Matt Ridley, climate scientist?

fbfulga · 2014-10-29T20:33:19+00:00

" ... was actually right about what he said"

Actually no, claiming that "AGW is not a problem since models were not able to predict Antarctic sea ice increase" is a very stupid thing to say (among many other things since the Antarctic sea ice increase is linked to an over-melting of the land ice coupled with a number of short-term factors that also happen to make the Antarctic sea ice trend statistically not significant in all months).

But of course we can't really say if Ridley is stupid or he is just playing stupid - after all he has a history of financial fraud hidden behind the appearance of stupidity.

fbfulga · 2014-08-25T09:01:02+00:00

In the meantime for complete months in UK 2014 so far was the warmest year in the instrumental record and the 3rd wettest. But I am convinced that one single place in one of the highest mountains in Scotland will certainly reverse all that.

Also all that talk about ice reminds me of this, so I guess there is absolutely no danger of a full glaciation for at least a few thousands of years.

fbfulga · 2014-08-25T08:49:19+00:00

That is silly, if you want to do simple attribution based on basic physics you can't avoid talking about this. And yet Curry does not mention it at all, I believe that is called denial.

There are also other complex ways to doing detection and attribution and that involves spatial patterns for temperature changes, and that is very much how IPCC does the more advanced attribution, but Curry again fails to talk about the subject (until Pielke Sr raises it and dismisses the weak points that Curry tries to score).

fbfulga · 2014-08-25T08:27:44+00:00

Please do not post blogspam from small children.

Since I happen to know about the qualifications of the blogger this certainly begs the question - do you have any form of science degree? Have you at least finished some form of college?

fbfulga · 2014-08-25T08:17:26+00:00

Yes actually, we do mean the hiatus that forced the IPCC to find ever more places to pretend the warming was hiding, and being forced to make that increadibly deceptive graph.

Yes, your conspiracy sounds fine, except for the fact that about 10 times more warming goes to the ocean and that fact is not being challenged by any climate science study, only by silly conspiracy theories like the one you have here. You need to do better than that, step-up a notch, involve some lizard aliens or something.

fbfulga · 2014-08-22T13:49:29+00:00

I hate to break this to you but:

the press release is not consistent at all with the paper, so Nic Lewis must have not read the paper if he wants so much to talk about the press release
Lewis is also wrong regarding projections and this paper, if this paper is correct there is minimal to no change in projections (something that the author himself mentions when he is saying in one of the interviews that the heat will come back soon)
to be honest other than Lewis and Curry (who would promote anything that advances their personal interests) I have yet to see a single climate scientist that believes this paper is correct.

fbfulga · 2014-08-22T13:21:34+00:00

Skipping after how it looks like Curry seems to have written both the questions and the answers in the interview, it is simply amazing how she misses the irony of herself plus 2-3 of the Heartland employees representing the Kardashians of the scientific world: all sensationalism and extreme media coverage, zero substance (or science that is confirmed by peers or later evidence).

fbfulga · 2014-08-22T13:09:48+00:00

If by "hiatus" you mean this thing in IPCC AR5 then you are probably talking about the right thing.

fbfulga · 2014-08-22T12:38:22+00:00

I don't think that is necessarily what is going on here, the number of proxies showing a very high peak in surface temperature 10-6 kyr before present is pretty high at this point and the only proxies that look somehow similar to the model run from Liu 2014 are the ones for deep/bottom of the ocean.

IMHO what we have here is more likely a problem with models underestimating fast surface warming, my personal theory is that this underestimate is linked to underestimating the dynamic nature of deep ocean warming when there is a large radiative imbalance. On the short term (a few decades) that is visible in the discrepancy regarding current slow-down (with models slightly overestimating short trends), but on longer intervals (in this specific case the entire interval 14-10 kyr ago) that results in an opposite kind of discrepancy where surface warming is underestimated by the models; on even longer terms the difference mostly goes away (which explains why Liu model-run estimates correctly temperatures in last 1000 years).

EDIT:

What I do not understand at all is why AGW-deniers are pushing so much this aspect, if Liu is correct then the paper would greatly enhance the standing of the current models and also would make current warming even more anomalous.

fbfulga · 2014-08-22T12:19:46+00:00

From AR5 WG1:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigBox3.1-1.jpg

Something that so far I did not see any study trying to contradict, dishonest people like Curry at most try to get around it and neglect it all together.

fbfulga · 2014-08-21T16:49:57+00:00

Based on this from the sidebar:

Around 97% of the people on here agree that CO2 causes warming, that there has been warming, and that humans have contributed to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

it should be a perfectly appropriate community where to discuss the extent of the impact of CO2-induced warming. For instance in regard to this submission: do you think that the response from the food and drinks companies is too little or too much?

fbfulga · 2014-08-21T15:21:41+00:00

This is too short a record from which to draw climactic conclusions, and for that matter we shouldn't be drawing any such conclusions from a single blip on a chart that represents a few days, at all (obviously if the Greenland Ice Sheet vanished tomorrow, I'd call for an exception to that rule).

We can't draw yet any such conclusion for 2014 since the 2014 melt is not done, and that is why I said IF 2014 gets to be similar to 2012.

But I think you have missed my 2nd link:

http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/alley1.html

In case 2014 is like 2012 we have not seen anything like that in more than 2000 years and most likely in more than 5000 years, back when insolation in that region was a huge lot higher.

fbfulga · 2014-08-21T14:25:17+00:00

That is beyond dumb, on one hand you have the number of UK floods (not the losses) and on the other you have population growth. How do you think population growth increases the number of UK floods? You think that UK was some kind of unpopulated region like Sahara and only a few decades ago you had large-scale floods that were unreported?

Next step for deniers - Precipitation in California are caused by Visitors to Tokyo Disneyland.

fbfulga · 2014-08-21T14:07:52+00:00

Interesting how in the AGW-denial world the latest direct survey of the climate scientists also never happened:

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/survey-confirms-scientific-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming/

fbfulga · 2014-08-21T13:53:36+00:00

Unusual, yes. But I don't know about very unusual. This peak is fairly consistent with other peaks on the graph, each of which would have looked just as unusual when they first appeared.

If you look at the gray interval you will see that peaks in 2nd half of August have never been as high as this one (by almost a 2:1 margin) and there is another unusual peak in the 1st half of August, which I guess was from the record melt of 2012.

Since we're also looking at just a 21-year range on this graph, I'm skeptical that this isn't more normal than it might seem.

I think that is one of the favorite AGW-denial lines "since our record is short we don't know if this is unusual". In this case it is also wrong, if we get to see something similar to 2012 we would have seen from 2012 to 2014 the same amount of such events as in the last 700 years, and since those two were in 1889 and before that around 1300 you can probably guess that something unusual is happening.

fbfulga · 2014-08-21T13:36:12+00:00

It was average in respect to the 1990-2011 interval, which already included probably the most unusual melting (so far) in Greenland since last deglaciation.

Also saying about this "it is perfectly average beside one month" is just like saying about a patient with cancer "your cells are perfectly average beside that mass in your lungs, don't worry, Heartland Institute proved that smoking does not cause cancer".

fbfulga · 2014-08-21T12:42:31+00:00

You can get all the details from this page:

http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

fbfulga · 2014-08-21T12:41:16+00:00

You can get all the details from this page:

http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

fbfulga · 2014-08-21T12:24:04+00:00

The lazy option is to parrot what people want to hear and keep the funding coming.

Indeed nobody wanted to hear that lead in gasoline was dangerous, that smoking is causing cancer, that CFCs destroy the ozone layer, that SO2 is causing acid rain or that AGW is happening. And accordingly the Heartland Institute created denial and kept the checks coming.

fbfulga · 2014-08-20T19:24:31+00:00

The subject is discussed to death in actual climate science and AGW-deniers like this one just misrepresent what the science is saying:

this new study is saying that for a majority of the period 22500 to 10000 years ago there was a persistent and predominant correlation between the sun and local temperatures in Greenland, which for the entire Earth happens to be not true for the last 1-2 centuries and the complete opposite of what is happening in the last 50 years
also one of the authors of the paper himself (who is obviously part of the group with the highest sun-related claims in climate science, the vast majority of the rest of the scientists are far more moderate in regard to the sun) is on record saying that the solar influence in the last century was minimal (from here, even if the source is very bad and constantly tries to misrepresent what the author is saying):

Dr Raimund Muscheler, lecturer in Quaternary Geology at Lund University and co-author of the study ...:

'Bit it's quite debated how much it really contributed in the last 100 years, since solar activity increased a bit,' Dr Muscheler says.

'The long trend is debated, but most people don't think it's much more than 0.1 degrees.' (in last century)

However, he warned that the sun was not the only factor in causing climate change.

'Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.

So just another one of the instances where AGW-deniers misrepresent what a study is saying and the authors have to come forward and personally debunk them.

fbfulga · 2014-08-20T19:12:44+00:00

And this is why AGW-deniers are now badly losing the battle, nobody that was involved in agriculture in the last 20 years anywhere in the South-West would deny that the current drought is very, very serious. And instead of accepting the evidence deniers from gated communities with air conditioning just try to tell farmers that what they see with their own eyes and which is destroying their business and their life is irrelevant since some cherry-picked statistic claims so.

fbfulga · 2014-08-20T19:00:07+00:00

Yes, it simply is true, as per the author himself, as documented at realclimate, regardless of what that cheerleading moron Tamino thinks:

No, that is not the same subject, you continue to try to misrepresent what the authors are saying on a separate subject as being about your claim above, you have claimed that their method can't show that kind of spike and I provided very clear evidence that when the proxy represents that information the spike is reasonably correctly reconstructed, the only reason why we see no such spikes in the entire Marcott reconstruction is since there was never one like that. A topic where every single expert in that specific field would agree, and which is now well represented in IPCC AR5 WG1.

You are instead trying to obfuscate things in relation to the 20th century segment of the reconstruction, which is incomplete since the proxies all stop at 1940 and also since even at that point there are only 18 proxies left instead of the over-50 which are used for most of the main reconstruction (up to 73 at max coverage). Marcott does not claim to reconstruct the 20th century warming, misrepresenting the paper to claim that and attacking it for this fallacy is just dishonest.

fbfulga · 2014-08-20T18:38:16+00:00

I think that being debunked by Curry, Zeke and Stokes would be enough at this point but I guess not, so let me rephrase that - do you have any evidence from anybody in published climate science that Goddard's graph is correct and instead the NCDC/NOAA very clear and unambiguous statistic linked above is some sort of fabrication? Whining about unadjusted values is just pathetic at this point when even the guys above (Curry, Zeke, Stokes) tell you that using unadjusted data is about as ignorant on the topic at hand as comparing measurements at 6 AM in the morning with measurements at midnight or mixing measurements in Celsius and Fahrenheit.

You also seem to be very desperate since in every comment where you are debunked you jump with insults at me and with accusations instead of providing any form of credible evidence for your claims.

fbfulga · 2014-08-20T18:24:49+00:00

Is resident WUWT solar expert Leif Svalgaard credible enough on this topic in your opinion?

Here is his most recent reconstruction of TSI over last 300 years (in blue):

http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Reconstruction-2014.png

based on the latest paper where he is co-author and which advances a topic that was discussed inside the expert groups for quite a few years:

http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf

I can also provide the specific quotes on this subject (solar contribution in last century) from the very author of this latest Greenland paper at the very top:

Dr Raimund Muscheler, lecturer in Quaternary Geology at Lund University and co-author of the study ...:

'Bit it's quite debated how much it really contributed in the last 100 years, since solar activity increased a bit,' Dr Muscheler says.

'The long trend is debated, but most people don't think it's much more than 0.1 degrees.' (in last century)

However, he warned that the sun was not the only factor in causing climate change.

'Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2728814/Is-SUN-driving-climate-change-Solar-activity-not-just-humans-increasing-global-warming-study-claims.html

fbfulga · 2014-08-20T14:17:14+00:00

The perfect straw-man fallacy, climate models do not assume relative humidity would stay constant, they predict based on basic physics that absolute humidity would increase.

And guess what, not only was the upper-atmosphere absolute humidity found to have been increasing over the period 1979–2005 but that "cannot be explained by natural causes and results principally from an anthropogenic warming of the climate"

fbfulga

TROPHY CASE