climate

I did say “Only 37 of 58 sources list raw data”.
“37 of 58 represents the fraction of data sets”,
yes that is exactly what I said.

” not the fraction of raw data,”
I did not make that claim.

“You have denied for years that there are more than 5000 stations in the world ”

I have denied the number of active stations in the world.
There is a difference. Take
“International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI), . This release in its recommended form consists of over 30 000 individual station records, some of which extend over the past 300 years.”
this gives 30 thousand stations which are mostly inactive or extinct.
Station locations existing within the last 300 years with at least 1 month of data are used in GHCN-M version 3 (a).
Station locations during the periods 1871–1900 (b), 1931–1960 (c), 1961–1990 (d), and 1991–2013 (e) are also shown.

Or take
(GHCN-M) dataset in 1992, more than 6000 stations. A second version of GHCN-M, containing 7280 stations in 1997 in 2011, a third version of GHCN-M.
which says makes Routine updates for about 2000 stations are made on a daily basis.

Or
NASA’s GISS dataset 6000 stations.
A bit of tight squeeze as  Since version 2, GHCN-M has been a major component in the GISS data set. A bit hard to fit 7280 stations into 6000 but as only 2000 are active I guess you can ignore the rest.

Then
the United Kingdom produced a first release of its CRUTEM product in the late 1980s. Today, a global dataset of over 6000 stations is still maintained in its fourth iteration. Since it also includes GHCN I guess it might have only 2000 active stations as well.

mathematically 2000active stations in the world seems to confirm  my position that “You have denied for years that there are more than 5000 stations in the world ”
Today, GHCN-D provides daily maximum and minimum temperature for nearly 30 000 stations. Although more stations exist on the daily scale
Given the historical nature of data creation, sharing, and rescue, there are many cases where a single station exists in multiple data sources.
the duplicate records do not necessarily have identical temperature values for the same station even though they are based upon the same fundamental measurements.
There are 194,367 station records used
Although the preference is to have data as raw as possible, there are times where such data do not exist, or have not been provided to the databank. Therefore pre-processed data are accepted
GHCN-D was selected to be the highest priority, or target dataset, and the monthly dataset derived from it is the starting point for the merge process. GHCN-D is regularly reconstructed, usually every weekend, from its 25-plus data sources to ensure it is generally in sync with its growing list of constituent sources
the U.S.-based Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) Summary of the Day data set. These sources provide data for more than 2500 stations worldwide, and they remain the primary sources for updates to version 3.
[25] CLIMAT bulletins transmitted via the Global Telecommunication System (GTS) provide data each month for approximately 1400 GHCN-M stations in more than 125 countries and territories.
Locations of the approximately 2300 GHCN-M stations for which data are routinely available.

footy

Jackson Thurlow (def) was 379K, now 267k. He screwed his ACL (right knee) in nab 2016 – looks a starter but awkwardly priced with a dubious ceiling. CONSIDER

Jaimie Elliott (fwd) was 413k (season high 451k in 2015),now 291k. Missed the entire 2016 season with a back injury. Will play if fit. CONSIDER (YES for me!)

Patrick Ryder (fwd/ruck) was 447k (season high 543k), now 418k. Suspended for 2016 – Number one ruck for the power. Solid option at his price. YES

Harley Bennell (mid/fwd) was 548,600, now 387k. Calf injury ruled him out for the season. If his calfs hold up he’s a bargain. Proceed with caution. YES.

Jarryd Roughhead (fwd) was 520k, now 367k. Out with cancer (blimey!) and beat it to death. Onya Roughie. Locked in cause it’s a great story, but he’s also a bloody decent player. YES

Sam Reid (fwd) was 390k, now 275k. Calf and Achilles issues, missed 2016. Mid price madness, decent player, not SC relevant. Averaged 72 in his last full season. PASS

Aaron Sandilands (ruck) was 433k (season high 581K), now 308k. Got flattened by Nic Nat, puncturing a lung. Only played 5 times in 2016. Massive discount for this aging behemoth. Will divide the community. THE CHOICE IS YOURS! YES for me.

Jarrod Witts (ruck) was 393k, now 217k. Never really made an impact at the pies, traded to GC. Uncertain TOG in 2017, whispers around he will get the R1 spot. Can’t lock him in on a whisper though. WATCHLIST.

Nat Fyfe (mid) was 624k (670k high), now 573k. Basically broke his leg and only played 5 in 2016. Super elite on the cheap? Yep. YES

Dyson Heppell (mid) was 499k (season high 571k), now 513k. Suspended for the year. Definitely should consider at this price. YES for me.

Jobe Watson (mid) was 439k (season high 576k), now 453k. Suspended for the year. Question marks a plenty over Jobe, I’m backing him to have impact, but maybe not for SuperCoach. PASS

Michael Hurley (def) was 485k, now 464k. Another banned Bomber. Rebound king last time around the traps, potential to peak over 550k. I’m in. CONSIDER

Michael Bellchambers (ruck) was 294k (season high 333k), now 305k. *altogether now – “another banned bomber”. Strange price on this lad, could get R1 at windy hill (or whatever they call it now) but beware – he wanted to quit football and I heard a whisper he’s carrying an injury. PASS

Dayne Beams (mid) was 612k, now 432k. Only played 2 in 2016, out with basically a completely shattered body. BUT super elite output available for 432k. Get in my team! YES.

Mark Murphy (mid) was 421k (season high 556k), now 432k. Played 10 in 2016 then screwed his ankle. Looks worth the punt to me. YES

Kristian Jaksch (fwd/def) was 281K, now 206k. Played 1 in 2016. Ex-giant who plays a lot in the magoos. Wait to see if named. WATCHLIST

JOM (mid) 525k (2015 starting price), now 318k. Has no knees. Last sighted on the titanic. Proceed with caution. Hawks debut in rd3-4 is the word on the street. Watchlist

David Swallow (mid) was 554k (2015 Starting price), now 280k. He’s missed eons, lord knows why. Too cheap to pass up for a bloke with his ceiling. YES

Josh Thomas (mid/fwd) was 385k, now 193k. Ate a cow and got suspended for 2 years. Rookie priced DPP should be watched closely. WATCHLIST

Lachlan Keefe (def) was 330k, now 165k. Helped Josh Thomas eat that cow. Rookie priced key position back. Won’t set the world on fire, unless by accident. But there’s still money to made here. YES.

Matt Sharenberg (def) was 271k, now 164k. Knee and ankles have stopped this kid. Missed all of 2016. Huge talent, locked in for me if fit. YES.

Curtly Hampton (def) was 264K, now 160k. Missed last year and only played 5 in the season previous. Rookie bench option – if he can get fit, and stay fit and break into the Crows line up. Just a few conditions then! WATCHLIST.

David Myers (mid) Was 460k, now 133k. Stuffed his shoulder in 2015 then suspended for the season of 2016. Massive discount. Most likely on everyone’s bench. YES

Angus Monfries (mid) was 342K, now 325k. Suspended for the season. Nope. PASS

Billy Longer (ruck) was 368K, now 260k. Behind Hickey in the pecking order. Nope. PASS

James Stewart (fwd) was 280K, now 169k. Couldn’t crack into the GWS forward line, played 1 in 2016. Like many, if named, will attract attention. WATCHLIST

Hugh Goddard (def) was 308k, now 186K. Played once in 2016 and ruptured his achilles. Good kid by all reports. Might be worth a look if he can crack into the Seaford backline.WATCHLIST

Jake Carlisle (def/fwd) was 381k, now 337k. *Say the line* yet another banned bomber. Unseen in the saints colours, big doubts over his SuperCoach relevance, despite DPP. But he is 25 and at a new club. WATCHLIST

Michael “Dr.” Hibberb (def) was 419k (season high 491k), now 402k. Last banned bomber I promise! Same write up as Carlisle, but slightly older and averaged 82 in his last season. WATCHLIST

Matt White (mid/fwd) was 328K, now 198k. Tore his pectoral in round 1. OUCH. Out for the season. Very much on my radar as a bench option. CONSIDER

Riley Knight (mid) was 290K, now 201k. Played once in 2016. Persistent ankle problems. Barron reckons he’s a big chance for senior footy in 2017. Smokey for RD1. WATCHLIST

Tom Downie (ruck/fwd) was 326K, now 217k. Played once in 2016, behind Mummy and Lobb for Ruck duties. PASS

Micheal Talia (def) was 390k, now 213k. Common theme here…. Played once in 2016. Injured himself, then club suspended for possession of illicit drugs. If he’s off the horse but in with horse he’s a chance. WATCHLIST.

Nathan Vardy (ruck) was 293k, now 265k. Played once for cats in 2016 then traded to WCE. No Nic Nat opens the door, but Lycett and Giles are also in line. I smell rotation. PASS

Cam McCarthy (fwd) was 288k, now 200k. Homesickness – out for the season. Looks primed to take the full forward spot at freo, although he has the potential to go hot and cold. Still good for the coin. YES

Tim Broomhead (fwd) was 329K, now 185k. Played 2 uninspiring games in 2016. Seems VFL bound. PASS

Will Hoskin Elliott (fwd) was 220k, now 200k. Traded by GWS to the pies, you’d have to think he’s a big first team chance. WATCHLIST

Cam Ellis Yolmen (mid/fwd) was 401k, now 304k. Appeared twice late in the crows campaign, if Thompson moves out of the mid CEY could be one to move in. Good average when not sub affected (82) but at a super awkward price. WATCHLIST.

“Tony Banton

“Tony Banton wrote this relevant to the discussion here but at JC.
As I’ve tried to explain (along with a few others) to angech. Given that the two sets of instruments are measuring the same thing, then the trend is the same, yes?”
Two wrong comments in one sentence pushing hard to make up a fiction.

First the two sets of instruments are both measuring temperature [not anomalies]. They are however not measuring the same thing.
One is measuring sea water temperature collected by ships,from different levels and heated and cooled by various other inputs on the way.
The other is measuring temperatures in sea water at a set level with hopefully the same sort of thermometer without ship and human interference.
-Second “then the trend is the same, yes?” No.
One is said to be measuring 0.12 C average lower than the other.
That does not tell you the trend of the two types at all
That would be an average of each trend over the same time period for the same number of ships and buoys. It says nothing about the actual trend of each type over that time period.
One could be double the trend of the other but one could still say the average trend is 0.12 lower.
The trends are said to be similar. You need to specify the time intervals for comparison and it is obvious that two such disparate systems should rarely be in synchronicity as to trends.
There is no common period where one can truly compare trends. Buoys go from 0 to 7/8 of measuring system type used over 20 years. There are no true trends to compare.
That is not to say the mathematicians like Zeke cannot do a serial breakdown of the ship and Buoy temperatures over the time period of common use but varying number.
I do not see it?
Could he put it up?
Would be grateful to see the true trends and their correspondence

angech says:

Anomalies vs. Temperature
“tell what would be a trend you’d consider true.”
Simple,
There would be a trend for the Buoys, It would start off awkward with only 1 Buoy and as more are added one would have to merge [sigh] the data sets and this would give a buoy only trend.
One would already have a full ship only set of data which again would have to merge the ships as they begin to decrease in number.
Zeke has both of these.
Then to compare trends in general you could have the ship only trend and the buoy only trend.
Obviously due to the much longer ship data length, CO2 warming increase and natural variability these two trends will not match.
Next you could take the period where ship and buoy data are both available and truly compare their anomaly trends on the same baseline.
This also allows you to compare the difference in real temperature between buoys and ships.
This is the average temp over the time period of each data set and Zeke quotes 0.12 but does not give the period this must be quoted for.
It really should be for 30 years but it might be extrapolated out over 20 years of data I guess.
When I say “must be quoted for” I mean you cannot pick a point out in time at the start of the change and say buoy temps immediately dropped 0.12 C below the ships. It had to be worked out over time.
Here is the nub of the problem,
What I would hope to see is quite variable data with an overall match in trend*.
I would expect reasonably marked differences in the data from the two different ways of measuring and the various improvement/changes in ship measuring.
If we found an exact match I would hope everyone knows that is basically impossible.. If we found a highly correlated match we should be extremely suspicious mathematically. If we found quite variable data with an overall match in trend this would be very reassuring that the science is being done correctly.
The trends may be quite different because they are over a fixed time period but the difference in temps is simply the average difference over this time.
Again, like the pause [where one can always find a pause] but in reverse one can always find a matching trend in overlapping trends if they overlap twice while passing and you use those two points.

angech says:

Further,
“why you find it obvious that the two systems can’t have similar trends.”
Not what I said.
I did not say they could not have similar trends*, in fact I would expect similar trends. I said you cannot extrapolate, as Tony did,saying ” Given that the two sets of instruments are measuring the same thing, then the trend is the same, yes?”
They are not measuring the same thing, they are measuring different things, hence the trends can not be the same.
“why you find it obvious that the two systems can’t have exactly the same trend.”
Statistics , Taleb and common sense.

 Victor Venema (@VariabilityBlog) says:
“it is your political movement that assumes the global temperature record is so amazingly accurate that minimal adjustments of 0.05°C or less are a political scandal and that the temperature data is so accurate that it is not possible that what you call a “hiatus” is a measurement/estimation artifact.”
Not me, not political.Skeptical, contrarian.

“minimal adjustments of 0.05°C or less are a political scandal”.
Let us both be clear here on the use of the word minimal.
Putting a figure in units giving a reading of much less than one and then claiming it is “minimal” is a political clever gambit.
Remember  “Our climate has accumulated 2,455,968,886 Hiroshima atomic bombs of heat since 1998″ raising the ocean temperature less than 0.1 degree.?”
0.05C is not a minimal adjustment, 0.05C per decade is not a minimalist adjustment.
We are blogging on an article by Zeke on the importance of such a critical adjustment.

“assumes the temperature data is so accurate that it is not possible that what you call a “hiatus” is a measurement/estimation artifact.”
Please, I have always maintained that our time intervals are too short to leap to conclusions.
By your logic what you call a recent rise in global temperatures is possibly a measurement/estimation artifact
angech says:

paulski0 says: February 21, 2017 at 4:06 pm
“There is one true globe. It is the whole globe (and nothing but the globe).”
We are limited in our knowledge of said globe and we choose to represent it by what we have available at the time. A poor example would be that 600 years ago most global representations did oit have Australia in. Hadcrut is and was a representation of the known globe

You assert that HadCRUT4 is then taken to be a normal distribution effectively centered on the result of infilling with hemispherical average in empty cells.This is interesting.

In which case you and Steven and ATTP would be right. But in this case all three of you would have already pointed this out. So it cannot be right.

My understanding is that HADCRUT is not a full hemispheric data set. It is infilled to a certain latitude only and parts of the Arctic and Antarctic are not uncovered cells but excluded cells.
There are uncovered cells in part of the Arctic and Antarctic and Africa in their latitude range due to poor observational areas which are “infilled”.
Could you clarify this?
Please.

Steven Mosher says: One simple way I’ve explained it people willing to understand is this. If you want to claim that hadcrut is unbiased, then you are asserting that the true values in the blank regions have rates of warming that are precisely equal to the average of all the covered regions. . In other words you’re asserting something highly unlikely.
Except HADCRUT say that they infill by using the global average, hence it is very likely. Why is this so hard to understand.

Copyright Crystal Ball Department.

angech says:

Joshua says: “What say you? Ready to up your game?”
No need . The cards have been dealt and the outcomes will become evident in the next 6 months.
Scenario.
Republicans re ask for more details and e- mails next 2 weeks.
NOAA refuses, Boss stood down, Inquiry ordered. 2 months
Or NOAA reluctantly follows orders, 2 months.
Either nothing to find 25%,
little to find 25%,
or a mess 50%.
At the same time Trump has to take a gamble, repudiate Paris Accord on his own or ask congress to vote on it. Latter course is the gamble as Democrats oppose and there may be enough warmist republicans to block Trump.
Best maneuver to cancel it but say the American people should decide through Congress anyway. Puts the pressure back on Democrats and warmist Republicans instead of him.
This is the way he should go.
Whichever way this issue will be dragged into it if any malfeasance can be found. Likelihood of an investigation 97%.
Copyright Crystal Ball Department.

4 graphs

angech says:
January 30, 2017 at 4:58 am

“each one of the four key charts is deceptive and misleading.”
The first chart does not show any current date or make any claim about it being current, you may wish to read that into it, but it merely states that 10000 years of climate change produced that graph and clearly states,
“In all of the 10000 years shown here man played no role in the change of temperature or carbon”

“the second chart indicates that we’ve only observed about 0.2oC of warming since 1980, and this is simply not true.Both surface and satellite datasets suggest that we’ve probably had at least 0.6oC of warming since 1980,”
It is labelled as an amalgam of 3 satellite datasets, comes from Roy Spencer and does not show 0.6C. The land sets showed 0.4C over this period
“All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which reached about 0.8°C in 2010, twice the magnitude reported in 1981.”
and if you took the highest recently 0.6C would be right, for land but that could be seen as a “Clutching at straws GWPF style” argument in this setting.
Marco says:
* [Mod: refers to moderated comment]
re a graph labelled as an amalgam of 3 satellite datasets,

John Christy not Roy Spencer, I apologize for that amaurosis but the two are almost interchangeable, Roy gets the most headlines I guess.
The graph has been shown to be fraudulent?
With great charges comes great responsibility, Marco.
Marco would like to move the temperatures up on the y scale.
You cannot adjust the temperatures just to fit your narrative.
It would be like me saying the temperatures are fraudulent because they have been contaminated by CO2.
Showing the actual temperatures is not fraudulent.
“satellite temps are those of the mid-troposphere” is not fraudulent. He happens to be comparing it with 102 simulations by 32 models of , that’s right, the mid-troposphere.
Did the models forget to put in stratospheric cooling “pollution”?
Either they are good models, they put it in as well or the models are not as good as you wish to claim
[Mod: refers to something moderated]angech says:
January 31, 2017 at 7:12 am

Marco, The second chart is of the mid-troposphere and this does make a difference to estimating surface warming as you
“UAH v5.6 for the lower troposphere shows 0.6 degrees of warming for 1977-2015, and RSS shows 0.5 degrees. HADCRUT4 also shows 0.6 degrees for that period.”
and ATTP
“Both surface and satellite datasets suggest that we’ve probably had at least 0.6oC of warming since 1980, ”
are aware when you talk about the warming in different layers or heights
When ATTP says “the chart indicates that we’ve only observed about 0.2oC of warming since 1980, and this is simply not true.” it is not that the graph is false.
the reason is possibly that the mid troposphere, being much higher colder and stable does not exhibit as large a range of warming for the same amount of global warming/CO2 rise.
I felt it showed a 0.28 C increase but either way it is a lot less than 0.6C but right for that height.
The data set temperature changes are not comparable to each other.
Aside, if this is right the uncertainty bars would be a lot tighter and smaller than you might wish.
angech says:
January 31, 2017 at 10:54 am

“Except this is simply not true. Neither RSS nor UAH show as little as 0.2oC of warming between 1980 and now.”
We seem to be on the edge of a controversy over the Christy chart, as I see it features in a Skeptical Science article “How reliable are climate models?”
where a similar graph shown is labelled global bulk atmospheric temperature and shows a 0.091 C for the 3 satellites and a 0.079 C for balloons per decade. 0.214 for the climate models.
This would account for a warming detected by the satellites of 0.315 from 1980 approx to 2015 approx for the global bulk atmospheric temperature.
As I see it the graph you are showing is the TMT (Temperature Middle Troposphere),
You say 0.02 and I say 0.028 over 35 years and you say this is too low.
The common surface temperature satellites is the TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere)
“UAH v5.6 0.6 C and RSS shows 0.5 C. which is your comment above.
The one at Skeptical science and Dr Christy’s Senate presentation is the combination global bulk atmospheric temperature 0.315 C from the trend line. suggesting the TMT is indeed lower than the TLT
I hope my comment on the TMT [shown] being low is correct, a lot of scientists here may confirm this,perhaps Marco may have the figures.
I am not disagreeing with you. I think we are talking about different graphs and levels. I hope this sorts it out.
A similar graph was presented to the Senate by Dr Christy, I think there would be severe problems if he presented a fraudulent graph, how he presented it is considered misleading by most here but I doubt that the graph itself can be called fraudulent in any way.

attp

angech says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Victor Venema (@VariabilityBlog) says:
” It is much easier to measure the temperature of the ocean than the temperature or the air over land. Water is a good conductor, thus the temperature of the thermometer is the temperature of the water. Over land it is easy for the temperature of the thermometer to be different because air is a good isolator.”
?
Not sure what you mean.
A thermometer heats to the temperature of the medium it is in. It measures the heat of the medium it is in. If the medium has energy this must transfer to the thermometer. The conductivity might slow or hasten changes in heat moving through the medium but will not effect the temperature being measured at the at the measuring site itself.
Offhand I would say the temperature of the thermometer is always at or very close to and trying to reach the temperature of the medium it is in.
Perhaps you meant changes in temperature.
“The temperature of the water is a very smooth field, over land changing the position of the thermometer or its screen can have large effects, in the ocean it does not”.
In Ocean Acoustic Tomography at Wiki it states
The fact is that currents in water have a much greater effect on rate of change in temperature.
measurements by thermometers (i.e., moored thermistors or Argo drifting floats) have to contend with this 1-2 °C noise, so that large numbers of instruments are required to obtain an accurate measure of average temperature.The ubiquitous small-scale turbulent and internal-wave features of the ocean usually dominate the signals in measurements at single points.
I think this contrasts with your claims.
Windchaser says: January 12, 2017 at 5:14 am
“Angech, are you familiar with the Law of Large Numbers?”
“Yes, I’m not that innocent;(grin)” You and ATTP are right for large numbers. I would contend that ARGO in particular has far too few floats too give meaningful results. It is not suitable for a Law of Large Numbers application.\

\

verytallguy says:    January 13, 2017 at 8:39 am
“The thermometer measures nothing other than the temperature of itself.
In air, heat transfer is slow, and radiation may be significant.heat transfer is rapid and unconfounded by radiation in water.”
Thermometers measure the heat of the air and the water at the time said medium is in contact with the thermometer. They do not care about how the medium is being heated, slowly or quickly, just how hot it actually is.
not how quickly or slowly the water or air is heated.
Radiation through or not through a medium is also irrelevant. The thermometer is designed to measure the mediums temperature without the radiation. That is why there is a screen for air temperatures.

probability

BBD BBD says:
“Sigh. This is what I said, and it is perfectly clear: As I understand it, the effect of AGW on the Hadley Cells is to increase precipitation in the tropics, not move it polewards.”

Look I tried to exit the thread, politely, to let Dikran stop running around in circles.
In relation to your comment as Dikran said
“if [*] the Hadley cells do expand by perhaps 2 degrees. This implies that there is perhaps a 1 degree increase in the “rain band” that might be conducive to the growth of the rainforest.”
That is a 1 degree increase in latitude from the equator.
ie polewards.
It moves the precipitation polewards. Sorry, that is a fact, and would increase precipitation
Your understanding is not supported by the facts.
Izen,
“the position of the ITCZ. That remains at the thermal equator.”
True.
An obvious goalpost move. The sign of a lost argument.
Hadley cells start at the geographic equator for descriptive purposes.
the thermal equator is not identical to that of the geographic Equator, and it moves roughly between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn,

I am so disappointed in the haste and anger to tear down what was merely an observation based on a reasoned thought process with supporting arguments. seems to be purely on the ground that no argument put forward by someone I disagree with could ever possibly be right.
Hence we must ignore the salient points, find examples somewhere to prosecute our case, throw in goalpost moves [thermal equators] and redefine the physics to suit an answer.

Salient points
AGW causes Hadley cells [defined as starting from the equator] to expand.
The upgoing moist air precipitates over the tropics.
The Hadley cells come down at 30 degrees latitude, now cold dry air causing deserts.
The expansion would cause the Hadley cells to move 2 degrees polewards.
Hence the area of precipitation would be expected to move a degree further polewards.
Hence the tropics [trees] could move further polewards and in fact would be expected to anyway in a warming world.

Arguments about the Amazon restrictions ignoring the tropics in the rest of the world Both North and South of the equator might look like cherrypicking but hey, this comment says it all.
“BTW if there was any doubt that X’s approach to science, there is always the fact that he only cited the information about the Amazon that supported his argument but he somehow failed to mention the other 97 bits that didn’t:”

angech, acknowledges his goalpost shift in usual blog style – by walking away.

No, I gave you and others a chance to let the subject rest.
The fact that others are not piling on in support, well not til now, should have helped you realize that the salient points above, and their relevance to my comments are for once sensible.

 

 

  • angech says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    BBD says
    “At this point I’m with Dikran”
    Good to note there is some scope for change.
    “The PETM was a naturally-forced hyperthermal forced by a natural transfer of carbon from sinks to atmosphere [mechanism irrelevant, angech].”
    Totally?
    Of course the mechanism is important.
    “The lag of ~3,000?years between the onset of warming in New Jersey shelf waters and the carbon isotope excursion is consistent with the hypothesis that bottom water warming caused the injection of 13C-depleted carbon by triggering the dissociation of submarine methane hydrates but the cause of the early warming remains uncertain.”
    Pangaea split apart due to massive volcanic eruptions.
    One could imagine the extra heat from masses of hot lava might have caused heat rise before the CO2 rise.
    In fact if the ocean bed ripped apart and all that cold water had a massive heat injection how long would it be before that heat was able to transfer to the surface and into space?
    How much CO2 would be released from a warming Ocean ?
    Is 2000 gigatons too much to expect from a 5c temperature rise?
    How many gigatons of CO2 in the current CO2 level is actually allocated to the ocean warming that has taken place?
    Is it ever mentioned in a list. Short answer, No.
    .

  • angech says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    I had hoped to try to retire, whipped [angech says October 12, 2016 at 12:45 pm] BBD.
    But in looking at the comments I found a little bit of schadenfreude [2 actually] to relieve my wounds.
    One of course was that in arguing for [excessive] stability in the longterm global ocean and air temperatures a lot of commentators have taken the opposite view arguing for extremes of temperature change as being expected, almost normal.
    BBD October 12, 2016 at 7:11 am Everything known about palaeoclimate behavior is powerfully suggestive that you are wrong.
    BBD October 11, 2016 at 2:35 pm the premise that the earths [overall] ocean and air temperatures are reasonably stable >12C in the last 65Ma alone:
    chris October 11, 2016 at 7:29 am.” a large part of Earth surface response to enhanced forcing accrues rather quickly”
    BBD says: October 11, 2016 at 12:24 pm The empirical evidence for a rather quick earth surface response is sadly lacking Don’t be silly. look at the 2C rise in 800 ad [graph]
    But we cannot be having mega spikes of CO2 all the time
    and the planet temp has fallen 12C from 65MA [No super CO2 level] to now, cooling all the way with little temp spikes on the way.
    What is the natural cause of a 12C drop from normal CO2 levels to low CO2 levels over 65MA and no, longterm adjustment just doesn’t fit the 8C drop to the current drop.
    So anyone using the argument that rapid responses occur naturally rules out the possibility that our current temperature change is just a natural rapid fluctuation that we do not know the answer to.
    Taleb has an answer for these Black Swan events, these skewed probability events and explains why we should expect them.

  1. angech says:

    “Also, if we raised ocean temperatures by 5K without some kind of albedo/atmospheric composition change,”
    ATTP the premise was that a warming of 5K of the ocean would cause release of CO2 dissolved in the ocean plus water vapor, also a GHG.
    You cannot argue that on the one hand such a large amount of CO2 and water vapor would have no effect and would dissipate in 20 years and then say if it came from volcanic outgassing or methane it would last for 200,000 years.
    “BBD is correct. We have a mechanism to explain our observed warming. It’s consistent with our understanding of past warming/cooling events”
    No it is an observation and the article quoted said that the CO2 rise came up to 3000 years after the warming started.
    You have a mechanism, others have a different mechanism, the mechanism is important.

    Andrew Dodds says: October 13, 2016 at 8:48 am
    “You have a hypothesis that a flood basalt event will by itself cause a detectable amount of heating.” I’m sure others have had it before me.
    “Activity of the NAIP 55 million years ago may have caused the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, where a large amount of carbon was released into the atmosphere and the Earth substantially warmed. One hypothesis is that the uplift caused by the NAIP hotspot caused methane clathrates to dissociate and dump 2000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere”
    Note wording one hypothesis not the hypothesis.
    “Lava from 1000K -> 300K @ 2000J /kg/K”
    No, setting your own parameters,and using funny temp measures K
    Back of envelope Lava flows in large amounts can reach up to 1600C, which would be 1900 K approx Cooling to 0C or if you prefer approx 300K so try 1600C instead of 700C
    = .3.2*10^6 J / kg
    Yellowstone has a 4000 cubic Kilometer magma chamber and I am sure the NAIP Lava volume is a lot more than 6.6 x 10^6 km3. You seem to be referring to that part of it called the Thulean plateau
    Total heat of cooling of lava = 5.6 x 10^25 J
    Raise ocean temperature by 1 degree = 5 x 10^24 J
    Hence 11C ocean warming (5.6 * 10^25 / 5 * 10^14) possible on your figures.
    “The eruptions took place over at least a million years, and many would have been on land.”
    ” Little is known of the geodynamics of the opening of the North Atlantic between Greenland and Europe” the cause of the ‘North Atlantic mantle plume’ that would have created the NAIP.[13] Through both geochemical observations and reconstructions of paleogeography, it is speculated that the present day Iceland hotspot originated as a mantle plume on the Alpha Ridge (Arctic Ocean)
    I’m sorry but this implies most of it happened under the sea.
    And as others point out most of it happened in a 20,000 year period though many other smaller events occurred and continue to occur.

Leave

xxx coral

“They do seem to have a really tight echo chamber aspect about that paper…”
I’m not on tenterhooks, though I’ll be interested to see what Evan Jones comes up with. I was amazed though that after all their studies over the years, that Anthony is currently shocked to find that a fairly large fraction are not reporting at all.

  A global absolute temperature is something one should not try to measure. I argue this often, eg about USHCN. It’s concisely expressed in this GISS FAQ (near the end).

What McKitrick’s paper never deals with is that what is published is the average anomaly, which is something different, and perfectly calculable.

 

The hot water temperature that drove the devastating bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef this year was made 175 times more likely by human-caused climate change, and could be normal in just 18 years.
The scientists said they took the unusual step of releasing the work prior to peer-review, because the methods used to reach the findings are now accepted in the climate science community and the alarming results needed to be released as quickly as possible”.
Note –“We are confident in the results because these kind of attribution studies are well established”
But they also said
“Coral reefs have had a crucial role in shaping the ecosys-tems that have dominated tropical oceans over the past 200 million years.coral reefs are critical to the survival of tropical marine ecosystems ”
Look at the big picture. Coral reefs have existed for 200 million years according to this article and one could imagine have existed for a billion years The earliest life forms, stromatolites are 3.5 billion years old and similar life style to corals.
The sea gets hotter in Queensland it becomes more tropical in Sydney, the corals move down the coast. When they spawn the coral can travel 50 to 100 kilometers in days .
Getting hotter in one locale does not stop them moving and adapting. Never has.
The current reef has only been there 10,000 years doe to sea level rise.
Coral reefs are a 90 billion dollar source of income in the Caribbean, 1 Billion in Australia, tourism alone, they are an essential source of protein for many millions of the worlds poorer societies.
This article focuses on damage only at one spot and not on benefits and natural mitigation that also occur elsewhere.

ATTP Sorry to give that impression
dikranmarsupial said
angech wrote “Causality is not that straightforward a concept to define,” A little disagreement in the ranks.”
If you think I am going to rise to the bait after the display of disingenuous behaviour on the other thread (the most charitable interpretation of which is that you aren’t even honest with yourself), you are mistaken. Especially if you are going to employ a ruse as transparent as “A little disagreement in the ranks”.
Dikran, I remember playing Bridge in Melbourne 30 years ago, novices [still] from the country. In a prolonged bidding scenario by the other side I put my 4th pass on the next row of lines down instead of the fourth square on the top line.
” Director! “This person is giving information to his partner.”
I had no clue.
A similar episode in high school 13 year old when the teacher asked “”Anyone else have anything to say?
A visit to the headmaster for a caning left Mr Disingenuous a little wiser to the ways of the world.
I apologize, did not realize I was using a ruse I am truly naive at times.

ucia (Comment #150385)

The “” just show up as “”. But
&;ltblockquote>wrapped around stuff&;lt/blockquote>
tells your browser add a break, indent and do whatever magic makes stuff stand out as quoted material. When the quote is long, this makes it clearer that material is quoted.

So it should look like this

wrapped around stuff

It’s not always necessary, but sometimes it’s useful.This is an argument, Willard.
“Have I stopped being a contrarian” variety so complex.
The bad cough is an early symptom not sign of lung cancer.
It is also a symptom of over a thousand different problems not lung cancer at all.
The doctors recommendation to stop smoking will not reduce the risk at all if you already have lung cancer. You may as well keep on smoking , particularly, if you enjoy it. Though I would recommend surgery and radiotherapy
Analogies are fine to a point.
They have to be similar, not just look the same and even then they may differ remarkably in outcome.For example.A bad cough could be a response to the ACE 1 medication you are on for blood pressure treatment, Stopping your blood pressure treatment [the cough proves it is effective by the way!] will increase your risk of a stroke or heart attack and you will die before you ever get old enough to have lung cancer.

to answer No, It is not an analogy at all.
One either has cancer or not.
That is bad news but not preventable
You may have early signs of lung disease.
These are proven  attributions to smoking.
Two possible responses:
(1) Take the expert opinions advice, which is backed up by piles of research and evidence, that stopping smoking will greatly reduce my risk of lung cancer.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Both of you appear to be indulging in a bit of mathematical juggling.
I think I get your point that a trend over a time period where the previous point is at the same level as the last point will give a trend of zero for that time period.
Whereas a shorter or longer time interval, in this particular case, will show a different and increasing trend.
If, as you assert, this leads to him making an erroneous assumption in the long term trend you can call him out but you will have to stop making assertions about short term trends.
And most of the patterns that people are talking about are short term trends.
For instance, in your example there is a decreasing acceleration from 1999 to 2002 just as there is a an increasing acceleration from 2002 to 2015.
Why?
Since sea level was lower in the past there will always be a positive trend on any slightly longer time span you choose. How can one talk about acceleration or deceleration in the short term without using short term time spans which bring up the problem you mention.
Good that you use a skeptics chosen graphs to illustrate your point but when talking about Florida tidal levels and south Florida already being a serious problem are we ignoring other issues relevant to sea levels there?
Would we have the same problem all over America or are there tidal gauges showing falling levels elsewhere.
Are there current related erosion problems.
Is there more rebound occurring.
Should you mention caveats or do they get in the way of the maths.

angech says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I’ve been trying to get some Very Serious People [They face no punishment, ridicule, or loss of status for incorrect predictions or mistaken opinions, as long as the predictions and opinions were mainstream when they were made] to understand that NOT knowing how short is the problem.
Keep going Brandon, I face the same problem the other way.
Buckets of people with brains and mathematics here but probability and its application seems to be a difficult area, particularly in relation to time of event occurrence.
For instance if I was to mistakenly opine [in your view] that the world will not warm more than 2 degrees C for a million years and I was right your idea of taking precautions would fly out the window.
Or to put it in your correct “short” terms.
If the sea level is to rise by a meter every 5 years we had better get cracking.
5 years too short??
Some people insist scientifically on 25 years [Hansen].
too short.
Are you a century man or a 3 hundred years man?
I would guess the latter but you would have to put up some strenuous arguments.
It has slowly come up a very long way since the last ice age.
Meanwhile the ocean takes tens of thousands of years to accumulate heat hence it is impossible for the atmosphere to overheat in the short term.
The temperature of the ocean only needs a slight change to produce sea level rise over a thousand years and is a lot quicker than degree changes in sea temp, without which one cannot have degree changes in atmospheric temp.
[With all the usual caveats obviously required here* I will list them as people bring them up]

CLIMATE SENSITIVITY

[29] calculated based on eight natural experiments a ? of 0.1 °C/(Wm?2) resulting in a climate sensitivity of only 0.4 °C for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere

Does this imply that   of 

climate sensitivity is usually used in the context of radiative forcing by carbon dioxide (CO2), it is thought of as a general property of the climate system: the change in surface air temperature (?Ts) following a unit change in radiative forcing (RF), and thus is expressed in units of °C/(W/m2).

The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide concentration (?Tx2).

It is interesting to note that the equilibrium temperature does not depend on the size of the planet, because both the incoming radiation and outgoing radiation depend on the area of the planet.

Because of the greenhouse effect, planets with atmospheres will have temperatures higher than the equilibrium temperature [in the atmosphere component].

The equilibrium temperature is neither an upper nor lower bound on actual temperatures on a planet.

An estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity may be made from combining the transient climate sensitivity with the known properties of the ocean reservoirs and the surface heat fluxes; this is the effective climate sensitivity. This “may vary with forcing history and climate state”

The Effective Sensitivity, in degrees per watt per sq meter, is given by:

ES = ?T/(F – A)      (eq. 1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 \Delta T_s = \lambda \cdot RF
The terms represented in the equation relate radiative forcing (RF)
 to linear changes in global surface temperature change (?Ts)
 via the climate sensitivity ?.

atmosphere

The runaway conundrum

Like the perpetual motion machine

lacks a basis in reality due to the laws of thermodynamics.

In the case of earth this means that the planet is unable to get any hotter than the amount of energy it is getting from the sun [* apart from a minuscule amount of energy conducted from the hot earth center].

A conceptual problem is that the earth is not a flat non moving disc but a rotating sphere. This affects the discussion of how much energy actually reaches any point on the earths surface.

The second is that unlike smaller planets the earth surface is a mixture of solid and liquid with an overlying atmosphere. The atmosphere also takes in water vapor and other gases  from the solid and liquid surfaces

Thirdly some heat can move through the atmosphere and liquid, very little through the solid surface layer, to the dark side apart from the effect of rotation.

There is thus an upper bound on the temperature  that the atmosphere can rise to which is the  maximum temperature the sun can heat the underlying earth surface to.

This equates to the temperature on the surface of the moon at peak sunshine as the earth /moon is a coupled dipole at roughly the same distance average from the sun as they rotate around each other in their rotation from the sun.

This is given as 200 degrees centigrade.

It is impossible, no matter what the composition of the earth atmosphere , to get above 200 degrees  Centigrade  at the middle of day from an incoming 1034 W/M squared of solar energy at the hottest point on earth [barring volcanoes etc].

But this is the hottest point and everything goes downhill from there.

In the first place the albedo of the earth without clouds and aerosols reflects 28% of the energy from ever reaching the earth.

Since we are considering temperatures the temperature of the earth would not be 200 degrees celsius but 473.15 Kelvin.

28% 0f this is 132.4 So the hottest point on earth can only ever be 340.25 K  or 67.1 C.

The average global temperature is about 14.8 degrees centigrade [287.95 K] but is never put up anywhere.

The TOA is about 6 km out. The earth has a solid liquid diameter  of 12.8 Km but an effective diameter accepting energy of 13.1 KM.

The total energy incident on the true earth is therefore higher than that usually used.