BOULDER – Computer analyses of global climate have consistently overstated warming in Antarctica, concludes new research by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Ohio State University. The study can help scientists improve computer models and determine if Earth’s southernmost continent will warm significantly this century, a major research question because of Antarctica’s potential impact on global sea-level rise.
The study was published on April 5 in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s primary sponsor, and the Department of Energy.
The authors compared recently constructed temperature data sets from Antarctica, based on data from ice cores and ground weather stations, to 20th century simulations from computer models used by scientists to simulate global climate. While the observed Antarctic temperatures rose by about 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) over the past century, the climate models simulated increases in Antarctic temperatures during the same period of 1.4 degrees F (0.75 degrees C).
The error appeared to be caused by models overestimating the amount of water vapor in the Antarctic atmosphere, the new study concludes. The reason may have to do with the cold Antarctic atmosphere handling moisture differently than the atmosphere over warmer regions.
This map of Antarctica shows the approximate boundaries of areas that have warmed or cooled over the past 35 years. The map is based on temperatures in a recently-constructed data set by NCAR scientist Andrew Monaghan and colleagues. The data combines observations from ground-based weather stations, which are few and far between, with analysis of ice cores used to reveal past temperatures. (Illustration by Steve Deyo, UCAR.)
Read the entire NCAR News Release: Climate Models Overheat Antarctica, New Study Finds
May 07, 2008
Study Title: “Twentieth century Antarctic air temperature and snowfall simulations by IPCC climate models”
Authors: Andrew Monaghan, David Bromwich, and David Schneider
Publication: Geophysical Research Letters, April 5, 2008
Abstract:
We compare new observationally-based data sets of Antarctic near-surface air temperature and snowfall accumulation with 20th century simulations from global climate models (GCMs) that support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Annual Antarctic snowfall accumulation trends in the GCMs agree with observations during 1960–1999, and the sensitivity of snowfall accumulation to near-surface air temperature fluctuations is approximately the same as observed, about 5% K−1. Thus if Antarctic temperatures rise as projected, snowfall increases may partially offset ice sheet mass loss by mitigating an additional 1 mm y−1 of global sea level rise by 2100. However, 20th century (1880–1999) annual Antarctic near-surface air temperature trends in the GCMs are about 2.5-to-5 times larger-than-observed, possibly due to the radiative impact of unrealistic increases in water vapor. Resolving the relative contributions of dynamic and radiative forcing on Antarctic temperature variability in GCMs will lead to more robust 21st century projections.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
But it’s not as simple as that ……..
Ozone Hole Recovery May Reshape Southern Hemisphere Climate Change And Amplify Antarctic Warming
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080424113454.htm
The study authors calculated that when stratospheric ozone levels return to near pre-1969 levels by the end of the 21st century, large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns now shielding the Antarctic interior from warmer air masses to the north will begin to break down during the austral summer. The circulation patterns are collectively known as a positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode, or SAM.
And interestingly while the Antarctic surface is not changing that much the mid-troposhere is.
… an undocumented major warming of the Antarctic winter troposphere that is larger
than any previously identified regional tropospheric warming on Earth. This result has come to light
through an analysis of recently digitized and rigorously quality controlled Antarctic radiosonde
observations. The data show that regional midtropospheric temperatures have increased at a
statistically significant rate of 0.5- to 0.7-Celsius per decade over the past 30 years.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5769/1914
And at this stage where’s the extra snow?
Antarctic snowfall exhibits substantial variability over a range of time scales, with consequent impacts on global sea level and the mass balance of the ice sheets. To assess how snowfall has affected the thickness of the ice sheets in Antarctica and to provide an extended perspective, we derived a 50-year time series of snowfall accumulation over the continent by combining model simulations and observations primarily from ice cores. There has been no statistically significant change in snowfall since the 1950s, indicating that Antarctic precipitation is not mitigating global sea level rise as expected, despite recent winter warming of the overlying atmosphere.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5788/827
Lucy is better described as Goebbels.
“… an undocumented major warming of the Antarctic winter troposphere.”
According to the people that audit me, “If it’s not documented, it didn’t happen.” However, this is about what I would suspect from Lucy.
The Ozone hole is mentioned in the PR, which has nothing to do with CO2 and doesn’t take into account recent revelations on ozone chemistry. The ozone hole is a natural phenomenon that man may have made worse with CFCs.
2006 Stoat Wikiganda person:
“The available data do not allow us to unambiguously assign a cause to the tropospheric warming at this stage.”
I don’t think RSS or UAH show lower troposheric warming.
2006 snowfall paper
This 2008 paper:
snowfall increases may partially offset ice sheet mass loss by mitigating an additional 1 mm y−1 of global sea level rise by 2100. However, 20th century (1880–1999) annual Antarctic near-surface air temperature trends in the GCMs are about 2.5-to-5 times larger-than-observed, possibly due to the radiative impact of unrealistic increases in water vapor.
Paul – the 2006 paper doesn’t match 2008 snowfall story IMO.
Funny how you guys keep peeking at Wikiganda though isn’t it?
The mid-troposhere paper doesn’t do an attribution but it’s certainly bloody interesting. ANd strangely never mentioned by denialists? Wonder why.
On ozone hole – there is a great body of work to suggest interactions with greenhouse – CO2 is not the only anthropogenic game in town.
“To summarize, surface warming from the greenhouse effect is weaker in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere, whereas cooling from stratospheric ozone depletion is stronger in the south than in the north. Consequently, the Arctic has warmed dramatically, even as the Antarctic has experienced a small cooling trend. Climate models reproduce this pattern when they are driven by both greenhouse gas increases and stratospheric ozone depletion (Gillett and Thompson 2003; Shindell and Schmidt 2004).” from a good review
Current Understanding of Antarctic Climate Change
Fall 2007
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/antarcticfactsheet
As usual – we only get 10% of the story on blog … sigh
Russ – try reading the troposphere warming paper given you’re “an engineer/physicist whatever” and given your breathtaking contribution on anomalies I’m not expecting too much.
Louis – you’re an eccentric kook – but because you’re our resident geriatric geologist we indulge you. Respect your elders even if they have lost it. It will be the day when you engage in some of this stuff in detail and desist with the sniping on cold war commie nonsense. OK then today it’s Nazis. Sieg Heil !
So Creep,
What’s your point? That government mandated manipulation of the Earth’s climate is likely to compound the unintended consequences of the industrial revolution rather than return us to some mythical Peaceable Kingdom?
Point well made. Well, sort of, well made. There isn’t any evidence that ozone holes aren’t a natural feature of the Antarctic, pre-satellites.
Thus, by “fixing” a complex system that mightn’t been broke in the first place, we might be reshaping the whole bloody climate of the SH.
Good on ya, Creepy. You made your point.
So Wes wrestling with his sat link somewhere among the granite boulders – once you’re off the rhetorical soapbox you haven’t got much have you? Is that it for a science comment? Wow.
Funny how some of these things may have local relevance. http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/seaci/Final_report_for_Project_1.1.2.pdf But we already know you’re not interested in practical policy on local contemporary issues.
As usual the Creep is trying to obfuscate a rather straight forward assertion.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
That’s what you need to see, mate. The raw observational data. You decide.
As the “anthropogenic” ozone hole is slowly closing, the Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly is slowly, if stochastically expanding.
Whoops. So much for Ms. Perlwitz’s, of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, computer model. Call in the code tweakers!
Furthermore the SHSIA is rising all the while atmospheric concentration of CO2 climb each year about 2ppm. Normally observational data ought to proof or disprove hypothesis, of course AGW isn’t a hypothesis its a metaphysical FACT.
What’s wrong with this picture? I think the creep is in denial.
Alarmist commie Creep,
A brief fact when compared to a torrent of stupidity is simply another version of Occam’s razor.
“Lucy is better described as Goebbels.”
Your standard MO, Louis. Luke comes up with some science, you have nothing but a stupid insult.
The Creep sent me detailed papers on Antarctic ice mass balance that was supposed to show some significant decline. The only problem was that the point of comparison was the modelled mean precipitation (ice deposition) since 1980 compared to actual declines over recent years.
The obvious flaw in this methodology is that most annual deposition records will involve some sort of variance to that mean. In particular, an earlier excess of deposition due to excess precipitation, such as that produced during the PDO peak of the 1980s and 1990s, will be smoothed down.
This will mask a period if ice accumulation which will only begin to impact on glacial flows etc some time later. And the subsequent deficit since then will then be compared to the glacial surge cause by past precipitation and be recorded as, surprise, surprise, a current ice mass deficit.
And don’t you just love the quote, “The data show that regional midtropospheric temperatures have increased at a statistically significant rate of 0.5- to 0.7-Celsius per decade over the past 30 years.”
Note the use of the term “statistically significant” rather than “climatically relevant”? What is the actual temperature range of the midtroposphere? And how does it vary compared to surface temperatures? And how many decades will it take before these midtropospheric temperature increases impact on surface temps? And how many more decades will it take to bring surface temperatures (away from the coast) up to 0.0C?
It might be timely to recall the relationship of negative temperatures to “dew point”, the capacity of air to hold moisture. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point
And then take a look at the stats for Casey Station, bearing in mind that this data is from a coastal location, not somewhere up on the ice mass. See http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_300017.shtml
Wes – I’m now very worried. You’re not even on track. You have not bothered to even remotely understand some of the interactions with SAM etc.
The ice extent is irrelevant – but if you want to bring it up – probably what you’d expect if you bother to read what’s been tabled.
A bit wobbly when we’re not letting fly with the rhetoric aren’t we? Go away quietly and have a read before spraying.
Louis – yes yes – how’s your new rocking chair going? One day we might get some science comment out of you.
Mott – no I did not. It was sent to settle a debate (on which you were summarily dispatched) on Pine Island Glacier (PIG) dynamics. The mass balance work is quite good – read it again so it sinks in.
And like Wes – you’re almost so inane and tedious with your comments here it’s not even worth a discussion. Of course the surface is doing what it is. And that mid-troposphere trend is a jaw-drop – it’s bloody incredible. As for the PDO – nice try – not all glaciers are responding like PIG (at the moment).
Biggsy is well worth talking to and debating – you guys are flakes. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Missed the bit about SAM and Australian drought from SEACI did we?
The thing that our creep has in common with literally all trolls is that he is here for one purpose above all others, and that is to disrupt any constructive debate from taking place while making occasional transparent efforts to pretend otherwise to avoid being banned.
This isn’t to deny that he has other narcissistic motives. He probably believes that martyr Creepy is on an evangelical mission to save the planet by making this forum so toxic as to constantly drive away new eyes and posts from this site.
Let’s be clear, our pugilistic creep is here to generate the opposite of a rational, respectful debate—he wants a virtual pub room riot. And I for one, am inclined give it to him, virtually or otherwise. But that’s a fool errand, because that’s his design.
And that’s the problem. Our creep isn’t here to contribute to the debate but befoul it and drag us down to his own level of “discourse.” His goal is to make us look as violently irrational and bloody minded as he is.
The creep understands that, especially now, new viewers are increasingly looking in on sites such as this one to supplement the fact-free diet of alarmism the mainstream media is feeding them. What will they see when they peak into the comment section here? The Creep hopes they will see a childish food fight that discredits the premise of rationality upon which this site is based.
I don’t know the moderators of this blog, but they seem to be deeply committed to free speech as a principle to promote rational open debate in a democracy. However there is free speech and then there is also sabotage posing as free speech—a few creeps who would post repeated insults and irrational drivel (dressed up with a link and a rhetorical point occasionally as camouflage) in order to drive away all other less insensitive posters and readers.
I would be the first to contend that the issue of climate is not a settled science, one way or the other. I would be the last to wish this forum to devolve into a cheer leading section for any single POV about climate, entomology, politics or whatever.
….however there is a 500lb creep in the room.
Back to the main point, it would seem that the models have f*ck-all to do with the reality on the ground and in the atmosphere and the oceans.
So the circular jerkulators like catastrophic crap above can keep each other warm in the echo chamber while the real scientists are putting paid to the model fantasies.
I’m going to miss them when they’re gone. Still, I suppose there’s a sucker born every minute. 😉
Wes needs to move off his clinical thermometer
With due respect Wes, and I speak as a skeptic on AGW, I think Luke is a great contributor to this forum both from an entertainment and creative writing point of view and also he is the initiator of debate.
I enjoy reading his and Louis’s exchanges as they are both quite thought provoking.
At least Luke tries to maintain a focus and a rational argument in contrast to the typical ‘ender’ type dishonesty.
I would hate to see this fine blog become a single view forum like wikipedia and much of the mainstream. Wouldnt we then be doing what we beleive the AGW ‘hypists’ are doing?
And having said all that it is probably human nature that the posts can lean too much on the abusive side by all concerned.
Luke “The ice extent is irrelevant”
Is it also irrelavent in the northern hemisphere?
Alarmist Creep,
That is already being done and and it will be soon.
No, Creepy, best you go back and read the paper properly. It compares actual measured loss in ice mass with modelled long term mean deposition. It is ripe for abuse in just the same way that continental scale mapping that uses the fastest measured flow rates for part of the glacial cross section as “the” flow rate, and discharge rate, for the entire glacier, is ripe for abuse.
OK, Paul. You make a good point.
If rational thought can’t handle the likes of a few creeps slinging mud then we’d be as weak minded as Tamino’s Open Mind, or Real Climate where, in fact, I have never been able to get a post in edgewise. And I’m much more polite than Luke. 😉
That said, from a POV of the much larger (and more diverse) lurker audience, from which I hail, Luke’s gratuitious use ad hominems and the reactions he draws out of the rest of us, do tend to debase debate and discourage posts from the less thick skinned.
I’ll try to lower my own CO2 forced invective curve now.
Luke’s contributions are no more vitriolic than many other frequent commentators on this blog. Ian for example. Sometimes I like to imagine Luke and Ian as cranky old men sitting on a park bench, feeding the pigeons and hurling abuse at each other, but who would be glum and listless if separated. heh. heh. heh.
I don’t think less thick skinned posters should be discouraged from contributing either, though maybe they are. In my experience both Luke and Ian only dish the vitriol out in proportion to the loftiness/big-headedness/abusiveness of the person they are replying to (usually each other). So if you stay polite and humble, you will probably won’t be on the receiving end of anything too harsh.
To the extent that Luke or Ian or anyone else unloads on a new-ish commenter who offers a polite contribution, i think they should be pulled into line, but i’m not sure that really happens that much. For Jennifer and Paul to decide, as always.
You have to admit Wes, for all his mud slinging, Luke does contribute a lot of content, links to info, discussion as well.
Steve. I’ve no worries with pugilistic creeps online.
I’m more concerned about the gestalt he creates for the much larger surfing audience—impressionable students, people searching for an alternative voice from the haranguing mass media. It’s pretty bloody uncomfortable down here for the average lay person. Might bloody well drive them back to the soothing embrace of television. I mean that’s what this blog is about–reaching out to lay people? Not just provide a forum for climate geeks to hurl abuse at each other so they won’t be “glum and listless.?”
With due respect, to suggest that we should all be polite and humble to avoid getting bashed by the creepy village bully seems a bit too, well, accommodating.
The creep exhibits a lot of troll-like characteristics in spite of being endearingly geriatric of mind as you point out. He undoubtedly is the most vitriolic poster on the blog. I just don’t think he has our best interests at heart. Do you?
Trolls get worse, not better if left to fester. Seems that the creep has gotten worse. You once knew him as Luke. Anyone looking in today only sees a creepy troll. Sad really.
Perhaps, the creep is a perfect foil to keep this blog from becoming a cheer leading section, like Paul suggests. I don’t agree with him, but I respect his opinion.
I think the creep is driving off diversity in eyes, voices and readers and ultimately weakening the debate rather than contributing to it, because while he is too easy to prove wrong when on point he is most often using lies, slanders and misrepresentation as his rhetorical tools with the single minded goal of lowering the whole level of discourse into a bar room brawl.
That’s the clue isn’t it? The creep’s comments usually aren’t arguments at all, but links we have all already read, fringed with ad hominems. There is no debate. He’s naturally selecting for survival of the most brutish and insensitive.
Ever been in a pub where a brawl breaks out? What did you do?
Leave?
Wes – there is a specific topic here. I am trying to discuss it.
So don’t bung on this born-to-rule New England blue liberal line. You guys just don’t get the respect since Sinkers left.
You are the one that marches into every thread with a tedious rhetorical soapbox rant on the evils of AGW.
Your generalist comments are not relevant on this thread. You have not addressed any climate points I have raised – (with further substantiating links).
So actually it is YOU who is the troll. (You Troll Wes! you …)
And what do you mean driving off diversity – clones of yourself perhaps? SJT, Ender and I are the endangered species here. We’re your only bloody biodiversity.
And hypocritically you are most happy to let Louis drivel on in a troll-esque fashion also without actually adding to the topic.
Any hypocrisy? But at least Louis is a card so it’s cool.
I figure the majority of people here are utterly appalled by all aspects of AGW science and policy. Perhaps I may not be 100% happy either if you took some time to ask. And probability of converting anyone here is about 0.000001%. (Face it – you’re not smart enough.)
But in this country we have major issues with water, floods, and droughts. These are multi-billion dollar climate related issues.
Ranting about the IPCC, Al Gore or Hansen or the state of US climate stations is irrelevant to this.
We now have some very good work relating changes in Antarctic circulation to droughts in Australia. Why not consider it.
Note this does not translate to turning off all electricity and motor cars or any mitigation policy at all.
Would make no difference for Australia to act unilaterally.
Am I advocating turning off the Australian economy and walking around in hair shirts. No.
Ender would be appalled and will make me march up the back on demos for this but I’d go a nuclear reactor.
Anyway – la de dah – the relevant issue could be more about adaptation in agriculture. Water management in Murray Darling. Drought support. Water supply in cities. Farm planning. All very practical issues.
So do you want to have some intelligent discussion on Antarctic topic posted or simply grandstand. I suspect we already know your overall philosophical position on AGW and the blog’s position. Call me intuitive.
But do we need to be reminded at each individual topic again and again? Actually why don’t you pen Jen a guest post on the AGW world according to Wes. I’m sure she’d run it for you.
Meanwhile Antarctica mate !
Now – where were we? Something about SAM, Antarctica, water vapour etc.
(Note how Motty just flew right through the flak barrage and lobbed one in – he’s good – doesn’t deviate – goes straight to Berlin – no side stoushes on philosophy – ya gotta respect that – good tactics too as it caught me off guard – now excuse me I have to go and do the bastard – with superior intellect of course)
I think I’m going to throw up.
Reading all this is like walking into a room where a group therapy session is going on.
Can we get on with it?
Mottsa – read the paper again
“Snowfall accumulation is from the RACMO2/ANT regional
atmospheric climate model, at 55 km resolution, averaged for
1980–2004 (refs 17–19). Lateral forcings are taken from European
Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting reanalyses
(ERA-40) for the period 1980–2002, supplemented with European
Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting operational
analyses after August 2002. Comparisons with 1,900 independent
field data show excellent agreement (R = 0.82) with the model18.
The model predicts higher coastal precipitation and wetter
conditions in West Antarctica and the western Peninsula17 than
older maps obtained by interpolating limited field data using
meteorological variables20 or satellite passive microwave data21.
Few reliable in situ coastal accumulation data exist for comparison,
but in the high-accumulation sector of the Getz Ice Shelf (basin
F0G), the model predicts precipitation levels consistent with a
2,030mmyr−1 record at Russkaya station (74460 S, 136520 W)
for 1981–1989.”
That’s 1900 points, R=0.82 – there’s no satisfying you is there? That’s pretty good.
It’s solid work. You’ve have to be pretty good to think you’d take on Rignot and win !
Sorry, DS.
Gee, Creepy, chill out, It’s, well, something, to have you back. After all what’s a debate without a self-righteous troll or two? I actually thought you might have a life and wouldn’t be home on a Friday night. My mistake.
You’ve spilt more of your guts in the last post then in the last month. That’s good. And in complete sentences too. Well done, mate.
Where to start? Turns out we have a lot in common…
“Note this (AGW?) does not translate to turning off all electricity and motor cars or any mitigation policy at all. Would make no difference for Australia to act unilaterally. Am I advocating turning off the Australian economy and walking around in hair shirts. No.”
Rock on! I totally agree with that, mate. Of course, this somewhat dampens the argument that you make a great foil to keep us all from dancing around like a conga line of fancy suckholes. You could be expelled from the Greens for the above statement.
“Ender would be appalled and will make me march up the back on demos for this but I’d go a nuclear reactor.”
No comment, mate. That is just too over the top. I’m blushing. Stop it! Me ears are burning.
“Your generalist comments are not relevant on this thread. You have not addressed any climate points I have raised – (with further substantiating links)”
Wrong. I have addressed your comment, you dispatched it with such mindless panache that I was simple left speechless, for about 2 seconds. More later. And are there special creepy rules to play by? Please tell.
As for generalist, contextualizing comments. Expect more, I intend to drag you screaming out off your dung-filled pigeonhole and show you the light of day. Edwin Lazlo liked to say that we had way too much head in the sand over specialisation in the sciences. Experts on details so tiny that they were blind as bat as to how it all might fit together, all fighting to defend their “turf” from other disciplines. And you have shown that you have little talent for putting facts together to form a logical whole, haven’t you? If you like, think of me as specializing in the big picture. I’m sure your style is tit-for-tat data chats as they spiral downward, digressing towards oblivion. As you point out, chances of making a convert here is minimal, so don’t even pretend that your selection of “points” aren’t any more meaningful than the burnt end of a stick, however pointy.
“But in this country we have major issues with water, floods, and droughts. These are multi-billion dollar climate related issues.”
Is that one of those points of fact? Since time immemorial, tis always be so in this red land. I suspect you don’t know much about this country’s bush from direct observation, or you wouldn’t think our three seasons, flood, drought and bush fire were much of a worry other than for German tourists.
“I figure the majority of people here are utterly appalled by all aspects of AGW science and policy. Perhaps I may not be 100% happy either if you took some time to ask.”
Ya reckon? Actually I did ask you some time ago. No reply. Suppose it wasn’t pointy enough a question.
So I’m asking again what part of AGW science don’t you like? Is it the lies, is it the destruction of unseemly code and hiding of methodology by Hansen, Mann, et al? Is it the misinformation and fear mongering on the telly? Is it the groupthink of Al Gore or the ABC? Is it the self-righteous twits that presciently know which facts matter and which don’t? Or is the fact that AGW science is looking more like a political tool for a particular socio-economic agenda with each passing day? Or maybe you got your own list of pet peeves?
And you’re in the end right, creepy. As always. There is a topic here and it is Antarctic in nature.
So on with ya now.
Oh dear
Back to ice cubes and boiling water!
OK Wes – some answers
Yes but we do need to make decisions about drought policy, Murray Darling infrastructure, farm investment, supporting drought relief etc. Just because droughts have happened before doesn’t help. New progress is being demanded now. So ya hafta make some calculations – on what basis and why? You could use the last 120 years of rainfall record – but is that right. Are there other factors. So when you get some good research that says Antarctica phenomenon like SAM is causing recent droughts – why would you be dismissive without even a look? They haven’t just pulled this stuff out of thin air ! There are no perfect answers but it is rational to review all we know. Looking at this sort of information doesn’t mean you have to suddenly run around the house changing every light bulb and sell the car. But just dumping shit on the research as it sounds a bit AGWish is illogical. Like telling your physician they’re ugly coz you don’t like their diagnosis. Doesn’t help. Might make you feel good but isn’t rational.
How do I feel about Gore – winced at some of the Inconvenient Truth movie, nodded at some. His lifestyle can’t be reconciled with what he’s preaching. So he’s become a liability. But people either seem to adore him or hate him. Movie could have been bloody brilliant with some better help. But he cut corners coz he believes so strongly. Hansen is a bit of an alarmist but still knows his shit – so you have to read his work. ABC obviously partisan – who cares. We all know. And they still have Duffy. Face it – you love to hate them.
The Mann issue turned into a Star Chamber exercise. If it was butterfly taxonomy it would have quietly handled in the literature and he would have been shown to not have enough support for his hypothesis. And subsequent efforts would have pushed his work aside or he himself would have revised it. But politicising the issue to House Inquiries has made it all or nothing. It shouldn’t be that grim. So we are actualy left with “really don’t know” on MWP.
But Wes – you really need to push beyond all this gunk – it’s like listening to too much talk back radio or commercial Current Affairs – gets you all revved up and anxious and makes you think that’s all there is. And it’s ALL bad. All corrupt. Everyone is a crook.
Mainstream science doesn’t really care about these guys really – it’s here – check this stuff out – http://www.ecmwf.int/newsevents/meetings/workshops/2008/ModellingSummit/presentations/index.html – like OMG. I don’t know what to think. Head spin.
The real scientists are all sorts of people you haven’t heard of. Not celebs – not famous. That’s where the real action is at.
Peeves ….
My peeve is that it’s harder to get the science pitch precise. Just right. Straight. The IPCC guys sometimes tone conclusions down as being seen to be “moderate” somehow equals sensible. It may not be.
Not having proper representation of decadal effects and El Nino/La Nina is a major limitation on medium term projections.
Not having a proper debate on nuclear is an issue. Kerry Emmanuel of hurricane fame actually laments that AGW has become a left wing thing. That green politics have suppressed nuclear energy. He suggests that with different circumstances we’d be on the way to solving this potential issue by now.
But conversely – a lack of willingness to see how far we could push solar with some serious economies of scale.
Clouds in climate models remain problematic.
Regional downscaling is difficult.
Climate sensitivity has a long way to go.
Too much focus on AGW temperature trends and not rainfall by blogs and the media.
Biogeochemical impacts and feedbacks are relatively unresearched.
It’s poor that our governments have annexed clearing rights to comply with Kyoto and yet those landholders don’t get to recognise that value. i.e. urban Australia gets a free ride on that.
The press runs hot and cold on the issue and revs up the controversy. Where’s a decent side by side comparison. Where’s an attempt to work it through as an issue.
I think if carbon taxes are introduced governments will lose office on the issue. People won’t cop it. So adaptation, research and new forms of energy are the most likely courses of action.
“I think I’m going to throw up.
Reading all this is like walking into a room where a group therapy session is going on.
Can we get on with it?”
Can’t handle the science? Rather just rant on?
OK, Luke. I’ll accept that your not a troll and I hope you’ll accept my sincere apology for dissing you as one.
I’m all for a raucous honest debate and I’ll do my best not to let myself descend to just a stream of ad hominems (with substantiating links.) I don’t wish to prudishly eliminate waggish sallies and riposte, on the contrary.
All I am saying is that we owe our host the courtesy of not creating an environment that appears hostile to new eyes and voices, just as we might at a house party. After all this isn’t Saturday night on KIng’s Cross, it’s a blog devoted to rational discussion. Again my apologies for mistaking you for a troll.
And my apologies to everyone for going all OT on ya.
I’ll chill now…
Not a problem. Where else can you get a good full on exchange and live to tell the tale. Your punishment is to briefly peruse my links above.
Seems a good time to ask Luke if he has read Kipling’s poem “Tomlinson”?
Re Tomlinson – I forgot the “yet”