tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1763126342421385529..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: More denier weirdness - Anthony Watts praises a paper as a sea change, but sneers at the author's findingsSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9028574920494034512013-05-22T02:10:28.384+10:002013-05-22T02:10:28.384+10:00Alexander Otto article just up on Met Office resea...Alexander Otto article just up on <a href="http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/alex-otto-article" rel="nofollow">Met Office research news page.</a><br /><br />Otto writes (emphasis added):<br /><br /><i>Our study implies a 5-95% confidence interval for the transient climate response of 0.9-2°C compared to the range of 1-2.5°C represented by the CMIP5 models. Acknowledging these uncertainties makes the differences look a bit less game-changing: results from the most recent decade appear to exclude the top 1/3rd of the CMIP5 range, but the TCR range estimated from the <b>1970-2009 period as a whole (0.7-2.5°C) does not, and we should always be careful not to over-interpret a single decade.</b> The CMIP5 multi-model mean of 1.8°C is well within our confidence interval, and only models with very high TCR values look potentially inconsistent with the most recent data, a conclusion consistent with e.g. Stott et al. (2013).<br /><br />What are the implications of a TCR of 1.3°C rather than 1.8°C? The most likely changes predicted by the IPCC's models <b>between now and 2050 might take until 2065 instead</b> (assuming future warming rates simply scale with TCR). To put this result in perspective, internal climate variability and uncertainties in future forcing could well have more impact on the global temperature trajectory on this timescale. </i><br /><br />And:<br /><br /><i>This study highlights the importance of continued careful monitoring of the climate system, and also the dangers of <b>over-interpreting any single decade's worth of data.</b></i><br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59745588906311262802013-05-21T16:23:06.269+10:002013-05-21T16:23:06.269+10:00Okay, I get what you are saying John.
Scientist...Okay, I get what you are saying John. <br /><br />Scientists are wanting more and better recording but it costs money (supporting the case for more international collaboration). If they could get more complete measurements of TOA incoming/outgoing radiation and better measures of ocean heat content then that should tighten things up and allow improved observation-based estimates rather than estimates based on incomplete (recent) priors. But it will take time to build up a more complete longitudinal record, even if/when the instrumentation improves.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9182275142249042572013-05-21T15:55:04.431+10:002013-05-21T15:55:04.431+10:00To say the work is biased doesn't mean it is &...To say the work is biased doesn't mean it is "bad" or authors having some biased intention, it is just due to the methods used. Apparently that is what we have for Otto et al if we compare with all the other knowledge in the area.<br /><br />"Would be ironic if it came out with a lowered climate sensitivity and a year or two later we got a massive El Nino that blew it out of the water."<br /><br />On the more humorous side, that is actually a scary thought. All the IPCC-authors suddenly becoming naive Bayesians: Each El Nino the estimates of sensitivity turns high, each La Nina it gets very low. There are no conceptual meta analysis anymore just putting numbers from new "observations" into their Bayesian formula...<br />JohnLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33450611796273320492013-05-21T15:47:27.662+10:002013-05-21T15:47:27.662+10:00Greg Laden's article is excellent. Meaning I ...Greg Laden's article is excellent. Meaning I couldn't agree more :)<br /><br />It's also very thorough - whether or not you agree (and who wouldn't?), it's a thought-provoking article and well worth a read.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67153107006400171132013-05-21T15:25:08.353+10:002013-05-21T15:25:08.353+10:00Greg Laden's latest post injects a dose of rea...Greg Laden's latest post injects a dose of reality - the effects of climate change are obvious here and now, regardless of the ongoing debate about climate sensitivity:<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/05/20/why-global-warmings-effects-will-be-worse-than-you-were-thinking/Ian Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31269486190232768722013-05-21T13:54:15.501+10:002013-05-21T13:54:15.501+10:00Here is another article on the paper that may be o...Here is another article on the paper that may be of interest.<br />http://theconversation.com/long-term-warming-short-term-variability-why-climate-change-is-still-an-issue-14476<br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13727781559835343892013-05-21T13:36:12.532+10:002013-05-21T13:36:12.532+10:00(I'm not unaware of the double entendre re El ...(I'm not unaware of the double entendre re El Nino.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35544105785550980402013-05-21T12:52:10.334+10:002013-05-21T12:52:10.334+10:00JohnL - I took William to be talking about the fac...JohnL - I took William to be talking about the fact that the authors put two bob each way by quoting their wide ranges when talking to the press, rather than focusing on their 'best estimates'. James doesn't indicate one way or another what he thinks of their 'best estimate', except he seems to like it being on the low side with all the Bayesian analyses.<br /><br />Neither James nor William say that the paper was shonky or 'biased'.<br /><br />I'm talking more about the results themselves than the politics of it all.<br /><br />There'll probably be some fun and games behind the scenes when AR5 gets finalised. Would be ironic if it came out with a lowered climate sensitivity and a year or two later we got a massive El Nino that blew it out of the water.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58768379275505062112013-05-21T05:38:36.548+10:002013-05-21T05:38:36.548+10:00"James Annan knows what he is talking about.&..."James Annan knows what he is talking about."<br /><br />Well, recently he gave his best personal estimate of 2.0-4.0K with a most likely value at 2.5K. So all his personal grudges aside, I assume on a consistent day he would say that Otto et. al is biased low quite a bit? <br /><br />http://julesandjames.blogspot.se/2013/05/the-great-david-rose-con-no-9234-hard.html<br />JohnLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34403281206168827402013-05-21T05:13:54.308+10:002013-05-21T05:13:54.308+10:00Maybe so, William. James might have a point about...Maybe so, William. James might have a point about the politics, but then he tends to the low side with his own Bayesian workings.<br /><br />It doesn't change the fact that Anthony spruiks a paper but then dismisses outright what the authors themselves say about it. Nor that he is silly enough to keep touting "CO2 is plant food, Alleluia"<br /><br />For my own personal take on the paper, see <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/on-climate-sensitivity-and-exaggerating.html" rel="nofollow">my previous article</a>. I don't dismiss it out of hand, but I'm also cautious about for three reasons. (Cheeky of me perhaps, as I'm no expert.) <br /><br />1. The estimates change too much between such short periods plus too much weight on 2000-09. This suggests that something is amiss - maybe ocean heat content as Sherwood suggests.<br /><br />2. It doesn't seem to be consistent with what paleo data indicates.<br /><br />3. The low in both TCR and ECS of 0.9 C seems ridiculously low. (Yes, I know it's just at the edge of the prob estimates, but all the same.) <br /><br />BTW I'm tickled pink that you've dropped in here :) Thanks for the plug the other day, too.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69240010381060595732013-05-21T04:15:22.944+10:002013-05-21T04:15:22.944+10:00I'd be a bit more cautious if I were you. Jame...I'd be a bit more cautious if I were you. James Annan knows what he is talking about. See http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/more-on-that-recent-sensitivity-paper.htmlWilliam M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com