less noticeable, and cool anomalies more noticeable.

The baselines were raised because the planet is warming, period.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13731
461. Birthmark
4:15 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting nymore:
You can not use adjusted data when you do not even know how to adjust the data or as they say in the paper all KNOWN data. The temp where I am at right now is 14F if I adjust for wind chill it is -2F. The temp is the temp

So what, specifically, in the paper is wrong?

What is it that you think is unknown that should have been included?
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
460. Birthmark
4:12 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


I hear ya. I am not opposed to much of anything aside from someone feeding me their ideological rhetoric, when it comes to weather and climate, for political gain.

Not right, period.....

If ya want to have some fun, just look at the IPCC output. How credible should they be globally setting policy as they are currently doing ?


Whole different set of rules when you are not skeptical of the theory of AGW, no?

Conflict of interest guidelines for the IPCC

Edit: oops the vid was lost in the shuffle ª¿►




Yet somehow it continues to warm. Astonishing, isn't it? lol

Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
459. Birthmark
4:11 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting nymore:


Does this surprise you. I showed a few blogs ago how NOAA/NCDC moved their global baseline from 1961-1990 to 1901-2000 to make the anomaly appear almost 0.1C higher.


You do realize, don't you, that that's only possible if there was warming? D'oh!
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
458. Birthmark
4:10 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
James Hansen doesn't like the temperature so he simply changes the data:

Link

Steve Goddard is not a reliable source. In short, he lies.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
457. Birthmark
4:08 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


LOL, really ?

Hottest October on record … was really a September
posted at 9:42 am on November 16, 2008


"GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery.

1. Did they admit their error when it was pointed out to them?

2. Did the correct the error?

3. Did it make any real difference in the long run?

Question: Do you think that Hansen manually enters global temperature data into the GISS computers? lol
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
456. RatPat2
3:34 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Since everyone is in a video posting mood. Here is the real truth about Global Warming.


Member Since: Marzo 7, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1
455. Ossqss
3:23 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012

Here, a distraction for you all.

And you thought the climate was a difficult thing to quantify!

Gnight>>

Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
454. Ossqss
3:00 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting nymore:


Does this surprise you. I showed a few blogs ago how NOAA/NCDC moved their global baseline from 1961-1990 to 1901-2000 to make the anomaly appear almost 0.1C higher.

What do you expect from U.S. gov't agencies. There is never any accountability. Just garbage agendas on both sides of the aisle. I personally would not believe them if they told me water was wet.


I hear ya. I am not opposed to much of anything aside from someone feeding me their ideological rhetoric, when it comes to weather and climate, for political gain.

Not right, period.....

If ya want to have some fun, just look at the IPCC output. How credible should they be globally setting policy as they are currently doing ?


Whole different set of rules when you are not skeptical of the theory of AGW, no?

Conflict of interest guidelines for the IPCC

Edit: oops the vid was lost in the shuffle ª¿►


Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
453. nymore
2:42 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


LOL, really ?

Hottest October on record … was really a September
posted at 9:42 am on November 16, 2008


"GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running."

No worries though. Those records from the 1800's and early 1900 are all digitally calibrated to hundredths of a degree, right, so we can claim they are the 4th, 5th, or whatever, warmest since then right?

There were also thousands of those stations available, just like today right?

Masters regurgitates that it is the 4th warmest Winter on record. I say it is the 778th warmest in the last 1,000 years. Who is right? :)

I believe in Climate Science Change!

Wait for it >>>>>>>>>> its coming to a thought near you........









Does this surprise you. I showed a few blogs ago how NOAA/NCDC moved their global baseline from 1961-1990 to 1901-2000 to make the anomaly appear almost 0.1C higher.

What do you expect from U.S. gov't agencies. There is never any accountability. Just garbage agendas on both sides of the aisle. I personally would not believe them if they told me water was wet.
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
452. Ossqss
1:56 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
James Hansen tells it like it is:




LOL, really ?

Hottest October on record … was really a September
posted at 9:42 am on November 16, 2008


"GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running."

No worries though. Those records from the 1800's and early 1900 are all digitally calibrated to hundredths of a degree, right, so we can claim they are the 4th, 5th, or whatever, warmest since then right?

There were also thousands of those stations available, just like today right?

Masters regurgitates that it is the 4th warmest Winter on record. I say it is the 778th warmest in the last 1,000 years. Who is right? :)

I believe in Climate Science Change!

Wait for it >>>>>>>>>> its coming to a thought near you........







Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
451. Neapolitan
1:02 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
James Hansen doesn't like the temperature so he simply changes the data:

Link
James Hansen tells it like it is:


Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13731
450. NeapolitanFan
9:01 PM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
James Hansen doesn't like the temperature so he simply changes the data:

Link
Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
449. cyclonebuster
7:39 PM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

Thin, sir. Mighty thin.

And it's getting thinner every year.

Thanks for asking. Hope that helps.


Thinner and less volume/massive!



Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
448. overwash12
5:18 PM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
WASHINGTON -- The warmth last month wasn't a mirage: January 2012 was the USA's 4th-warmest January on record, federal climate scientists announced on Tuesday.

The national average temperature in January was 36.3 degrees F, which is 5.5 degrees F above the long-term average and the warmest since 2006, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center. The other warmer Januarys were in 1990 and 1953.

The data is based on records dating back to 1895.

( Based on a 117 year record!)
Member Since: Junio 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
447. Ossqss
4:39 PM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
AR1429 soon to deliver some impact.



Realtime plots if interested. Back to work :)

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/index.html
Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
446. Neapolitan
2:40 PM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Xandra:


That's perfect. The only thing is, on certain major cable news networks that start with the letter 'F', Roger would be given both the first word and the last word, and he'd spend most of his time ridiculing Dr. Jenkins for having a degree--and the host/moderator would tend to mostly side with him.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13731
445. Xandra
12:39 PM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Member Since: Noviembre 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
444. Xandra
12:36 PM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


You are guilty of what I get accused of every time I show data -- cherrypicking. You use one town on the entire earth as an example. Ok, get rid of the magic mushrooms.

No, I'm not guilty of cherry picking. It's Archibald who is using data from individual temperature stations in his predictions, not me.

Quote Archibald:

"If the month of minimum for the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 transition is July 2009, this would make Solar Cycle 23 over thirteen years long. This in turn would mean that it would be 3.2 years longer than Solar Cycle 22, and imply that the annual average temperature of Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.2° C cooler during Solar Cycle 24 than it had been on average over Solar Cycle 23."
Member Since: Noviembre 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
443. nymore
6:09 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Well gentlemen it has been a pleasure good debate have a good night Rookie and Birthmark.

What do you say we go out with Frankie warning Colorado if nothing else he is passionate and I love this guy.

img src="">
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
442. Birthmark
6:04 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting nymore:
always a spin. I was going to ask you how derived a trend to compare from decade to decade from RSS or UAH when the info does not start till 1979.

I used 1979-2008, and 1982 - 2011. It's about all you can do with the satellite data at this point. But they both show accelerated warming. (Caveat: I don't know if it's statistically significant...and I'm not going to try to determine it at 1 AM EST. But I suspect it is not.)
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
441. Some1Has2BtheRookie
6:02 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

The same way we use models. They, too, are always looking to improve. In the meantime, you use what you have, if it is useful. As you learn more, you change. Would I cite WTI in a scientific paper? No. Is it a poor indicator of global temperature? No. It's certainly no worse than, say UAH, which has had to do some pretty hefty adjusting over the years.

Life is imperfect. :)


Very true. I also understand that there are no perfect models. I would be skeptical of any model designer that claimed their model is perfect. ... Still, when he is even unsure of the math he is using, I would have to question its usefulness for anything other than an experiment to test the math being used. But, that is just me.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
440. nymore
6:00 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:
An interesting paper was released fairly recently that removed natural cycles (as much as possible) and left the actual global warming signal.

Here is a graph of that signal:


This is a link to the abstract.

The full paper may be downloaded there.
You can not use adjusted data when you do not even know how to adjust the data or as they say in the paper all KNOWN data. The temp where I am at right now is 14F if I adjust for wind chill it is -2F. The temp is the temp
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
439. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:55 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I can not answer that but I always try to use the same source as the person posting it. It could very well be garbage


AH! I understand. Thanks.

Reading what I read, at the website, I would not trust either side of the debate that was using that as a source.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
438. Birthmark
5:55 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Yes, that is the website I went to. What I read is that basically Paul is setting up an experiment to test his algorithms and that he is not certain that he has the math correct. How are we suppose to use this when he is looking for new algorithms and data sets and is not certain that he has the math right?

The same way we use models. They, too, are always looking to improve. In the meantime, you use what you have, if it is useful. As you learn more, you change. Would I cite WTI in a scientific paper? No. Is it a poor indicator of global temperature? No. It's certainly no worse than, say UAH, which has had to do some pretty hefty adjusting over the years.

Life is imperfect. :)
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
437. nymore
5:52 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Yes, that is the website I went to. What I read is that basically Paul is setting up an experiment to test his algorithms and that he is not certain that he has the math correct. How are we suppose to use this when he is looking for new algorithms and data sets and is not certain that he has the math right?
I can not answer that but I always try to use the same source as the person posting it. It could very well be garbage
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
436. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:49 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

"WTI: The WoodForTrees Temperature Index

When playing around with temperature graphs, I always found myself having to choose which of the four global temperature sources - HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS - to use. Since they all have their differences, particularly around short-term responses to extreme events like the 1998 El Nino, I thought it would be nice to have an average of all four...

Hence I've created the WoodForTrees Temperature Index (WTI). This is created from the mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, RSS and UAH, offset by their baseline differences. It covers only the time period where all four series are valid, so begins in 1979 and will only contain the latest month's values when all four sources are in. It is updated from the master sources at 3am GMT/BST each night."

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#wti

Is that what you're after?


"WTI" is what I was looking for. I had no clue as to what it was an acronym for.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
435. nymore
5:49 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

If they merely claimed "accelerating" then they are correct.

If they claimed "rapidly accelerating" then they might still be correct, depending upon how "rapidly" is defined.
always a spin. Your graph actually shows it decreasing. I was going to ask you how derived a trend to compare from decade to decade from RSS or UAH when the info does not start till 1979.
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
434. Birthmark
5:48 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
An interesting paper was released fairly recently that removed natural cycles (as much as possible) and left the actual global warming signal.

Here is a graph of that signal:


This is a link to the abstract.

The full paper may be downloaded there.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
433. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:47 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting nymore:



The web site is woodfortrees.org look in the lower right of the page


Yes, that is the website I went to. What I read is that basically Paul is setting up an experiment to test his algorithms and that he is not certain that he has the math correct. How are we suppose to use this when he is looking for new algorithms and data sets and is not certain that he has the math right?
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
432. Birthmark
5:42 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I know you never claimed it but you jumped in to back up someone who did.

If they merely claimed "accelerating" then they are correct.

If they claimed "rapidly accelerating" then they might still be correct, depending upon how "rapidly" is defined.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
431. Birthmark
5:40 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Good evening, sir.

I have a question for you. The graphic is not something that I can easily understand. What is that this graphic actually depicts?

"WTI: The WoodForTrees Temperature Index

When playing around with temperature graphs, I always found myself having to choose which of the four global temperature sources - HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS - to use. Since they all have their differences, particularly around short-term responses to extreme events like the 1998 El Nino, I thought it would be nice to have an average of all four...

Hence I've created the WoodForTrees Temperature Index (WTI). This is created from the mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, RSS and UAH, offset by their baseline differences. It covers only the time period where all four series are valid, so begins in 1979 and will only contain the latest month's values when all four sources are in. It is updated from the master sources at 3am GMT/BST each night."

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#wti

Is that what you're after?
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
430. nymore
5:40 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:
I never claimed "rapid acceleration", only plain-old, ordinary, every day accelerating. The graph indicates that.

However, as I said, HADCRUT3 has rather poor polar coverage. The polar regions are where some of the most dramatic warming has taken place. If we look at GISSTEMP, we see a bit more acceleration:



Both satellite series, RSS and UAH agree that the trend is accelerating. They are both in closer agreement to GISSTEMP than HADCRUT3.

No doubt about it. The climate is warming, and the rate of warming is increasing.

I know you never claimed it but you jumped in to back up someone who did. Actually your graph shows the rate decreasing. It just flat lined a decade ago so we will have to see what the future holds. How could you tell from RSS or UAH since that info starts in 1979
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
429. Birthmark
5:36 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
I never claimed "rapid acceleration", only plain-old, ordinary, every day accelerating. The graph indicates that.

However, as I said, HADCRUT3 has rather poor polar coverage. The polar regions are where some of the most dramatic warming has taken place. If we look at GISSTEMP, we see a bit more acceleration:



Both satellite series, RSS and UAH agree that the trend is accelerating. They are both in closer agreement to GISSTEMP than HADCRUT3.

No doubt about it. The climate is warming, and the rate of warming is increasing.

Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
428. nymore
5:35 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Good evening, sir.

I have a question for you. The graphic is not something that I can easily understand. What is that this graphic actually depicts?

I went to the website trying to get a better handle on how to "read" this graphic. Such as, what is the wti? I could not find my answer there, so perhaps you may help me?

This is what I did find there:

"How you can help

I welcome constructive suggestions of new algorithms or datasets I could add, and in particular help from experts if I've got any of the maths badly wrong (which is quite possible).

Mail me at 'paul' at this domain. Flames will be silently extinguished."


This is from this website - Seeing the Wood for Trees




The web site is woodfortrees.org look in the lower right of the page
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
427. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:30 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting nymore:
really why did the graph you just posted only go from 1979 to 1980? Oh that is right Wood For Trees temp index only goes back to 1979. No matter what numbers you put in, look at the bottom of the graph.

Here is a nice example



Notice how 1990 matches right up to 1911



Good evening, sir.

I have a question for you. The graphic is not something that I can easily understand. What is that this graphic actually depicts?

I went to the website trying to get a better handle on how to "read" this graphic. Such as, what is the wti? I could not find my answer there, so perhaps you may help me?

This is what I did find there:

"How you can help

I welcome constructive suggestions of new algorithms or datasets I could add, and in particular help from experts if I've got any of the maths badly wrong (which is quite possible).

Mail me at 'paul' at this domain. Flames will be silently extinguished."


This is from this website - Seeing the Wood for Trees

Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
426. nymore
5:28 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

I apologize. I forgot that the WTI only begins in 1979 and didn't look closely at the graph. People do make mistakes. Even me.

Here is the HADCRUT3 for 1951 - 1980 instead.


Clearly it warmed noticeably in the three decades before climatologists began to speak out.

Here are the HADCRUT3 30-year trends for 1962 - 2011.


The graph again shows accelerating warming. I chose HADCRUT because it is the coolest of the surface measurements due to less coverage of polar regions.
No problem on the mistake. Notice the 1972 and 1982 trend lines mirror each other. That would tell me the rapid acceleration is not happening. Is it warmer now than 1972 or 1982 yes. Your graph would also tell me the temp has basically been flat for a decade. As I stated earlier.
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
425. Birthmark
5:19 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting nymore:
really why did the graph you just posted only go from 1979 to 1980? Oh that is right Wood For Trees temp index only goes back to 1979.

I apologize. I forgot that the WTI only begins in 1979 and didn't look closely at the graph. People do make mistakes. Even me. I have posted a note indicated that the graph is incorrect. Thanks for pointing that out.

Here is the HADCRUT3 for 1951 - 1980 instead.


Clearly it warmed noticeably in the three decades before climatologists began to speak out.

Here are the HADCRUT3 30-year trends for 1962 - 2011.


The graph again shows accelerating warming. I chose HADCRUT because it is the least warm of the surface measurements due to less coverage of polar regions.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
424. nymore
4:52 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

They had already waited thirty years (more, actually).




You choose to ignore physics and claim that the 90's "skews the trend" --presumably upward. How do you know that the 2000s are not "skewing the trend" downward?


I just did that. When you look at the climate rather than the weather, the warming acceleration is clear. If you want to talk about weather, there are plenty of boards set up for just that purpose. (I heartily recommend Dr. Masters' blog.) If you want to talk about climate, then let's talk about climate.
really why did the graph you just posted only go from 1979 to 1980? Oh that is right Wood For Trees temp index only goes back to 1979. No matter what numbers you put in, look at the bottom of the graph.

Here is a nice example



Notice how 1990 matches right up to 1911.

Notice all your trend lines start on the same date except for the 1982 one.

Come on dude I am pretty street smart. nice scam for the morons though

Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
423. Birthmark
4:40 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting nymore:
Really 30 years? How is it Climate Scientists were screaming bloody murder in the 80's and 90's when they should have waited till what 2004 or 2005 for thirty years of a warming signal

They had already waited thirty years (more, actually).


NOTE: This graph is incorrect, due to the fact that the WTI index only goes back to 1979...and the fact that I just lazily posted it without checking first. Sorry for the mistake. A correct graph appears in a subsequent post. Thanks for your patience.

Quoting nymore:
I do agree it did warm very rapidly in the 90's but not so much in the 2000's. The rapid warming in the 90's skews the trend.

You choose to ignore physics and claim that the 90's "skews the trend" --presumably upward. How do you know that the 2000s are not "skewing the trend" downward?

Quoting nymore:
I will ask again can you show this continued and accelerating warming for the last decade?

I just did that. When you look at the climate rather than the weather, the warming acceleration is clear. If you want to talk about weather, there are plenty of boards set up for just that purpose. (I heartily recommend Dr. Masters' blog.) If you want to talk about climate, then let's talk about climate.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
422. nymore
4:20 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

No, they didn't.



Then you responded with the wrong answer. Here is the 30-year (the defined length of time necessary to determine the warming signal) warming rate for the past three decades:


It is clear that the climate is warming, and warming at an increasing rate. Your pointing out that weather still occurs is news to no one.

I do agree it did warm very rapidly in the 90's but not so much in the 2000's. The rapid warming in the 90's skews the trend. The trend from say 1910 to 1940 looks very close to now, was that caused by man too. maybe


I will ask again can you show this continued and accelerating warming for the last decade?
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
421. Birthmark
4:12 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I know it did not warm because CRU, NASA and NOAA said it did not.

No, they didn't.


Quoting nymore:
I was responding to someones claim of continued warming and it is getting more rapid

Then you responded with the wrong answer. Here is the 30-year (the defined length of time necessary to determine the warming signal) warming rate for the past three decades:


It is clear that the climate is warming, and warming at an increasing rate. Your pointing out that weather still occurs is news to no one.

Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
420. nymore
4:00 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

How do you know it has not warmed in the last decade? And if it didn't warm, what is the significance of that?


No, you really can't. What you can do is back it up with factoids that are irrelevant and are not statistically significant to climate.
I know it did not warm because CRU, NASA and NOAA said it did not. I was responding to someone else and their claim of continued warming and it is getting more rapid. Both are false. I don't care if it is a factoid or statistically relevant or not the claim made is false.

Can you back up his claim?

I know the only one you can pick out is water temp from 700 to 2000 meters but that data only goes back to 2005 when measured directly by ARGO.

Here lets just see one graph from CRU



If you can please point out the continued warming and rapid acceleration for the last decade. It would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
419. Birthmark
3:42 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting nymore:
Can you back up this claim? I know the last 18 months or so may be because of La Nina but that does not explain why it has not warmed for the last decade.

How do you know it has not warmed in the last decade? And if it didn't warm, what is the significance of that?

Quoting nymore:
IOW It has not continued to warm and there is no increasing rate. In fact it is basically flat lined or slightly cooled for the last decade, so there can be no increasing rate in fact it would be decreasing. I can back up this statement with actual facts.

No, you really can't. What you can do is back it up with factoids that are irrelevant and are not statistically significant to climate.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
418. Birthmark
3:33 AM GMT en Marzo 08, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
It's the sun, stupid. Another study correlating solar activity with temperature and predicting a decrease of 1 degree C in global temps.

Link

From the link you provided:
"This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦C from solar cycle 23 to 24 for the stations and areas analyzed." -bold added

Prior to that statement, it specifies, "meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region."

I humbly suggest that Norway and the North Atlantic region -both fine places- are not the Earth.

Better luck next time.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469

Viewing: 468 - 418

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Clear
46 ° F
Despejado