The bunnies have been looking for a new project and Judith Curry has been looking for answers. She pawed her way through the Heartland International Climate Change presentations
Interpreting the surface historical temperature record.Your name here
Pat Michaels: slides 30-32, changes in the CRUT temp anomalies with time, these are unexplained
Craig Loehle: historical surface temperature records. Makes the same point as Pat Michaels about strange changes in subsequent versions of CRUT temperature analysis. Makes PDO type arguments.Nebuchadnezzar: It looks as if Craig Loehle has inadvertantly switched in global land surface air temperature (i.e land only) for global surface temperature (land and sea combined) in slides 7 thru 9 and into the conclusion of 10.
The red line (2010) is land only (aka crutem3). The black line (2008) is land and sea (aka hadcrut3).
That would explain - very simply - the 'unexplained' change between 2008 and 2010. Easy mistake to make.
global land surface air temperatures are here:
global surface temperatures (land and sea) are here:
Nick Stokes provides a nice graph of of hadcrut3gl (land/ocean) vs crutem3 (land only)
Roy Spencer: inadequacy in urban heat island analysis.Your name here
Joseph D’Aleo: describes a number of global data base issues. The impact of these issues (individually and collectively) on the global temperature data record is unknown.Ron Broberg has a long post on this shooting down the many claims.
Christopher Monckton: see slides 12-14 re trends in the historical temperature record. Hard to disagree with his analysis that the “accelerating trend of global temperature increase” in IPCC (2007) is based upon faulty statistical analysis.By way of Joe Romm, a loooong presentation by John Abraham, tearing Chris a new one. This link will, without a doubt cause Kloor to sputter, but Judith Curry might benefit by viewing it.
Chip Knappenberger: Modeled vs observed temperature trends over the last decade. Good study with appropriate analysis methods as far as I can tell.Nick Stokes comments on this at moyhu. Chip and James should have waited a few months. James say a few things
Ross McKittrick: tropospheric temperature trends. Discrepancies between models and observations. This issue is not going away, it is gaining more traction. Santer (2008) statistical methods are criticized.Your name here
McIntyre:(video) the “decline”. Yes I’ve read DeepClimate’s analysis, but it does not detract from McIntyre’s analysis that this is not good scientific practice.This is almost silly. How many reports are needed to point out that a) the trick was described in the literature along with the reasons for it. b) there was no dishonesty.
Note: David Douglass made a presentation, but it is not availableOn occasion one is lucky
Feedback issues:Shall someone pile on
Lindzen: usual stuff, but he takes on a new issue, Arctic sea ice. He commits a howler by claiming that summertime loss of arctic sea ice cannot be related to warming since the summertime ice surface temperature has remained constant for decades (he forgot about the latent heat of melting).
Roy Spencer: cloud feedback issues, mentions a new paper coming out in JGR.Any takers
George Kukla: some issues related to long time scale feedback processes. global cooling in early interglacials, and global warming in early glacials.Your name here
Bill Kinimonth: coupling of water vapor and ocean surface latent heat feedbacks. Aspects of his actual analysis are not correct, but he raises an important issue in terms of likely climate model deficiency in this regard.Your name here
Arctic sea ice:Your name here.
Fred Goldberg: historical ice observations in the Arctic. Describes low amount of arctic sea ice in the 1920’s. Projects future arctic sea ice based on natural variability.
——-beyond this point I have no particular expertise, but think these presentations may be of interest, and I personally would be interested in blogospheric discussions on these papers.Other contributions welcome
Solar variability:Your name here, but the finding of new "cycles" is a perennial, esp with Solar Cycle 24 starting to cook.
Abdussamatov: An interesting new twist, associated with cyclical variations in the radius of the sun. Predicts beginning of a new little ice age in 2014, with temperatures in 2100 about 1.2 degrees cooler than current owing to solar forcing. His theories are linked to recent changes observed other planets. The only debunk I’ve seen was unconvincing (by chuck long) about observations of global dimming/brightening.
Victor Herrara: solar cycles. Seems to be onto the same thing as Abussamatov, 120/240 year cycles.Your name here
Carbon issues:A good example about why to count your fingers after you deal with these folks. As Steve Bloom points out Idso used only one of the two scenarios that Tans set forth, the low total emissions one where emissions peak in 2029 and CO2 peaks at 500 ppm in 2069. The second one, Scenario B as it were, had emissions peaking in 2044 and peak CO2 mixing ratios of 600 ppm in ~2075. In both cases the mixing ratios decay slowly over the next four hundred years to about 2/3 their peak value.
Craig Idso: ocean acidification. I’m not an expert in this area, but these arguments should be examined, particularly the Tans (2009) paper. A quick google blogs search did not identify a debunk of this paper.
Futher, when Idso compares Tans' estimates of changes in ocean pH, he somehow neglects to point out that the IPCC considered scenarios where the mixing ratio was much higher than 600 ppm peak, which, of course, meant that the pH change would be much more, but Idso does use the difference to imply that the IPCC is wildly off. Count your fingers folk.
Idso then looks at the results of experiments that studied the effect of pH change on various parameters. While Eli is no expert here, it is clear that the effect will vary strongly with species, for example, most species that build shells (calcification) will be strongly affected in a negative way, although there are a few which will be able to handle pH changes in the range predicted by Tans for 500 or 600 [CO2] peaks. The effect of lumping everything together is to miss the enormous challenges for individual species, some of which we depend on.
Tom Segalstad: CO2, challenges measurements and attribution to fossil fuels. Addresses the “mysterious missing carbon sink.” Haven’t been able to find an online debunk.M- O'Neill, B.C., Oppenheimer, M. and S.R. Gaffin (1997) Measuring time in the greenhouse, Climatic Change 37, 491-503.
Also, the EPA TSD (see post above this one)
Sea level rise:Do some of the Nordic Bunnies want a whack at Uncle Nils?
Nils Axel Morner: local sea level rise. Discusses the complexity of issues that go into determining local sea level rise. Claims no sea level rise in the Maldives, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Bangladesh, Qatar, Venice, NW Europe. Questions calibration of satellite altimeters. I don’t know much about this topic, would be interested in further discussions of this.
Ah, Morner who labels observations by other people "model results" and "personal calibrations" but his own cherry picked selection of tide gauges and made-up numbers are the only real "observations".
Sources counter to Morner: From Skeptical Science on sea level rise and
Woodworth, "Have there been large recent sea level changes in the Maldive Islands" (Global and Planetary Change 2005)
Also, Morner's supposed "10 mm/century upper limit" is contrary to the estimates for SLR during meltwater pulse 1a:
Bob Carter: another paper stressing the importance of focusing on local sea level rise at coasts rather than global average valuesWhen you got nothing, move on.