New Improved Hockey Stick?

[RollingThunder]

**** it.

It's settled:

AGW is real.

I'm sold now.

Ahhhh...nope....pretty sure you're still a denier cult troll....still posting meaningless drivel about subjects beyond your comprehension....the pic kind of gives it away....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

**** it.

It's settled:

AGW is real.

I'm sold now.

Ahhhh...nope....pretty sure you're still a denier cult troll....still posting meaningless drivel about subjects beyond your comprehension....the pic kind of gives it away....

I deny the validity of your cult, you troll.

See how close you were to being right about something for the first time, maybe ever?

And the picture is of a hockey stick. I realize a drone troll like you is not permitted to have a sense of humor. But you provide many of us with hearty laughs all the time, just the same.

You are really bad at this. REALLY really bad.

SSDD has smacked you around very much like a hockey PUCK.

 

[RollingThunder]

**** it.

It's settled:

AGW is real.

I'm sold now.

Ahhhh...nope....pretty sure you're still a denier cult troll....still posting meaningless drivel about subjects beyond your comprehension....the pic kind of gives it away....

I deny the validity of your cult, you troll.

See how close you were to being right about something for the first time, maybe ever?

And the picture is of a hockey stick. I realize a drone troll like you is not permitted to have a sense of humor. But you provide many of us with hearty laughs all the time, just the same.

You are really bad at this. REALLY really bad.

SSDD has smacked you around very much like a hockey PUCK.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ahhhh...nope....pretty sure you're still a denier cult troll....still posting meaningless drivel about subjects beyond your comprehension....the pic kind of gives it away....

I deny the validity of your cult, you troll.

See how close you were to being right about something for the first time, maybe ever?

And the picture is of a hockey stick. I realize a drone troll like you is not permitted to have a sense of humor. But you provide many of us with hearty laughs all the time, just the same.

You are really bad at this. REALLY really bad.

SSDD has smacked you around very much like a hockey PUCK.

Thanks for proving my point.

I proved my point. I could not possibly prove your point.

You have been and will forever be quite pointless.

 

[SSDD]

Here it is again for you.

Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty

Norman G. Loeb,
John M. Lyman,
Gregory C. Johnson,
Richard P. Allan,
David R. Doelling,
Takmeng Wong,
Brian J. Soden
& Graeme L. Stephens

You should have stuck with the picutre from skeptical science. Right off the bat in the abstract, I noticed the 90% confidence level. Obviously you don't know that that means. I guess you think it means that they are 90% sure....guess again. It means that there is a 90% chance that the actual figures are somewhere between 0.07 and 0.93 W/m2.

They have done a regression study and in very small print in a supplement paper (I am guessing that you just looked at the abstract) they give the regression details. They state:

Global annual mean net TOA fluxes for each calendar year from 2001 through 2010 are computed from CERES monthly regional mean values. In CERES_EBAF – TOA_Ed2.6r, the global annual mean values are adjusted such that the July 2005–June 2010 mean net TOA flux is 0.58 +/- 0.38 Wm-2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). The uptake of heat by the Earth for this period is estimated from the sum of: (1) 0.47 +/- 0.38 Wm-2 from the slope of weighted linear least square fit to OHCA to a depth of 1,800 m analysed following ref. 26; (2) 0.07 +/- 0.05 Wm-2 from ocean heat storage at depths below 2,000 m using data from 1981 to 2010 (ref. 22), and (3) 0.04 +/- 0.02 Wm-2 from ice warming and melt, and atmospheric and lithospheric warming1,27 . After applying this adjustment, Earth’s energy imbalance for the period from January 2001 to December 2010 is 0.50 +/- 0.43 Wm-2 . The +/-0.43 Wm-2 uncertainty is determined by adding in quadrature each of the uncertainties listed above and a +/-0.2 Wm-2 contribution corresponding to the standard error (at the 90% confidence level) in the mean CERES net TOA flux for January 2001–December 2010. The one standard deviation uncertainty in CERES net TOA flux for individual years (Fig. 3) is 0.31 Wm-2 , determined by adding in quadrature the mean net TOA flux uncertainty and a random component from the root-mean-square difference between CERES Terra and CERES Aqua global annual mean net TOA flux values.

First, no one could use that information to duplicate the study to determine whether it is right or not and second, the intervals are to narrow. It appears that they took all those different sourcs but ignored the uncertainty in each individual procedure. Had they done that, their level of uncertainty would certainly have been higher. Not good press so what the hell.....ditch it.

Additionally, it appears that the starting and ending points were arbitrary....more uncertainty. Why did they choose those points? You can start and stop a time series regression to get any predetermined result you want.

And as I said, your so called observational science is really just a statement on the output of models. From the body of the paper:

We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records.

It is thus necessary to anchor the satellite data to an absolute scale using other data19. In refs 2 and 8 the CERES observations are anchored to a net radiation imbalance of 0:9W/m2 in the early part of the decade, based on a climate model simulation rather than actual observations.

An apparently bottom-intensified contribution can be estimated with some uncertainty over decadal timescales from sparse ship-based observations22, but the deep ocean's contribution to the TOA net energy imbalance on shorter timescales will remain unknown until it is regularly sampled, as Argo does not sample oceans to depths greater than 2,000 m. Recent model results suggest that sampling the deep ocean would provide substantial improvement in our ability to constrain the Earth's radiative imbalance at decadal scales.

Again...guesswork supplemented by model output.

Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 3 (CMIP3)25 simulations for the A1B scenario from 15 coupled atmosphereocean models exhibit a large spread in annual mean
net TOA flux during the past decade, ranging from 0.09 to 1:5Wm2 (Fig. 3b, grey bar). Interannual variability of net TOA flux in the models is surprisingly large: the standard deviation in model net TOA flux between 2001 and 2010 exceeds that from the observations in 11 of the 15 models considered. The larger model variability is probably partly due to differences in model internal variability as well as differences in how the forcing is specified (for example, aerosol direct and indirect effects), how the various models were tuned, and model drift error (for more details about the model comparisons, see Supplementary Information).

From the "data" he referenced:

Meehl, G. A., Arbalster, J. M., Fasullo, J. T., Hu, A. & Trenberth, K. E. Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods. Nature Climate Change 1229, 360364 (2011).

Meehl, G. A. et al. THE WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset: A new era in climate change research. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 88, 13831394 (2007).


If you are really interested in finding the "missing" heat, look to the increased outgoing long wave radiation that satellites are measuring.

 

[SSDD]

You have to laugh, don't you?

At your abject stupiditiy and ignorance....yes.

And yet you are the one making the statement everyone else reading this thread is cringing at.

I just can't for the life of me imagine why you can not understand the importance of droughts in climate change science.

I am afraid that you are the one inciting cringing....posting material that you don't have a clue as to its contents...claiming model data is observational data...etc..etc...etc.

 

[RollingThunder]

A warmer world will be wetter because more water vapor will be in the air. Drought is not the result of more water vapor in the air. Drought is associated with less water vapor and the colder it is, the less water vapor in the atmosphere.

You have to laugh, don't you?

At your abject stupiditiy(sic) and ignorance....yes.

And yet you are the one making the statement everyone else reading this thread is cringing at.

I just can't for the life of me imagine why you can not understand the importance of droughts in climate change science.

I am afraid that you are the one inciting cringing....posting material that you don't have a clue as to its contents...claiming model data is observational data...etc..etc...etc.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are such a clueless retard.....and you don't realize that everybody can see it.....it's pretty bad when you're too stupid to correctly spell "stupidity".....

Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models
Nature - doi:10.1038/nclimate1633
Published online - 05 August 2012
(excerpt)
Historical records of precipitation, streamflow and drought indices all show increased aridity since 1950 over many land areas.


Climate Hot Map
Union of Concerned Scientists
Global Warming Effects on Drought
While some regions are likely to get wetter as the world warms, other regions that are already on the dry side are likely to get drier.

Global warming affects evapotranspiration—the movement of water into the atmosphere from land and water surfaces and plants due to evaporation and transpiration— which is expected to lead to:

* Increased drought in dry areas. In drier regions, evapotranspiration may produce periods of drought—defined as below-normal levels of rivers, lakes, and groundwater, and lack of enough soil moisture in agricultural areas. Precipitation has declined in the tropics and subtropics since 1970. Southern Africa, the Sahel region of Africa, southern Asia, the Mediterranean, and the U.S. Southwest, for example, are getting drier. Even areas that remain relatively wet can experience long, dry conditions between extreme precipitation events.

* Expansion of dry areas. Scientists expect the amount of land affected by drought to grow by mid-century—and water resources in affected areas to decline as much as 30 percent. These changes occur partly because of an expanding atmospheric circulation pattern known as the Hadley Cell—in which warm air in the tropics rises, loses moisture to tropical thunderstorms, and descends in the subtropics as dry air. As jet streams continue to shift to higher latitudes, and storm patterns shift along with them, semi-arid and desert areas are expected to expand.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Well, at least you actually looked at the material - I think that's a first!!!

I've read through your comments, but I don't actually see any reason why the conclusions should not be considered valid. Do you?

You do seem to be confused about what 'models' are, and even more so about what 'observational' means - did you expect he'd go up into the atmosphere himelf and have a look around, perhaps?

"His analysis examining the amount of solar radiation entering and leaving the atmosphere estimates the heat content of the upper ocean using three different data sets."

"The Loeb paper is notable for its comprehensive integration of satellite observations and in situ measurements to address this issue."

Loeb’s conclusion? That, if you consider the margin of error on the satellite and ocean measurements, the two data sources are in agreement — and there may not be any “missing energy.”

Quite what is your problem with this?

btw. "90% confidence" is very good.

 

[Saigon]

At your abject stupiditiy and ignorance....yes.

And yet you are the one making the statement everyone else reading this thread is cringing at.

I just can't for the life of me imagine why you can not understand the importance of droughts in climate change science.

I am afraid that you are the one inciting cringing....posting material that you don't have a clue as to its contents...claiming model data is observational data...etc..etc...etc.

Well, at least you have stopped pretending droughts aren't one major aspect of climate change!!

 

[SSDD]

Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models
Nature - doi:10.1038/nclimate1633]

The models are failing and model output is not actual data.

Like the big type. It is as if you have a clown suit over a monkey suit and are gesticulating wildly while doing cartwheels and getting a pie in the face all at the same time.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Well, at least you actually looked at the material - I think that's a first!!!

I've read through your comments, but I don't actually see any reason why the conclusions should not be considered valid. Do you?

I do, but since you obviously didn't read the entire paper and clearly don't have a grasp on the science, your opinions don't make much of an impression on me. You are a political hack who holds his position based on political leanings...not any understanding of the science. You don't have a clue as to what I said. If you would like to prove otherwise, then tell me why he picked those particular start/stop points and why a time regression study in the first place.

Loeb’s conclusion? That, if you consider the margin of error on the satellite and ocean measurements, the two data sources are in agreement — and there may not be any “missing energy.”

Like I said, arbitrary start/stop points and why do a time regression study? A time regression with arbitrary start/stop points allows you to get whatever result you wish. Good press for people who are easily duped...sloppy science.

btw. "90% confidence" is very good.

90% confidence that the actual energy figure he is claiming is somewhere between 0.07 and 0.93 W/m2? You call that good? Like I said, you don't even begin to understand what you are posting. that 90% figure isn't how sure his research is right...it is how sure he is that his figures are somewhere with a very large margin of error. A margin of error so large, in fact, that it renders his conclusions meaningless. Much like the average global temperature which you guys claim to know with an accuracy of hundredths to thousanths of a degree but never mention that the margin of error is larger than 1 degree.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

The science is 100% in Rolling Thunder's corner here.

We are seeing increased drought patterns right around the world, and we know why. It is simple, proven and undisputed scientific fact. Any one of a dozen excellent sources will confirm this for you - and explain the science.

That you don't understand it is hardly anyone else's problem.

 

[Saigon]

You are a political hack who holds his position based on political leanings...not any understanding of the science. You don't have a clue as to what I said. If you would like to prove otherwise, then tell me why he picked those particular start/stop points and why a time regression study in the first place.

It's funny how you claim to want to talk about science, but never actually do so.

Almost as funny as you bragging about scientific knowledge - while not understanding how droughts fit into a warmer, more extreme climate.

It's like watching a self-appointed NASCAR expert not being able to start a car.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

The science is 100% in Rolling Thunder's corner here.

We are seeing increased drought patterns right around the world, and we know why. It is simple, proven and undisputed scientific fact. Any one of a dozen excellent sources will confirm this for you - and explain the science.

That you don't understand it is hardly anyone else's problem.

No it isn't. If it were, then he wouldn't have to hurl insult, call names, and generally act like a fool. The science would speak for itself. It doesn't.

Sorry, but we are not seeing increased drought patterns. We are seeing normal drought patterns that don't even begin to approach the level of unprecedented. Try reading something that isn't cherrypicked for effect and perhaps you will begin to understand the topic.

You claiming that you know the science is on anyone's side is laughable since you clearly don't have even a basic grasp of the science. You don't even understand the so called studies you post and don't know enough to know how rediculous most of what thunder posts is. He gets his info from the same sort of cesspools that you get yours.

To bad he isn't smart enough to know that you are only stroking his little head to give him an ego boost so that he will come back hurling insult and calling names in a manner that an elitist such as yourself would't stoop to. He doesn't even know that he is being played as a usefull idiot. Of course, you don't know that either which makes you even more sad than thunder.

 

[SSDD]

You are a political hack who holds his position based on political leanings...not any understanding of the science. You don't have a clue as to what I said. If you would like to prove otherwise, then tell me why he picked those particular start/stop points and why a time regression study in the first place.

It's funny how you claim to want to talk about science, but never actually do so.

Almost as funny as you bragging about scientific knowledge - while not understanding how droughts fit into a warmer, more extreme climate.

It's like watching a self-appointed NASCAR expert not being able to start a car.

Again, you are spouting the output of models which doesn't reflect the actual world. We aren't seeing more "extreme" weather and aren't seeing more drought than normal.

Name anything in the present climate that is new and unprecedented and try to base your response on actual observation rather than the output of models.

As to discussing science, I just tried to engage you on the science regarding the reason your "scientist" did a time regression and why he might have chose those particular start stop points. You obviously are unable to speak to the issue. You even dodged the more simple matter of you thinking the 90% confidence level was how sure he was that his conclusions were right rather than knowing that the 90% confidence level was how sure he was that his data falls somewhere within a very large margin of error. It is you who can't discuss the science. Hell, you won't even engage in the most basic aspects of climate science as you have demonstrated over and over. You are just a highbrow, more confident version of thunder. Both of you are usefull idiots for different reasons.

 

[editec]

Record of record-breaking weather events

Admittedly, given the short time man has been keeping accurate records, the above PROVES nothing other than RECENT RECORDS are showing a pattern of breaking records.

Still...I think this trend to increasingly weird weather is significant for US in our immediate experience.

The argument that "in the long run" things are normal is probably valid depending on how long that :long run" is.

But given that modern agricultural mankind is only about 6,000 old,. and given how much humankind depends on having "statistically normal weather patterns" I think these wild swings in the weather worldwide ARE significant.

You know it doesn't even matter if the temperature and wealther patterns are ON AVERAGE the same worldwide...

IF...

Where those averages come from have changed.

Mankind is locked into a system based on what we've come to expect in the last 6,000 years.

If one place that formerly got a few inches of rain, and aother place that formerly got a lot of rain, change places?

Mankind is fucked anyway.

Mankind does not depend on LONG TERM trends of hundreds of thousands of years.

Our world is developed based on RECENT trends oiver the last 6,000 years,

 

[SSDD]

Record of record-breaking weather events

Admittedly, given the short time man has been keeping accurate records, the above PROVES nothing other than RECENT RECORDS are showing a pattern of breaking records.

Still...I think this trend to increasingly weird weather is significant for US in our immediate experience.

The argument that "in the long run" things are normal is probably valid depending on how long that :long run" is.

But given that modern agricultural mankind is only about 6,000 old,. and given how much humankind depends on having "statistically normal weather patterns" I think these wild swings in the weather worldwide ARE significant.

You know it doesn't even matter if the temperature and wealther patterns are ON AVERAGE the same worldwide...

IF...

Where those averages come from have changed.

Mankind is locked into a system based on what we've come to expect in the last 6,000 years.

If one place that formerly got a few inches of rain, and aother place that formerly got a lot of rain, change places?

Mankind is fucked anyway.

Mankind does not depend on LONG TERM trends of hundreds of thousands of years.

Our world is developed based on RECENT trends oiver the last 6,000 years,

If you are talking about temperatures, we get back to the altered records and whether there are any actual records at all.

We know from historical records that agriculture bloomed during the minoan, roman, and medieval warm periods which were warmer than the present. If the old folks found agriculture more profitable in a warmer world, what makes you think that we wouldn't make more of it than they did?

 

[Saigon]

If you are talking about temperatures, we get back to the altered records and whether there are any actual records at all.

Once again - there are at least 40 major sources of independent data.

You seem to often 'forget' that.

 

[SSDD]

If you are talking about temperatures, we get back to the altered records and whether there are any actual records at all.

Once again - there are at least 40 major sources of independent data.

You seem to often 'forget' that.

No there aren't. There are only a few sources for global data. You seem to be terribly misinformed regarding that fact.

 

[RollingThunder]

If you are talking about temperatures, we get back to the altered records and whether there are any actual records at all.

Once again - there are at least 40 major sources of independent data.

You seem to often 'forget' that.

No there aren't. There are only a few sources for global data. You seem to be terribly misinformed regarding that fact.

Actually, SSoooDDuuumb, you are definitely "terribly misinformed" about everything concerning this topic.

Independent Evidence Confirms Global Warming in Instrument Record
NOAA
(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
A new compilation of temperature records etched into ice cores, old corals, and lake sediment layers reveals a pattern of global warming from 1880 to 1995 comparable to the global warming trend recorded by thermometers. This finding, reported by a team of researchers from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the University of South Carolina, the University of Colorado, and the University of Bern in Switzerland, resolves some of the uncertainty associated with thermometer records, which can be affected by land use changes, shifts in station locations, variations in instrumentation, and more.

“Using only temperature-sensitive paleoclimate proxy records, un-calibrated to instrument data, it is possible to conclude that the warming trend in the global surface temperature record is supported by independent evidence,” said David Anderson, head of the Paleoclimatology Branch at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and lead author of the paper. The new research is detailed in “Global Warming in an Independent Record of the Past 130 Years”, published online this week in Geophysical Research Letters.

The thermometer-based global surface temperature record provides meaningful evidence of global warming over the past century, and it is critical to have independent analyses, like this one, to verify that record. For this analysis, the team used environmentally sensitive proxies to compile a temperature record that is independent of thermometer-based records. Proxies such as coral growth layers, shells of tiny marine plankton, lake sediments, ice cores, and caves are biologically, physically, or chemically connected to environmental conditions. For example, coral skeletons and plankton shells record temperature changes in the ratio of oxygen isotopes.

This paleoclimate dataset used 173 independent proxy datasets to draw a record from 1730 to 1995. To ensure the paleoclimate dataset was independent of the instrumental record, the scientists used raw data rather than reconstructed temperatures. Paleoclimate records and trends are affected by multiple environmental influences, not just warming, and the scientists minimized non-temperature influences by averaging together many records.

“The correlation of this paleoclimate dataset with the global surface temperature record has important implications in climate science and provides evidence of the significance of paleoclimate research,” said Thomas Karl, Director NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “Temperature reconstructions, like this one, continue to play a significant role in understanding the global climate by quantitatively extending the record back in time in an independent, objective way.”

In addition to their shared long-term trend, many smaller-scale features also appear in both the paleoclimate and instrument temperature records. For example, the warm interval of the 1940s in the global surface temperature record also appears in the paleoclimate record. Both records also show that the global warming in the last 15 years of the record (1980–1995) is significantly faster than that of the long-term trend (1880–1995).