archive-org.com » ORG » C » CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG

Total: 491

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • wilson « Climate Audit
    Commentary Also tagged juckes Comments 245 North American Upper Treeline 3 Apr 8 2007 1 53 PM The next installment in our search for upper treeline proxies evidencing the AR4 SPM claim that Studies since the TAR draw increased confidence from additional data showing coherent behaviour across multiple indicators in different parts of the world takes us to the Canadian Rocky Mountains to a study mentioned in the Wilson and Luckman By Steve McIntyre Posted in Noamer Treeline Also tagged luckman treeline Comments 5 IPCC and Data Access Mar 28 2007 12 57 PM One of the most important IPCC representations is the supposedly tremendous quality control of its review process I ve mentioned in passing on a number of occasions that when I sought to obtain supporting data for then unpublished articles IPCC threatened to expel me as a reviewer I ve had a few requests to recount my experience By Steve McIntyre Posted in Archiving Hegerl 2006 IPCC Also tagged d arrigo hegerl manning o dowd solomon Comments 116 Wilson et al 2007 Mar 24 2007 10 59 AM Rob Wilson has referred us to Wilson et al 2007 In addition to being an example of site selection Wilson et al 2007 uses a type of principal components on a tree ring network something that should be of interest to many CA readers and an interesting illustration of non Mannian statistical methods within By Steve McIntyre Posted in Divergence Multivariate Noamer Treeline Proxies Also tagged varimax Comments 105 Older posts Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/wilson/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • D'Arrigo: Making Cherry Pie « Climate Audit
    Chase paper where they give the trends for the surface thermometers It is 0 16 C decade They seem to be using the Jones data They also give summer JJA trends but they don t differe much from the annual trends Roger Bell Posted Mar 7 2006 at 7 41 PM Permalink Not much going on at Realclimate these days either A definite dearth of posts Roger Bell Follow the money Posted Mar 7 2006 at 7 45 PM Permalink No 11 Ring widths appear to have a period of 11 years How does ring growth match up with solar radiation sun spot cycle Roger Bell Posted Mar 7 2006 at 7 53 PM Permalink Re 2 No fFreddy I pay my taxes in US dollars K Briffa is a Reader at the University of East Anglia so I suspect he s getting support in British pounds Roger Bell beng Posted Mar 7 2006 at 8 03 PM Permalink In the spirit of nothing except what comes out of a tailpipe smokestack and can be regulated is the cause I ll venture that surface ozone will be conjured up as the explanation for the divergence Ozone less tree growth Just like sulfate aerosols were employed to explain any cooling in the temp record Jeff Norman Posted Mar 7 2006 at 8 13 PM Permalink It looks like the recent data in two lines are not related so they give it a pass Therefore I propose the Two Line Pass as an addition to the Hockey Team lexography per Posted Mar 7 2006 at 9 00 PM Permalink The cherry picking story sounds as if it might be a suicide note but without more detail it would be wrong to speculate I might guess that this could be difficult for the panel They could reasonably have expected both sides of the argument to be presented and both sides to be quite reasonable If it turns out that the evidence presented on one side is gibberish that puts them in a hole I do not think that they will be able to conclude that one side of the argument is gibberish just on the basis of the presented evidence they would have to cast about widely to ensure that no one else is available who could make a coherent case Otherwise the committee could be in the position where it writes up that one side of an argument is gibberish and they are demonstrably wrong It all sounds like good fun per Pat Frank Posted Mar 7 2006 at 10 19 PM Permalink 5 You ve hit the nail right on the head John The same circularity is implicit in the Jacoby quote By what criteria does he choose good data Are they data that show trends consistent with his climatological expectations And if it is not true that the noise in e g tree ring data does not average out of large proxy ensembles by what rationale can anyone apply statistical methods Noise that doesn t average out is not noise Jacoby clearly assumes he knows what the signal looks like a priori There isn t a better recipe for disaster in science than to presume the results and then construct the results Doing so by deliberate malignance is called fraud Doing so by honest ignorance is called incompetence Doing so by mistake is called foolishness I see no way out of calling the whole climate proxy enterprise an enormous mess It has gone terribly astray Steve McIntyre Posted Mar 7 2006 at 11 50 PM Permalink 13 Doug red and blue are reconstructions using RCS and STD reconstructions different tree ring standardization methods What s good about this study is at least they went up to 1995 and at least they showed the warts What s bad is that they mentioned MWP about 22 times and concluded that this information showed that the modern period was much warmer than the MWP despite the failure of the proxies to work in the modern period Their reconstruction also substituted Yamal for Polar Urals as we discussed before They ve argued Wilson and d Arrigo at NAS that the substitution was for valid alternate reasons but really what would have been the chances of a substitution going the other way The Knowing One Posted Mar 8 2006 at 12 07 AM Permalink Re 21 Noise that doesn t average out is not noise This claim seems to assume that the noise has a zero mean with a roughly bell curve shape Unfortunately that assumption does not hold in tree ring studies Maybe a bear came along and scrapped the bark off the tree or maybe there was a local canopy that blocked most sunlight or maybe rain water diverted unusually on the hill on which the tree is situated or maybe the tree has a very strange genetic makeup or maybe The result is that noise can readily cause the tree ring width or latewood density or whatever to be extremely far away from the median So noise often does average cancel out Even with a sample of 25 trees one aberrant individual could easily dominate sample averages Similarly one aberrant site can seriously skew a large collection of sites This is one of the justifications for cherry picking Of course cherry picking has the problem of leading to cherry pies as Steve Mc says What is needed is a much more accurate statistical treatment But this is research level statistics try this with real tree ring data every assumption that you make seems to get contradicted And I don t think anyone is doing the research Steve McIntyre Posted Mar 8 2006 at 12 14 AM Permalink Tree ring data is actually pretty interesting If I were running things I would commission some top statisticians say mixed effects people like Pinheiro and Bates to take a crack at it Relying on people with limited skills and an agenda is a toxic recipe 2dogs Posted Mar 8 2006 at 2 31 AM Permalink I think the question is Are the proxies capable of handling anthropogenic forcing or not If yes the Divergence Problem is bogus If no then the calibration which occurs when some anthropogenic forcing is present can not be used to reconstruct for earlier periods when anthropogenic forcing was less fFreddy Posted Mar 8 2006 at 2 34 AM Permalink Re 17 Roger Bell Ooops then I m funding this nonsense I want a refund Rob Wilson Posted Mar 8 2006 at 4 03 AM Permalink Greetings All Some of you have obviously not read our paper It can be downloaded from http freespace virgin net rob dendro pdf D Arrigo 20et 20al 202006a pdf If this link does not work you can go directly to http freespace virgin net rob dendro Publications html Some points 1 We calibrated from 1856 1978 as this was the common period of the tree ring and instrumental data However using the method we used we were able to reconstruct temperature forward to 1995 2 with respect to Steve s comment What s bad is that they mentioned MWP about 22 times and concluded that this information showed that the modern period was much warmer than the MWP despite the failure of the proxies to work in the modern period well I am sorry Steve but I am not sure you have read the paper that closely either lets look at the last statements in both the abstract and conclusion Abstract Although we conclude as found elsewhere that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP and its different timing within different regions present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely flatten out estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming which expresses a more homogenous global fingerprint Therefore we stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences at hemispheric scales about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local regional scale Conclusion Taken at face value our reconstruction indicates that MWP conditions were nearly 0 7oC cooler than those of the late twentieth century These results suggest how extreme recent warming has been relative to the natural fluctuations of the past millennium This conclusion however must be taken cautiously First there is significant divergence between reconstructed and actual temperatures since the mid 1980s which until valid reasons for this phenomenon have been found can only question the ability of tree ring data to robustly model earlier periods that could have been similarly warm or warmer than the present Second there are presently only very few millennial length records available for direct comparison between the recent period and the MWP and these records show trends which are not necessarily coherent over the latter interval resulting in a flattening of MWP conditions compared to recent warming in our reconstruction Ultimately many long records from new NH locations and updating of existing records mainly in Eurasia to the present are required Successful modeling of paleoclimate data with the high temperatures of the late 1990s is essential if we are to make robust definitive conclusions about past temperature amplitudes and variability My 10 pence to the discussion Rob Andre Bijkerk Posted Mar 8 2006 at 5 32 AM Permalink So what else was true for that 1970 1980 divergence I seem to remember that air pollution and acid rain were the buzz words with large forests clearly declining Later a large scale aridness was also mentioned We had three major aerosol volcanic eruptions in that period Agung El Chinon and Pinatubo doing something with clouds and light availabilty But explainations for that should not detract from the problem How many other divergence problems are there which have been interpreted as temperature signals per Posted Mar 8 2006 at 5 53 AM Permalink My 10 pence to the discussion very civilised much better that 2c thx for the linx per Douglas Hoyt Posted Mar 8 2006 at 7 41 AM Permalink Let me clarify the point I was making in posts 8 13 and 14 For 1979 1995 97 we have the following observations RCS tree rings cooling for 1979 1995 STD tree rings cooling for 1979 1995 NCEP analysis pressure transducers for the 1000 925 mb layer cooling of 0 04 C decade for 1979 1997 MSU 2r analysis cooling of 0 04 C decade for 1979 1997 Surface thermometers warming of 0 16 C decade for 1979 1997 The tree rings are validated by the balloons and satellites The surface thermometers on the other hand are wildly different from all the other results This indicates that something happened to the surface network between 1979 1995 and it is not a reliable measure of temperature The surface network is overestimating the temperature and has a spurious increase of 0 38 C by 1997 It is because of this large spurious increase that claims can be made that it is warmer now than any time in the last century or perhaps last 1000 years The reason for the spurious temperature readings in the surface network could be many For example many rural stations were shut down in 1980 and in 1990 as well as the other years The average population near the remaining sites will increase and introduce a spurious trend in the readings It is time to audit the surface network and it would require a team of physicists and statisticians Steve McIntyre Posted Mar 8 2006 at 7 50 AM Permalink 30 Doug I haven t spent much time on recent temperature issues But the SST readings are separate from the issues of urban heat effect and also show warming in the last 2 decades I think that there may be some distinct issues here but on balance I think that there s evidence of SST warming Causation is a different issue Glacier recession has continued in the past 2 decades Now the glacier recession could simply mean that 1980 was already warm enough to cause glacier recession and maintenance of the same temperature levels would cause more recession I think that the Jones record may be exaggerated but I tend to think that there has been warming perhaps the lesser amount indicated by satellites John A Posted Mar 8 2006 at 7 55 AM Permalink Re 27 Rob don t do yourself down that s at least worth a quid Douglas Hoyt Posted Mar 8 2006 at 8 08 AM Permalink A lot of the satellite warming has occurred because of two big El Ninos in 1998 and 2003 which have forced the temperature record upwards The surface trends seem to be too high by a large amount They are used nearly exclusively in promoting global warming but are not validated by other measurements John G Bell Posted Mar 8 2006 at 8 49 AM Permalink Re 27 Thank you Rob Wilson Try this link to fetch the paper Ferdinand Engelbeen Posted Mar 8 2006 at 10 09 AM Permalink Besides the fact that trees have an optimum temperature response and show reduced growth at higher and lower temperatures there is some other phenomenom that may play a role global dimming Called that way as there seems to be less direct sunlight coming down to the surface in recent decades but increasing again since app 2000 Some point to aerosols but that is not very plausible as that should give an increase since 1975 for Europe and in part for North America but I have the impression that increased water vapour levels are at the base of this change Question remains if this is a general response to increased temperatures then the MWP may have been as warm as today as higher MWP temperatures would also give more water vapour in general and thus reduced tree growth jae Posted Mar 8 2006 at 10 31 AM Permalink 30 Boy do I agree with you Ferdinand Engelbeen Posted Mar 8 2006 at 1 01 PM Permalink Re 11 16 Tree rings show a correlation both between temperature humidity caused by ENSO as by the 11 22 years solar cycles see http www copernicus org EGU cp cpd 1 121 cpd 1 121 p pdf But even longer cycles are detectable in tree rings see http www wsl ch forest dendro2001 abstracts ext33 pdf The effect seems more pronounced towards the poles where growth is more restricted and changes in insolation may have their largest effect Paul Linsay Posted Mar 8 2006 at 1 02 PM Permalink 30 I don t have it available to me here but if you look at the Hansen et al paper on US surface temperatures they include all sorts of corrections to the data with time of observation the biggest The net effect of all the corrections is a linearly rising correction of about 0 1 C decade beginning in 1960 It may be that the raw surface temperatures aren t too far off and the error is introduced by faulty data analysis The time of observation correction is very problematic It is introduced as a smoothly rising linear correction based on a small test sample of a few weather stations That would be fine if it were a physical phenomenon but it s not it s a social effect The only right way to make a TO correction is to do it one station at a time when that station changes its time of observation John G Bell Posted Mar 8 2006 at 1 29 PM Permalink Seems like models of our climate history might want to include the impact of cosmic rays on the earth s cloud cover For an general look see Henrik Svensmark site For a long view see Nir Shaviv s 2002 paper That the hockey team seems to hate Shaviv and his work is starting to look like a plus Cloud cover has to impact tree growth Perhaps cosmic rays are the missing ingredient in the pie I expect tree cores will only be useful to stir the mix but why not give it a shot Dano Posted Mar 8 2006 at 2 31 PM Permalink Shaviv s paper didn t survive the tiniest most cursory audit and was savaged by his peers back home The benefits of audit D John G Bell Posted Mar 8 2006 at 3 04 PM Permalink Re 40 I hoped Roger Bell would weigh in on it Are we talking about the same paper Who are some of the big names in astronomy who shot it down Any of them pulling for him on this How do I find out Thanks John G Bell Posted Mar 8 2006 at 5 24 PM Permalink Dano I found an article by Stefan Rahmstorf on the 2003 paper He does give Shaviv and Veizer a hard time Shaviv has a reply on his site Looks like they have a way to go before the spiral arm effect is accepted if ever John G Bell Posted Mar 8 2006 at 6 08 PM Permalink Rahmstorf et al grabbed a pair of tigers by the tail Shaviv and Veizer look to make a meal of them Yow Dano I thought you said he was refuted Pat Frank Posted Mar 8 2006 at 9 47 PM Permalink 27 Taken at face value our reconstruction indicates that MWP conditions were nearly 0 7oC cooler than those of the late twentieth century If we believe the instrumental record your conclusion would make the MWP about as warm as the end of the LIA in 1880 That s no warm period at all and is contradicted by other physical data such as the freezing of the Thames during the LIA and even at the end of it but not during the MWP One is tempted to conclude

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/07/darrigo-making-cherry-pie/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • IPCC and Data Access « Climate Audit
    all I can find Gavin anyone JP Posted Mar 29 2007 at 9 25 AM Permalink Below is a link to a new study just published this week http tinyurl com 2j45x6 However the following snippet caught my attention Here we analyze multimodel ensembles for the A2 and B1 emission scenarios produced for the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with the goal of identifying regions projected to experience i high magnitudes of local climate change ii development of novel 21st century climates and or iii the disappearance of extant climates I was led to believe that the full report or the science of the IPCC Assessment wasn t to be released until May If that is so how did these researchers get thier data with enough time to complete a study The peer review was done by a Stanford Univ prof in Jan 2007 a month before the Review for Policymakers was published and it was submitted in July 2006 Were they using an earlier assessment If so why use an assessment so old Only curious David Duff Posted Mar 29 2007 at 9 25 AM Permalink Some of you might be amused or not at a conversation going on at the end of a fairly long thread scroll down over at http scienceblogs com deltoid 2007 03 why republicans reject climate php Steve McIntyre Posted Mar 29 2007 at 9 28 AM Permalink I m familiar with Shaviv website This doesn t add up to 2 5 deg C The range of uncertainty in these estimates hasn t changed in the nearly 30 years since the Charney Report If Boeing was managing the procedure and water vapor feedback was the big unknown I think that they would have put 95 of their effort into improving the understanding of water vapor feedback and not spent any time on the history of climate science The Charney Report in 1979 linked in another thread is another outline of the theory but I m interested in something both more recent and more detailed Shaviv also hardly represents IPCC consensus I m interested in a presentation of the consensus DeWitt Payne Posted Mar 29 2007 at 9 47 AM Permalink Re 20 Shaviv s page isn t all that relevant because it doesn t show how doubling of CO2 equates to a radiative forcing of 3 8 W sq m or whatever is the current figure why the surface temperature is 33 degrees warmer than he gray body temperature and contains what looks to be at least one howler He state that increased water vapor decreases emissivity because it absorbs IR But what absorbs also emits The greenhouse effect as best I understand it is about absorption and emission of infra red radiation by the atmosphere not the surface In the absence of greenhouse gases the atmosphere would neither absorb nor emit in the IR Adding greenhouse gases increases both absorption and emission So adding water vapor not only cannot decrease emissivity of the atmosphere it must increase it Armin Posted Mar 29 2007 at 10 04 AM Permalink I agree with 7 that it looks as IPCC only want to do a simple literature review This explains their statement that access to the actual data is not required and therefore the availability clause does not extend beyond those cited references to such material as datasets computer codes or other sources of information that those papers may themselves cite or use Let us be honest but this is what IPCC has also been doing so far They ve collected and interpreted existing articles and research They never verify research other than comparing or listing to their reviewers OK that IPCC sometimes suggests they are doing much more is true but aren t the posters on this blog in agreement that that is not the case So basically IPCC s policies match that what they do gather and summarise articles and reviews Isn t our criticism more that IPCC is not verifying The refusal to provide data is simply a result of that flaw Craig Posted Mar 29 2007 at 10 18 AM Permalink Paul I thought that was an amazing observation by Kristen The IPCC is going to have a tough time with that one Gaudenz Mischol Posted Mar 29 2007 at 10 39 AM Permalink Imagine all those scientifics frauds that would not have happened if proper data archiving were normal One of the last Jan Hendrik Schön John Hekman Posted Mar 29 2007 at 11 33 AM Permalink Re 28 This case is a good example of what is NOT happening in climate science The peer review process cannot be made to audit every empirical result But in most fields there is enough scepticism of dramatic results splashed in the media that others will look into it and try to replicate it In climate science you can publish yesterday s newspaper want ads and claim it proves AGW No one will question it and they will cite it liberally jae Posted Mar 29 2007 at 11 38 AM Permalink 24 I m familiar with Shaviv website This doesn t add up to 2 5 deg C The range of uncertainty in these estimates hasn t changed in the nearly 30 years since the Charney Report If Boeing was managing the procedure and water vapor feedback was the big unknown I think that they would have put 95 of their effort into improving the understanding of water vapor feedback and not spent any time on the history of climate science The Charney Report in 1979 linked in another thread is another outline of the theory but I m interested in something both more recent and more detailed LOL IMHO it is because they CANNOT show this hypothetical water vapor feedback except by running computer models rigged to show it I think it is that simple jae Posted Mar 29 2007 at 11 47 AM Permalink 25 Adding greenhouse gases increases both absorption and emission So adding water vapor not only cannot decrease emissivity of the atmosphere it must increase it Yes but there is no evidence that adding CO2 adds HOH to the atmosphere over the long haul Indeed my calculations indicate that water vapor may decrease sensitivity since it is higher at high altitudes and in deserts where there is less water vapor I don t know why perhaps it s due to absorption of visible light by water droplets or it s due to clouds Bernhard Posted Mar 29 2007 at 11 56 AM Permalink This whole story misses two important points First It is evident from Steveⳳ own clippings from the exchanges he has had that that in his contact with the JGR editor OⳄowd he is not only is requesting data from an unplished paper but he is also critical to the authorⳳ and their data archiving practise This can only be seen as improper conduct which may influence the editorⳳ editorial decsisions re a paper that Steve only has had access to through his reviewing for IPCC for which there is a confidentiality clause If the access to the data was key to really assessing the IPCC chapterⳳ conclusions this point could have been made in the review comment To me Susan Solomonⳳ rather harsh email was needed It is in my view and I would believe most publishing scientists would feel the same that one should not use confidential information to influence the editorial assesment of a paper when it is under review The other point is Can you honestly say that key conclusions of the IPCC chapterⳳ assesment hinge on gettting access to these raw data I e are these the key papers without which the IPCC would have concluded differently If not then this whole thing looks more like a fishing trip to stir up dust and is really unappropriate bernie Posted Mar 29 2007 at 12 29 PM Permalink Bernhard You have defined somewhat of a Catch 22 situation for anyone intent on doing a thorough review If the review of an empirical paper is to be done without access to the original data it is clearly not much of a review The importance of the paper to any general agenda is beside the point Moreover how is criticizing an author s archiving practices any different from criticizing their use of a particular statistical procedure or their reliance on a reference that has been discredited All such comments would surely and should influence the editor As for stirring up dust you fail to grasp the big picture Because the state of archiving and documenting changes to raw data is so problematic and a closed loop of mutually supporting references has emerged there are significant question marks around major areas of climatology Paul Allen Posted Mar 29 2007 at 12 42 PM Permalink Something that frequently comes up is that industrial emissions of CO2 amount to 6Gt yr I ve seen this number quoted as such since I was in High School I am at least rather shocked that it has not changed more perhaps people are repeating old data given that I also read about North American emissions surging 20 40 over the past decade It seems to me that checking this number is important verification of C02 driven warming I e are the changes we measure in atmospheric concentrations well correlated with estimates of our emissions I was told once that 6Gt yr was in fact back computed from the changes in concentration along with the assumption that oceans sunk half the C02 emitted But that these numbers were actually just estimates Where do I go to read real analysis of this Bill F Posted Mar 29 2007 at 12 45 PM Permalink Bernhard If Solomon and IPCC were the least bit concerned with the confidentiality or integrity of the review process why would they direct an anonymous reviewer to contact an author and why would that author direct them to contact the journal editor It seems like all parties involved would have been better off simply making the data available as they should have done from the beginning The genesis of all of the problems here wasn t Steve s conduct in trying to access the data it was the IPCC s use of unpublished data to support their chapter and the refusal of the IPCC personnel or the authors to make sure that the data for the unpublished articles was made available to the reviewers Without the lack of data Steve s alleged misconduct would never have occurred Let me ask you this Bernhard why should a document like the IPCC report be relying on unpublished and unreviewed articles Why should they use conclusions drawn from data that has not been archived and has not been reviewed You seem quite willing to criticize Steve for his conduct yet where is your similar concern for the conduct of IPCC relying on unpublished and unreviewed articles or the conduct of authors presenting articles for review without providing the data as well Are you really concerned about scientific misconduct Or are you just concerned because Steve has a good point and went public with it David Smith Posted Mar 29 2007 at 1 00 PM Permalink RE 33 and others Why are unreviewed unpublished papers used by the IPCC It seems to me that not only should papers be reviewed and published but there should also be some period six months a year to allow for commentary and rebuttal Steve McIntyre Posted Mar 29 2007 at 1 06 PM Permalink he is also critical to the authorⳳ and their data archiving practise I only contacted the journal because the authors said that was where my recourse lay At that point it was still possible that the authors would archive their data concurrent with publication in accordance with AGU practice I drew the editor s attention to AGU policies applicable to JGR and asked him to comply with those policies In retrospect I would probably have done the letter to the journal a little differently But there was a lot of water under the bridge by that point Would the availability of the data affect any big picture conclusions All I can say is that I was reviewing the section on millennial reconstructions and the data was relevant to the review I wasn t requesting the data without any intention of analyzing the data just to annoy the people involved There s ample evidence that I diligently analyse data when I can get it So I wasn t asking for the data to annoy them but to review the articles MarkW Posted Mar 29 2007 at 1 09 PM Permalink On the other hand maybe it is the money The IPCC s own Dr Jonathan Overpeck http www climateappraisal com partners index aspx If you get a free report you get temperature measurements for your address some information about UV radiation and some chilling maps of how much of the USA will be under water if sea level rises 20 feet and we can t be bothered to build sea defenses presumably Now for 30 you can get a report that gives you all this and more Will your home be submerged from climate change How many hurricanes can you expect this season How strong are the tornadoes near you How close do you live to a fault line that may quake What is your fire risk and how long is your drought cycle How much damage from flood has occurred in your area Are Lyme and other vector diseases a factor in your area How close are coal plants and superfund sites to you Dave Dardinger Posted Mar 29 2007 at 1 14 PM Permalink re 33 Bernhard I can t see your point at all Steve want s the editor to know he s been through channels and been rebuffed Otherwise the Editor would simply send him back a message Contact the Authors for the data Yes it s a criticism of the Authors of sorts but not of the paper per se The only way that it would influence the editor would be if the editor was unable to enforce the Journal s own data policy Alternatively the editor could have simply stated that they wouldn t do anything until the paper was either accepted or rejected In any case the situation was all Solomon s fault For her to try blaming Steve for it is just plain wrong bernie Posted Mar 29 2007 at 1 18 PM Permalink MarkW What about Radon and CO readings and make it an entire one stop shopping package for the paranoid Mark T Posted Mar 29 2007 at 1 51 PM Permalink I m not sure where to begin here s a stab he is not only is requesting data from an unplished paper but he is also critical to the authorⳳ and their data archiving practise As noted all of the papers in the IPCC 4AR were supposed to have been published or in press This fact alone brings questions This can only be seen as improper conduct which may influence the editorⳳ editorial decsisions re a paper that Steve only has had access to through his reviewing for IPCC for which there is a confidentiality clause Not making data available is improper conduct Period How can a reviewer draw conclusions regarding the validity of any publication without the data behind the publication irrespective of future past or in press standing This is the whole point of review to determine whether or not a paper has validity for consideration Such conduct should influence the editor s decisions If the access to the data was key to really assessing the IPCC chapterⳳ conclusions this point could have been made in the review comment Immaterial To me Susan Solomonⳳ rather harsh email was needed It is in my view and I would believe most publishing scientists would feel the same that one should not use confidential information to influence the editorial assesment of a paper when it is under review Then said scientists should not a accept public funding for such publications and b accept an invitation to provide their otherwise confidential papers to a publicly funded fora such as the IPCC This is academic The other point is Can you honestly say that key conclusions of the IPCC chapterⳳ assesment hinge on gettting access to these raw data I e are these the key papers without which the IPCC would have concluded differently Immaterial again How can a reviewer know what impact data analysis with potential adverse conclusions will have in the outcome of the overall process What would be the case if it were discovered that the primary conclusions of the paper likely cited by other papers were drawn on falsified data What if the data weren t falsified but simply contained significant errors Is it really wise to include such papers in a literature review that is assigned with the task of affecting global policy If not then this whole thing looks more like a fishing trip to stir up dust and is really unappropriate What is inappropriate is rank and file acceptance of conclusions without a requirement to a abide by the review process or b make every attempt to at least appear unbiased Mark bruce Posted Mar 29 2007 at 2 56 PM Permalink Surely a major point in all of this is that the IPCC and associates strongly argue that peer review is an important seal of quality However how can that be so if the authors of paper haven t archived their data How can peer reviewers do anything like a professional job if they don t enforce the rules re data archiving nor review the data Also Re 26 Let us be honest but this is what IPCC has also been doing so far They ve collected and interpreted existing articles and research I think that there are some key words missing from the second sentence of the quote Shouldn t it read They ve selectively collected and interpreted some of the existing articles and research We could maybe place more trust in the IPCC work if they demonstrated that they had in fact reviewed ALL relevant papers relating to AGW Perhaps we need a new IPCC like team to undertake that task Mark T Posted Mar 29 2007 at 3 08 PM Permalink Perhaps we need a new IPCC like team to undertake that task I ll volunteer as soon as I get my dissertation out the door next April fingers are crossed Mark Follow the Money Posted Mar 29 2007 at 3 11 PM Permalink The other point is Can you honestly say that key conclusions of the IPCC chapterⳳ assesment hinge on gettting access to these raw data I e are these the key papers without which the IPCC would have concluded differently No the key conclusions I assume you mean the report s Summary hinge on wordsmithing to accentuate the direr high end predictions that can be plausibly fashioned from the main text Based on past experiences the object is two fold first and most importantly to supply talking points to media and policy makers that validate political action and second to craft a bifurcated document whereby contributing scientists can stand on their research yet have the out of claiming they didn t control the writing of the conclusions The IPCC policy makers have to be careful though if the conclusions are too wild contributing scientists speak out If not then this whole thing looks more like a fishing trip to stir up dust and is really unappropriate It s like fishing in a pristine British Columbian river during a salmon run easy pickin s but watch out for the bears Boris Posted Mar 29 2007 at 4 50 PM Permalink They ve selectively collected and interpreted some of the existing articles and research What papers have they missed I assume you don t mean the Idso s website or the Cato Institute DeWitt Payne Posted Mar 29 2007 at 4 59 PM Permalink Re 32 jae What I would really like to know right now is the effect of specific humidity on latent heat transfer from the surface It seems obvious to me that latent heat transfer must increase with increasing specific humidity If latent heat transfer increases fast enough with increased specific humidity positive feedback from water vapor would be a lot smaller than expected That might explain at least some of your observations Without the lever arm of a large positive water vapor feedback the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 should be a lot smaller than the IPCC consensus Mark T Posted Mar 29 2007 at 5 12 PM Permalink What papers have they missed I assume you don t mean the Idso s website or the Cato Institute First what difference does it make if a paper came out of either I m not trying to claim any validity to either but picking and choosing because of some sort of perceived bias works both ways They ve picked and chosen their own lot of papers to review which is bias in and of itself Second are Steve s Ross papers included How about the NAS review from last year that put the kebosh on most of the proxy reconstructions How about all of the papers that show temperature lagging CO2 How about solar influence papers or the more recent cosmic influence papers Certainly you aren t trying to suggest that the 70 papers they did choose are completely representative of all the science are you Mark jae Posted Mar 29 2007 at 5 51 PM Permalink 46 As I understand it they did a particularly lousy job of discussing the Solar factors As Steve M has pointed out it would also be real helpful if they would explain how the climate sensitivity factors were derived other than through magic computer models jae Posted Mar 29 2007 at 6 07 PM Permalink 47 I don t know whether my calculations are valid but if they are I can show that humidity is not related at all to sensitivity or maybe inversely related when humidity is low Thes suggests to me that there is little or no effective water vapor feedback or sometimes a negative feedback Think about it if there was a positive water vapor feedback a small pertubation would cause a cascading series of temperature increases CO2 heat evaporates water which soaks up IR which evaporates more water etc If such a process existed then it seems to me that we would have a run away change in temperature every summer as energy from the Sun increases by 150 230 w m 2 over winter temperatures I just think that water vapor helps transmit heat to space as I think you are saying beng Posted Mar 30 2007 at 8 13 AM Permalink It s OT but Paul s 16 link is quite remarkable for a high school student worth looking at Encouraging that someone this young can be comprehensive thought provoking independent minded I do disagree w some details the atomic tests didn t push up nearly as much material hundreds of tons at most for a given cloud size height than a large volcanic eruption like Pinatubo thousands or even millions of tons A true air burst atomic test that didn t draw up ground level material like the Russian Czar Bomba 50 MT test would only put the mass of the bomb itself mere tons into the air PS If the Russian 50 MT device had used a fissionable pusher tamper shell surrounding the fusion fuel or even just depleted U238 instead of lead the bomb would have yielded 100 MT Michael Jankowski Posted Mar 30 2007 at 10 57 AM Permalink What papers have they missed If they re referencing select unpublished papers then clearly they re missing all the other unpublished papers too Boris Posted Mar 30 2007 at 11 08 AM Permalink They ve picked and chosen their own lot of papers to review which is bias in and of itself Again are they leaving out any studies published in the literature I didn t mean to pick on Cato But they are certainly not considering papers from Greenpeace or the Pew Center either As well they shouldn t I doubt they will use the NAS report but it certainly does not put the kebosh on reconstructions despite what Lindzen has said As for the CO2 lagging temps Yes those are in Why wouldn t they be The CO2 feedback from orbital forcings is another line of evidence showing CO2 s effect on climate MarkW Posted Mar 30 2007 at 11 15 AM Permalink CO2 lagging temps shows that CO2 affects the climate How I would love to see how you define a mechanism that would show how orbital forcings stop warming the planet precisely as CO2 concentrations start to rise Boris Posted Mar 30 2007 at 11 42 AM Permalink 54 Precisely Not sure what you re getting at CO2 contributes to the temp rebound from the glaciations Swindle not surprisingly gets it wrong Steve Sadlov Posted Mar 30 2007 at 11 42 AM Permalink RE 50 validating what you seem to be on to here far offshore from the California coast during summer SSTs actually get pretty far up there due to the summer sun You see way out there the cold California Current has no effect and there exists the Pacific version of the Horse Latitudes So all that evaporated water makes the air very humid and given the air temperature out there the humidity is high both absolutely and relatively The slight movement of this air is slowly but surely out from the center of the Pacific High Inveitably the parcels of this air which make it to the area closer off shore from California encounter colder SSTs and other parcels of air which have come down from Canada Anyone who has ever flown a great circle route to or from Asia involving either LA or SF will have seen what is known as the Great Fog Bank This is the result of the initially mentioned parcels condensing out their moisture as they get cooled by the relatively cooler than their orgin area SST and colder air parcels they meet along the eastern side of the Pacific High The Great Fog Bank is as a result universally and consistently at 56 to 57 degrees F When the winds and thermal gradient between the shore and inland areas are right lobes of the Bank intrude inland eventually reaching where I live When this occurs what might have started out as a warm day in the 85 deg F range suddenly changes into a windy foggy and even drizzly day The mercury plunges from 85 F down to 56 to 57 degress F Intestingly the more the Sun is able to heat both the Horse Latitudes and the inland desert and semi arid zones the more frequent these sorts of intrusion events are Also the more humidity is available for the process the more intense its effects and the more able the intrusion is to bring 85 deg F down to 56 57 degrees F it s like a misting system or swamp cooler on a grand scale Mark T Posted Mar 30 2007 at 12 01 PM Permalink I doubt they will use the NAS report but it certainly does not put the kebosh on reconstructions despite what Lindzen has said Yes it did They explicitly stated that reconstructions beyond 400 years were unreliable and that any reconstruction should avoid BCPs Since the hockey stick relies on BCPs reconstructions are in general unreliable according to the NAS Mark DeWitt Payne Posted Mar 30 2007 at 12 09 PM Permalink Re 50 I just think that water vapor helps transmit heat to space as I think you are saying Yes For example if you look at Trenberth s energy balance you see that about 100 W sq m are lost from the surface as sensible convection basically and latent evaporation of water heat If these transfers didn t happen the radiative heat balance would require that the surface temperature be about 305 K 17 degrees higher than it is So I agree that it is possible the net effect of water vapor could be a negative rather than a positive feedback The size and the sign of the feedback could also vary with the absolute specific humidity as well I don t know though and haven t been able to find suitable references MarkW Posted Mar 30 2007 at 12 13 PM Permalink If CO2 does actually contribute to the rebound then it should be easy to show that the rate of increase in temperature increases once CO2 gets added to the ongoing orbital forcings The sad thing is There is no such increase The only way this can be explained away is if the CO2 just happens to take off at the same time that the orbital forcings is tapering off And Swindle did not get this wrong Right and wrong is not determined by whether something fits within your agenda Mark T Posted Mar 30 2007 at 12 21 PM Permalink As for the CO2 lagging temps Yes those are in Why wouldn t they be The CO2 feedback from orbital forcings is another line of evidence showing CO2 s effect on climate Mentioning them without an analysis of why CO2 lags temperature is hardly in In order for cause to precede effect a non causal system is required i e current output relies on future inputs Nature is not non causal though it is very easy to build non causal relationships in software Mark Mark T Posted Mar 30 2007 at 12 35 PM Permalink If CO2 does actually contribute to the rebound then it should be easy to show that the rate of increase in temperature increases once CO2 gets added to the ongoing orbital forcings Is what you ll see is a cross over of sorts at which point CO2 change begins to lead the additional temperature change I have not seen this demonstrated to date Mark Jaye Bass Posted Mar 30 2007 at 1 33 PM Permalink though it is very easy to build non causal relationships in software Heh that s pretty funny Mark T Posted Mar 30 2007 at 2 28 PM Permalink But true All you have to do is re index the output data stream and even a simple FIR filter is non causal Mark Jaye Bass Posted Mar 30 2007 at 3 04 PM Permalink Yea I have another name for a non causal relationship a memory bug Mark T Posted Mar 30 2007 at 3 07 PM Permalink LOL I m curious what GCM programmers know about this Causality is taught in first semester systems classes and continues on through control theory signal processing theory and more advanced topics When you have access to a data stream it is very easy to use that to your advantage in some contexts but modeling a real time system is not such a context Mark Boris Posted Mar 30 2007 at 3 19 PM Permalink They explicitly stated that reconstructions beyond 400 years were unreliable No They stated that they had high confidence going back 400 and somewhat less confidence going back 1100 Quoting Less confidence can be placed in large scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A D 900 to 1600 Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many but not all individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A D 900 I ll let you guys figure out how increasing a known GHG can increase temps especially at the lower levels coming out of glaciations jae Posted Mar 30 2007 at 3 26 PM Permalink 56 Steve S I am very puzzled by the fact that SF has almost twice the sensitivity as any other location west of the Cascades and Sierras I looked at 17 locations and all are consistently 0 03 to 0 05 Somehow the SF area is able to hold on to more heat than other areas Perhaps the water vapor helps in this case or perhaps there is heat input to the area from the Horse Latitudes SF is unique for sure Mark T Posted Mar 30 2007 at 3 53 PM Permalink No They stated that they had high confidence going back 400 and somewhat less confidence going back 1100 Somewhat less confident Give me a break The statistical analysis btw is also considerably different than the conclusions stated there The r2 even 150 years ago in the leading paper is near 0 Their statistical analysis doesn t indicate anything different AND they stated that BCPs should not be used yet any reconstruction indicating warmest since AD 1100 uses BCPs Two plus Two does not equal Three as your statement may suggest I ll let you guys figure out how increasing a known GHG can increase temps especially at the lower levels coming out of glaciations Nobody is saying that increasing a known GHG won t increase temps The contention is that the the specific GHG may increasing because of temps and the additional impact from anthropogenic causes is impossible to distinguish Since temp still leads CO2 it is still primarily the cause and not the effect Mark jae Posted Mar 30 2007 at 3 56 PM Permalink 58 DeWitt You say The size and the sign of the feedback could also vary with the absolute specific humidity as well I don t know though and haven t been able to find suitable references Yes something like that is going on For example for all areas East of the Rockies sensitivity is quite uniform at 0 11 0 14 deg wm 2 except for some areas on the shores of the Great Lakes July absolute humidities in all those areas vary from 10 21 g m 2 and are very closely correlated with latitude R2 0 84 It looks like for all the East sensitivity does not vary with the amount of water vapor in the air despite the fact that 30 year average July heat input varies from about 300 400 w m 2 Therefore it looks plausible that the water vapor somehow buffers the heat input to maintain the same sensitivity Maybe there is a threshold where water vapor helps add heat up to a certain level and then gets rid of it beyond that On the other hand sensitivities in more arid areas don t seem to be limited and can go up to 0 22 And maybe I m making some big mistake here and spinning wheels But it s fun anyway Steve Sadlov Posted Mar 30 2007 at 4 43 PM Permalink RE 67 SF very cool summers and relatively warm winters Even in terms of Bay Area micro climates Mid summer drive from SF to Livermore and you might go from 56 57 degrees LOL to 100 deg F Mid winter make that same drive and you might go from 60 to 45 F if there is tule fog out East if at night you might have like 48F in SF meanwhile it s 26F with a hard frost in Livermore Slightly different anecdote telling a similar tale Twas the night before Christmas well actually the day before and I lived in Los Altos at the edge of the South Bay SF Peninsula flatlands NW Santa Clara Valley It was hazy with tule fog burning off temperature had to be about 44 or so Went to go surfing at Half Moon

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2007/03/28/accessing-hegerl-data/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • coppermine « Climate Audit
    2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/coppermine/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • hornby « Climate Audit
    et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/hornby/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • jacoby « Climate Audit
    who at least got a refusal from Jacoby as follows By Steve McIntyre Posted in General Jacoby Proxies Also tagged climatic change gaspe Comments 79 The Updated Gaspé Series Feb 9 2005 2 16 PM We have focused considerable attention on the role of the Gaspé series in MBH98 While we alluded previously in MM05 E E to information in our possession that the updated 1991 version of the series differed from the 1982 version and to our frustration that the updated version remains unarchived see Jacoby 1 we are By Steve McIntyre Posted in Jacoby MBH98 Multiproxy Studies Post 1980 Proxies Proxies Also tagged gaspe Comments 9 Jacoby 1 A Few Good Series Feb 6 2005 7 48 AM Jacoby is on the Hockey Team His treeline temperature reconstruction was made by picking the 10 most temperature influenced of 36 sites studied Only these 10 sites were archived I sought information on the other 26 through Climatic Change the publishing journal Jacoby refused stating The inquiry is not asking for the data used in the By Steve McIntyre Posted in Archiving Jacoby Multiproxy Studies Proxies Also tagged gaspe Comments 12 Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/jacoby-2/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • thelon « Climate Audit
    et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/thelon/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Marvel et al.: Implications of forcing efficacies for climate sensitivity estimates – update « Climate Audit
    ocean patch south of Greenland warming and the opposite pattern of changes off Antarctica So it would seem a bit surprising if land use forcing were enough to itself initiate glaciation Maybe it is more likely that LU forcing had enough of an effect in the version of GISS E2 R used at least for other CMIP5 runs with the faulty ocean mixing scheme Also Chandler say that GISS E2 R has a regional cool bias in the upper mid latitude Atlantic in its preindustrial control run Whatever the cause it looks to me as if there is a change in the AMOC involved As I wrote earlier whether or not LU run 1 is strictly a rogue it seems to me that there is a good case for excluding it since we know the real world climate system did not behave like this during the 20th century opluso Posted Jan 30 2016 at 6 59 AM Permalink Reply Has anyone seen the most recent Ganopolski paper that got a big PR push Human made climate change suppresses the next ice age https www pik potsdam de news press releases human made climate change suppresses the next ice age opluso Posted Jan 30 2016 at 7 01 AM Permalink Reply Oh my mistake I didn t notice the url link in your comment Thanks for the link nobodysknowledge Posted Jan 23 2016 at 3 37 PM Permalink Reply I can just agree with Marvel in one thing from her blog The climate s sensitivity is hard to nail down but mine is pretty high Well that it is pretty high is an understatement Paul Penrose Posted Jan 23 2016 at 8 18 PM Permalink Reply When I see some evidence that the software models were written by software experts and have been developed using industry standard best practices then I will start taking them a bit more seriously Until then they are about as useful as an uncalibrated piece of lab equipment kribaez Posted Jan 24 2016 at 1 16 AM Permalink Reply Nic Re your latest update Gavin Schmidt noted the heat transport problem in the Russel ocean model in a paper published in March 2014 http onlinelibrary wiley com doi 10 1002 2013MS000265 full It looks like it had not been fixed up to that time The Miller et al paper was published in June 2014 http onlinelibrary wiley com doi 10 1002 2013MS000266 full As far as I can tell the Miller paper mentions the existence of the problem but no correction Tracer advection is calculated using a linear upstream scheme that updates both the tracer value and its slope within the grid box The additional calculation of the slope maintains tighter gradients against numerical diffusion Mesoscale mixing is parameterized according to the Gent McWilliams scheme although the along isopycnal flux was misaligned resulting in excessive cross isopycnal diffusion I think a polite question to the authors is justified Given a free choice of GCMs I would not choose to use OHC data from a model with a known ocean heat transport problem However it is possible that a corrigendum was issued for the GISS E2 R results and the data accessible via the CMIP5 portals updated If so it would be good to have a pointer to it niclewis Posted Jan 24 2016 at 4 51 AM Permalink Reply Paul The Schmidt and Miller papers were submitted at the same time so I would expect them both to reflect the same position regrading correction or not of the ocean problem in GISS E2 R I can find no mention of the problem in the Marvel paper nor in a paper submitted over a year later about the climate change in GISS ModelE2 under RCP scenarios http onlinelibrary wiley com doi 10 1002 2014MS000403 full 2015 I cannot find signs of any corrigendum for GISS E2 R results It is conceivable that in practice the effects of the ocean problem were small at least in all the main simulation runs I have redownloaded CMIP5 r1i1p1 tas netCDF files for the GISS E2 R Historical simulation They have the same file date 25 March 2011 as those current at the AR5 March 2013 cutoff date kribaez Posted Jan 24 2016 at 2 00 AM Permalink Reply Nic Do you happen to know if and how AIE was included in Miller s All forcings together values for Fi This would not automatically appear in the instantaneous net flux perturbation and would need to be added in either by using the parameterisation algorithm in GISS E2 NINT or by adding in the values calculated from the single forcing case or other I can find no reference in Miller to any such calculation but I may have missed it It must of course be added in for any efficacy calculation to make sense niclewis Posted Jan 24 2016 at 4 08 AM Permalink Reply Paul I don t know for certain that AIE was included in Miller s iRF Fi All forcings together values but I have assumed that it was Miller says the that magnitude of the AIE is tuned using an empirical relation between low cloud cover and the logarithm of aerosol number concentration and that in 2000 the instantaneous AIE at the tropopause is 0 67 W m2 A value for AIE iRF could have been calculated by perturbing the 1850 cloud field used when when computing iRF although there is no mention of doing so in Miller et al Wouldn t adding in values calculated in the single forcing case simply push the question of measuring an iRF for AIE back to that simulation As you will know aerosol indirect effect should not really appear in iRF at all since adjustments by clouds are not instantaneous Hansen 2005 did not show any iRF value for it But there is quite a lot of discussion in Miller et al about aerosol forcing in Miller et al which would all be wrong if the AIE had not been included in their All forcings together measure so Ron Miller seems happy that it was included And my multiple regression results certainly support AIE forcing having been included kribaez Posted Jan 24 2016 at 8 00 AM Permalink Reply Thanks Nic I agree that your multiple regression results support AIE forcing having been included in some guise And certainly what was done in Marvel et al would make no sense if it had not been included so no doubt the co authors believe that it is already included What was going through my mind was the difficulty of assigning any equivalent Fi value to AIE for the historical run Miller makes it clear that he uses pre industrial climate for the evaluation of Fi values This does not require any simulation It just requires activating all of the forcing agents turning on the radiative code at annual intervals and recording the net flux change at the predefined tropopause Because there is no atmospheric simulation involved AIE does not manifest itself in this calculation Strictly speaking it is not a forcing at all but a fast feedback which is unique to tropospheric aerosols Because it is unique to this particular driver as opposed to being a temperature dependent feedback common to all forcing drivers it must be treated as a quasi forcing in order to permit intelligent comparison with other forcings in general and with CO2 forcing in particular Hansen s algorithm for AIE which I described as the parameterisation algorithm in GISS E2 NINT and which you call an empirical relation does permit the indirect effect to be converted into an equivalent forcing So what I suspect was done was that the algorithm was switched on together with the radiative code at each time period The problem with this is that the equivalent forcing value is strongly dependent on climate and particularly cloud cover at the time the algorithm is calculating From the above process for abstracting Fi values cloud cover is fixed at pre industrial level The difference in calculated values may be substantial see Hansen 2005 between fixing the cloud cover and allowing it to vary as it did in the actual historic run simulations If this is what Miller did then he should be able to isolate very simply the AIE forcing from the historic run and confirm that it was identical to the single forcing case abstraction of AIE on the same basis of unchanging climate state That then allows a more definitive statement to be made on the difference between the calculated assumed AIE in the historic run and the true AIE which was based on the successively updated climate state and which should be I believe significantly more negative The alternative to which I referred involves analysis of the single forcing run simulation rather than the abstraction of Fi values from the same but I suspect it is not very relevant The indirect forcing can be abstracted by de convolution of the temperature and net flux data since there is only one known direct forcing which is changing I have left a question on realclimate hoping for some clarification of what was actually done kribaez Posted Jan 24 2016 at 8 11 AM Permalink Reply Here is a copy of the comment I left on RealClimate Gavin I would be very grateful if you could respond to the following three questions 1 Do you have available CO2 benchmarking data for GISS E2 R specifically estimates of Fi Fa and ERF for a range of concentrations If not more specifically are you going to support or modify the Fi value of 4 1 which appears in Marvel et al 2 Can you please advise if and how AIE forcing was included in Miller s All forcing together Fi values for the 20th century historic run 3 Can you confirm that the temperature and net flux data for GISS E2 R available via the CMIP5 portals and KNMI Climate Explorer are based on a model corrected to fix the ocean heat transport problem which you identified in the Russell ocean model in your 2014 paper Many Thanks Patrick M Posted Jan 24 2016 at 9 57 AM Permalink Reply If an algorithm can produce results that are clearly rogue then I would imagine it can produce results that are partially rogue as well As a software developer myself I think this creates a situation where a bug becomes a subjective decision In order to make the determination more objective one would need to define rogue more clearly It s sort of a catch 22 when you design code whose purpose is to find out if anomalies will occur in that your code needs to be free to create anomalies which could just as easily be coding logic errors I would think code of this type would always have to have an independent verification method to check predicted anomalies such as reviewing the physical plausibility of the processes involved In other words I think these models should be used to present questions not answers Jit Posted Jan 24 2016 at 11 33 AM Permalink Reply As striking as LU run 1 is fig 4 it looks like it has half the scale bars of fig 1 runs 2 5 2 5 to 2 5 vs 5 to 5 Is this just a matter of the legend not being updated niclewis Posted Jan 24 2016 at 12 02 PM Permalink Reply Fig 4 has the same scale as Fig 3 not as Fig 2 which I assume is what you meant by Fig 1 A version with a 5 C scale is here Jit Posted Jan 25 2016 at 4 53 AM Permalink Reply Yes sorry fig 2 is what I meant What I was pointing out was that the scale should be the same on all the single run figures Thank you for the link to the figure with the extended scale This seems to show that a 5 anomaly occurs in the north Atlantic not just a 2 5 one as per fig 4 Of course the blues do not look as dramatic with the colour ramp stretched kenfritsch Posted Jan 26 2016 at 11 17 AM Permalink Reply Going back to Nic s pdf critique of Marvel and then rereading Marvel the criticisms that Nic makes of this paper become clearer to me More importantly in addressing the quality of this paper it is the accumulation of problems that Nic sees in this paper It is that accumulation and not necessarily a single problem pointed out that is the important to judging the validity of the results conclusions of this paper What I have seen in the past with criticism of climate science papers from these blogs like Climate Audit is that an author or defender of the paper will clear up or attempt to clear up a single point and fail to answer acknowledge the many problems We who are critical sometimes concentrate on a single issue without continuing to point to the multitude of issues I would hope that the Marvel authors will address all of Nic s criticisms but if they do not that might well say something also kenfritsch Posted Jan 26 2016 at 11 35 AM Permalink Reply Interesting also that the efficacy measures made by Marvel could in some sense and context be construed as factors required to bring the model sensitivity more in line with the empirical results using mostly observed data and that obtains lower sensitivities Going forward and without knowing the origin for the need of the efficacy measures significantly different than unity one might well conclude that prediction of future temperature increases from AGW would be the same with or without the efficacy measure The Marvel paper gets around this thought by talking about the accident of history and implying that the efficacy measure is very much unique to the recent climate conditions and pointing to the efficacy measure different than unity being related to the non uniformity in the x y and z directions of the global atmosphere of the negatively forcing agents It reminded me of the thought process of some climate scientists implying rather strongly that the divergence of proxy responses in recent years must be related to AGW otherwise of course without an explanation we have to seriously question the proxy responses in past times to temperature never minding that the selection process in most of these temperature reconstructions makes the process flawed from the start drissel Posted Jan 26 2016 at 8 46 PM Permalink Reply As a now retired professional programmer I m astonished that anyone believes that Large opaque computer programs work Large opaque computer programs meet their specifications if any Programs and their specifications accurately represent anything as large complex and poorly understood as world climate Programs and their specifications accurately embody the Physics that we do understand like Conservation of Mass Navier Stokes Equations and on and on Programs and their specifications should ever serve as a basis for public policies that could result in impoverishment starvation etc Several of the computer program output anomalies mentioned by Dr Lewis smell to my practiced nose like program bugs Regards Bill Drissel Frisco TX kenfritsch Posted Jan 27 2016 at 2 26 PM Permalink Reply Nic I have been attempting to find the data for the 6 multiple model runs used to determine the ERF for the individual forcing agents in Marvel I find only 1 set of data for these forcings for ERF I was under the impression that ERF and iRF data were both taken from multiple runs niclewis Posted Jan 27 2016 at 4 35 PM Permalink Reply Ken Miller says that iRF is determined by measuring th eradiative imbalance in the 1850 climate state as it was before perturbation by any forcing but with the relevant forcing s imposed That would give the same result for all runs as the climate state has not changed from preindustial So it would just be computed once I think For ERF the SST is fixed but the atmosphere is free to evolve In principle multiple runs would be desirable but as equilibrium is reached quickly with fixed SST it looks aas if they have instead for each forcing averaged across 3 decades from the same run And I don t think they have archived the fixed SST runs involved they don t seem to be in the CMIP5 archive kenfritsch Posted Jan 28 2016 at 3 20 AM Permalink Reply Nic I was not clear about my confusion with the data used for ERF and iRF approaches to efficacy determinations in Marvel but I think I may now have it figured out if you can verify that my understanding is correct All the data required for the iRF approach was available to me in the form of annual GMST and OHC for all the model runs and for all the individual forcing agents and the one set of annual Fi data for each of the forcing agents from Miller 2014 My confusion was with the ERF approach and the source of the GMST and OHC data required to go with the one set of ERF data As you note there are ERF data for 3 different decades for all the forcing agents from a single model run It would have been nice to have data for multiple runs but it is now my understanding that the same GMST and OHC data used in the the iRF approach must have been used in the ERF approach by using the average delta T and trends for OHC from the decade 1996 2005 That gets me to the multiple runs for the ERF approach and the method used in Marvel to obtain uncertainty for both the iRF and ERF approaches to determining efficacy Is this understanding correct I plan to analyze the data using Singular Spectrum Analysis and other analysis approaches niclewis Posted Jan 28 2016 at 12 32 PM Permalink Ken Yes you should use all the same separate run GMST and OHC data with the one set of averaged over 3 decades ERF data But as there is only ERF data for year 2000 forcing efficacies have to be calculated from quotients rather than being able to use regression Marvel s regression with intercept over 1906 2005 method is unsatisfactory in any case You might get better results using data starting in 1850 or 1851 there is a slight jump rather than 1900 and TOA radiative imbalance rather than ocean heat content data for your analysis I ll try to add such data to that which I have already provided at https niclewis wordpress com appraising marvel et al implications of forcing efficacies for climate sensitivity estimates kribaez Posted Jan 28 2016 at 5 51 AM Permalink Reply I have left another comment on RealClimate for Gavin to mull over awaiting moderation copy below while he is I trust assiduously working in the background to answer the previous questions which I have left Gavin You wrote Dropping outliers just because they don t agree with your preconceived ideas is a classical error in statistics it s much better to use the spread as a measure of the uncertainty Gavin Another classical error in statistics is to attribute the error associated with one property to the wrong variable Work by the RNMI Sybren Drijfhout et al 2015 http www pnas org content 112 43 E5777 abstract confirms that GISS E2 R has the capacity for abrupt climate change in the form of inter alia the local collapse of convection in the North Atlantic In this instance if the results of the rogue run in the single forcing LU cases are due to the abrupt collapse of N Atlantic convection as seems increasingly likely from the data then the dramatically different temperature response in the rogue run has nothing whatsoever to do with the uncertainty in transient efficacy of LU forcing The inclusion of the run leads quite simply to an erroneously inflated calculation of the mean transient efficacy for LU and a misleading confounding of the uncertainty associated with the GCM s internal mechanics with the uncertainty in LU transient efficacy Ultimately the Marvel et al paper seeks to argue that sensitivities estimated from actual observational data are biased low on the grounds that GISS E2 R over the historic period is responding to an overall low weighted average forcing efficacy It then seeks to extend the conclusions drawn from the model to realworld observational studies Since we know from the real observational data that there was not a collapse of N Atlantic convection then quite apart from other methodological questions the inclusion of this run for the LU calculation is impossible to justify and on its own is sufficiently large in its impact to bring the study results into question Applying the same logic any of the 20th Century History runs which exhibited similar abrupt shifts Southern Ocean sea ice Tibetan plateau snow melt and N Atlantic convection which were not observed in the realworld should have also been excluded from the ensemble mean for Marvel et al to have any hope of credibly extending inferences to realworld observational data even if we suspend disbelief with respect to other problems associated with data methods and relevance stevefitzpatrick Posted Jan 28 2016 at 5 20 PM Permalink Reply Paul Another good question for Gavin But I think you are unlikely to get a reply to ANY substantive question about Marvel et al at Real Climate unless it is a question which lends support to the conclusions of Marvel or so silly a question that Gavin can just poke fun Gavin is not going to entertain substantive doubts about Marvel any more than Eric Steig was willing to entertain substantive doubts about continent wide Antarctic warming even after O Donnell et al was published The point of Marvel et al is to raise doubts in a high profile publication about the veracity of the many low empirical estimates of sensitivity so that those empirical estimates can be waved away when public energy policy is discussed Marvel et al is just ammunition in the climate wars IMO its quality and accuracy do matter at all to the authors mpainter Posted Jan 28 2016 at 5 55 PM Permalink Reply I think your last sentence left out the word not and with that I can say ditto to your comment Marvel et al are now at the point where to engage the issue any further only exposes and emphasizes the hollowness of their whole position faulty models and all stevefitzpatrick Posted Jan 29 2016 at 8 38 AM Permalink mpainter Yes I left out the word not stevefitzpatrick Posted Jan 29 2016 at 8 55 AM Permalink Reply Paul Gavin has replied to your comment He completely rejects your suggestion that the single very strange land use run is not representative and so should not be included in the analysis He also challenges you to look at the level of variance in all 200 runs of the study and do your own analysis Seems to me that a very reasonable argument can be made about the statistical validity of any 5 run ensemble that includes a single strange run if you know the variability of a much larger group eg Gavin s 200 runs AntonyIndia Posted Jan 29 2016 at 9 32 AM Permalink Reply Is Gavin admitting something there the basic result which that the historical runs don t have the same forcing response pattern as the response to CO2 alone stevefitzpatrick Posted Jan 29 2016 at 11 29 AM Permalink Reply Paul K After thinking a bit more about Gavin s reply it seems to me it should be possible to show the single strange run for land use run 1 from figure 5 in Nic s original post is likely to be a statistical fluke related to model behavior and not at all representative of the actual effect of land use If you calculate the slope of each of the five land use runs and then calculate an unbiased estimate of the standard deviation of the slopes from runs 2 through 5 then the slope of run 1 may very well be outside the 95 inclusive probability window That is run 1 is unlikely to be a member of the same normally distributed sample population as runs 2 through 5 and so is more likely due to an unrelated effect which just was not present in the other LU runs A drastic and wildly unrealistic change in North Atlantic ocean temperature would of course be a plausible unrelated effect Nic Can you point to where the data used to generate figure 5 in your original post is located niclewis Posted Jan 29 2016 at 12 44 PM Permalink Reply steve Interesting idea The data is available in a spreadsheet via the link given at the end of my original post https niclewis wordpress com appraising marvel et al implications of forcing efficacies for climate sensitivity estimates The graph is in the tas sheet at cell BN100 Right click in the graph and choose Select data to see which ranges the data comes from stevefitzpatrick Posted Jan 29 2016 at 2 19 PM Permalink Nic Thanks The slope statistics are Relative slope R1 0 0369 R2 0 0066 R3 0 0144 R4 0 0098 R5 0 0085 Mean 2 5 0 00982 Std deviation 2 5 0 00332 R1 Standard Deviations from the mean 8 15 The estimate of the standard deviation is the unbiased estimate using n 1 in the denominator So it seems to me unlikely that R1 is in the same population as R2 to R5 especially in light of the peculiar pattern of cooling in Run 1 Of course Gavin in his best Steigian imitation is going to discount any slope analysis as irrelevant or will insist ignoring any reasonable interpretation of the actual data that the correct analysis is to include all 5 runs in the estimate of the mean and standard deviation for the slopes In this case the statistics become Rel slope R1 0 0369 R2 0 0066 R3 0 0144 R4 0 0098 R5 0 0085 Mean 0 01524 Std deviation 0 0124 R1 Standard Deviations from the mean 1 74 Which puts R1 just inside of the credible range if you choose to ignore the bizarre pattern of cooling in the North Atlantic which is absolutely not a credible response to a tiny forcing from land use change But such things seem to pass as credible when the results match the desire outcome dynam01 Posted Jan 28 2016 at 3 24 PM Permalink Reply Reblogged this on I Didn t Ask To Be a Blog kenfritsch Posted Jan 30 2016 at 11 10 AM Permalink Reply My apologies if these graphs that I have linked below have been displayed by someone previously The graphs represent the regression of the Marvel GMST versus forcings and plotted on a yearly basis For each forcing agent I have graphed together the Ensemble mean and the 5 model runs I think these representations paint a different picture than using decadal averages Notice that using different parts of the forcing range would give very different trends Where the forcing is changing with time in a trending manner then one could state that the trends would be very different depending on the decade used I have also calculated the trend statistics from the yearly results graphed in the links and while the p values can be impressive over the range of forcing as noted above the trends calculated within parts of the range can change dramatically I have not yet applied the auto correlation ar1 to simulations to determine the confidence intervals for these trends but when I finish I will report the results here That model run for land use in question is very different than the other runs not only in the trend value but in the p value of that trend One can use an alternative method to determine statistical differences by using the model run trend values and the confidence intervals derived from Monte Carlo simulations as described above I have not done that yet but I would predict at this point that there would be a significant difference between the run in question if the confidence intervals for the other land use runs are not too wide Link for GHG and O3 Link for Solar and Land Use Link for Volcanic and Anthro Aerosol stevefitzpatrick Posted Jan 30 2016 at 4 52 PM Permalink Reply Ken Fritsch Yes LU Run 1 is wildly different from the others I doubt using decadal averages like Nic did makes much difference in the trends Run 1 is nothing like the other four no matter how you look at it I think the argument needs to be made that inferring anything about the efficacy of LU forcing with Run 1 included will lead to spurious results BTW I gently suggest that you use the same y axis scale when comparing the trends for the five LU runs Using different y axis scales obscures how different Run 1 is from the others kenfritsch Posted Jan 31 2016 at 8 20 AM Permalink Reply Steve Marvel used decadal averages and Nic merely reported the results Decadal averages will graphically paint a very different picture than using the individual variation in individual runs with yearly data points The calculated confidence intervals need to use yearly data Using decadal averages for that purpose would require some adjustments The differing y axis ranges were just to see if you were paying attention I am finishing the CI calculations and will post them here By my methods the land use Run 1 slope trend is statistically very different than the other runs It would appear than some model runs for the various forcing agents have slopes not significantly different than zero Maybe we can get Gavin to argue for the validity of that happening if we had more than one realization of the earth s climate kenfritsch Posted Jan 30 2016 at 1 00 PM Permalink Reply Nic I have a post in moderation that has graphs with regressions of the temperature response to 6 forcing agents from the Marvel data It is on a yearly basis and I think shows the data in a different light than how it was presented in Marvel Steve unmoderated triggered by number of links kenfritsch Posted Jan 30 2016 at 1 15 PM Permalink Reply I should have added that the large p values to which I refer in my moderated post should be large negative values kenfritsch Posted Jan 31 2016 at 1 35 PM Permalink Reply In the link below is a table with my analysis details of the regression of temperature versus forcing for the 6 forcing agents It shows the trend 95 plus minus confidence intervals CIs the intercept the p values for the trend and intercept unadjusted for auto correlation and the ar1 values used for adjusting the CIs for auto correlation using 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations Notice that slope of the trend in each case can be used to ratio amongst the forcing agents to relate back to the relative efficacy values found in Marvel My results for some of the forcing agents is in general agreement with those from Marvel but not all There is a large difference for anthropogenic aerosols I used the sum of the direct and indirect aerosol values provided by Marvel and that sum when regressed against the aerosol temperature gave very good correlations with very low trend p values My slope values had only one forcing agent with a higher value than GHG and that was Land Use Land Use has slope values for the 5 runs that vary greatly and the CIs for those individual runs are large but show that Run1 is very significantly different than the other runs Run 1 also has a trend p value that is much lower than the other runs and the intercept is significantly different I would judge from the large variations within the Land Use that regression iRF versus temperature for that forcing agent makes little sense GHG and Volcanic were the only forcing agents that had CIs that were a low percentage of the slope values Why my calculations give such relatively low values of forcing agents slopes compared to GHG with the noted exception of Land Use is a puzzle to me If I have not made a mistake here it would also throw huge doubts into the use the instantaneous forcing and regressions to determine efficacy niclewis Posted Jan 31 2016 at 3 22 PM Permalink Ken I agree your slope trends apart from Anthro aerosol where I think you may have made some mistake based on regressing on annual 1900 2005 data Marvel used decadal data which gives somewhat different results If not following their method I think there is merit in using data for the full 1850 2005 simulation runs I ve now uploaded that to my web pages see the link in the update to this article above The low efficacy for volcanic forcing is expected and partly reflects the delay in GMST reponse to a forcing impulse which matters here as volcanic forcing is impulse like With decadal data there is much less distortion as a result of the delay The same applies to an extent to solar forcing kenfritsch Posted Jan 31 2016 at 4 54 PM Permalink Nic your points are well taken and now I will attempt to get my head around what you state here Would a delay in temperature response change a trend measured on an annual versus decadal basis There would be a lag but the response would eventually be manifested in the temperature I think If I used the start and end points only the trend should be near the same Obviously there are differences as you indicate you have made the annual and decadal calculations But is it caused by the lag effect I ll have another look at my AA trend calculations There was a good correlation and I guess that delayed my looking I notice from my plot of temperature versus AA that if I regressed only on the lower levels of forcing I would obtain a much steeper slope and closer to the expected value kenfritsch Posted Jan 31 2016 at 5 28 PM Permalink Nic I may have had a problem with the instantaneous part of the forcing in my thinking If I am measuring temperature response to forcing for a given year and if all the forcing were to occur and was reported in that year but only part of the temperature response occurs then that year would show a lower than expected temperature The next year I would have no forcing but a partial continuation of the temperature response and that year would have a higher than expected temperature given no forcing is reported I was unfortunately thinking about an accummualtion of forcing and temperature responses for my starting and ending point thought Maybe that is what Willis was thinking A sufficiently lagging response might even make a decadal average of instantaneous forcing a poor method of determining efficacy Even an event that forces in one decade and is mostly measured in another could create a problem Conclusion Use ERF kenfritsch Posted Jan 31 2016 at 7 21 PM Permalink I found my error with AA and the revised data and graph are in the link below Considering the CIs for the GHG and AA the mean trend slopes for GHG and AA are not that different Next step is to use the

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/21/marvel-et-al-implications-of-forcing-efficacies-for-climate-sensitivity-estimates-an-update/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive