Thursday, September 02, 2010

Taking it to a new level

As Eli has been pointing out, the INTERTUBES are an entirely different place. In conversation one can blow anyone (well almost everyone, Hank Roberts and Carrot Eater are fierce and Joe Romm is intergalactic) off, and your friends are polite. The net, OTOP provides lots of eyeballs, someone has access to the reference material and there is a ton of time, it is a 24/7 thing. If you get caught out the best thing is just to be quiet. Judith Curry is learning this at her cost, and yes, Saint Google will make sure that it's gonna be there for years. Eli took a shot, a friendly one, hardly anything but pointing out a few inconsistencies in her story. Lazar has followed up (he RTFR) on Stoat

JC writes;

"There is one statement in the Manabe paper that is relevant: " the reduction in surface salinity resulting from the increase of freshwater supply at the oceanic surface is mainly responsible for the weaker convective activity in the G integration." This statement is made in a paragraph discussing the deep ocean convection in the Southern Ocean. Manabe doesn't discuss the increasing sea ice extent in this context."

That is not true... on the next page (113)...

"In sharp contrast to the situation over the Arctic Ocean, the change of sea ice is relatively small in the circumpolar ocean of the Southern Hemisphere, with the exception of the Weddell and Ross seas, where it increases substantially from the S to G integrations (Figs. 11a and 11c; Figs. 11b and 11d) despite the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Because of the reduction of surface salinity due to the increased water supply at the oceanic surface, the convective mixing between the mixed layer and deeper ocean becomes less frequent, slightly lowering surface water temperature and increasing sea ice thickness in both the Weddell and Ross seas, as discussed in Part I of this study."

Part I says (795)...

"It is surprising, however, that the sea-ice thickness in the G integration increases significantly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent despite the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is consistent with the slight reduction of sea surface temperature mentioned earlier (Fig. 10a). It will be shown in section 9a that, owing to the intensification of the near-surface halocline caused by the increased supply of water at the oceanic surface, the convective mixing of cold near-surface water with warmer, underlying water becomes less frequent, resulting in the increase of sea ice and slight reduction of sea surface temperature."

Section 9a says (811)...

"Although the efficient vertical mixing may be the most important factor responsible for the smallness of sea surface temperature change in the Circumpolar Ocean of the Southern Hemisphere, it does not explain why the change is practically zero or sometimes reversed in sign. As noted by Manabe et al. (1990) based upon the detailed analysis of the heat budget of the Circumpolar Ocean of their model, the reduction of convective activity in the surface layer is responsible for this interesting phenomenon. For example, in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the excess of precipitation over evaporation increases, and surface salinity is reduced in high latitudes as noted in section 8. Thus, the static stability of the near-surface water increases and the convective mixing of cold surface water with the relatively warm subsurface water is reduced, thereby contributing to the reduction of sea surface temperature in the Circumpolar Ocean. This is why sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... all of which information was placed front and center in Zwally et al. 2002, which was cited by Liu and Curry in 2004.

Refs.

Manabe, S., R. J. Stouffer, M. J. Spelman, and K. Bryan (1991), Transient Responses of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model to Gradual Changes of Atmospheric CO2. Part I. Annual Mean Response., Journal of Climate, 4(8), 785-818, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1991)0042.0.CO;2.

Manabe, S., M. J. Spelman, and R. J. Stouffer (1992), Transient Responses of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model to Gradual Changes of Atmospheric CO2. Part II: Seasonal Response., Journal of Climate, 5(2), 105-126, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1992)0052.0.CO;2.

and William tries it dry

[Oh dear, what you can find if you actually read the paper :-) -W]

but the best is Mark B's version of the story as told by Steve
"Liu and Curry, defended by The Team, selected inappropriate data and time periods, ignored data that doesn't match the IPCC message, manipulated results, clearly engaged in misconduct, dismissed dissenting views, and ultimately pushed the notion that Antarctic Sea Ice will melt, based on fudged computer models, when data clearly shows otherwise. Read 'The Antarctic Ice Illusion: CurryGate and the Corruption of Science' by Montfork. It's one of the best books written on climate science, though I can't personally vouch for any of its conclusions."

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Manabe doesn't discuss the increasing sea ice extent in this context."

Good call Eli and others. At Stoat I even referred Curry to the paragraph in question on page 113 of Manabe et al. (1992)-- I guess she chose to ignore read the paragraph in question cited above.....

So when do Manabe et al. get their Nobel prize?

MapleLeaf

PDA said...

the position of the word "off" on the far end of that parenthetical statement is... unfortunate, in PDA's humble opinion

TimChase said...

I hope no one minds my asking, but seeing as Romm does get mentioned above, has anyone tried visiting his website in the past hour or so? I am not getting any error messages. Just blank pages. Actually thought it was a problem with my browser at first -- which was actually having problems (too many window handles, perhaps?) -- but now everything is coming up but for Romm's website.

Anonymous said...

Me too Tim...I just tried (using SAFARI), no joy.

There is also the possibility that it was hacked....

Jo said...

On Joe Romm's Climate Progress website :-

Me too.

Blank page.

Hope it's nothing serious.

jyyh said...

Yep, got a blank page too. So it's not only in the US.

Lionel A said...

Blank page here too in the UK at 11:50 BST on both Explorer and Firefox.

bluegrue said...

thinkprogress, which is hosted at the same IP, is down, too.

JMurphy said...

I had the same problem with Climate Progress (getting blank pages) so I tried a few other sites and then tried CP again, and it is now accessible again. Strange.

Now, while I'm here, I wondered whether anyone noticed Steve Goddard's final embarrassment over at WUWT - even Watt's got fed up.

Steven you really need to stop

And since you won't take the hints, I'm closing the thread with this image


Read Goddard from here onwards


(Hope the 'nofollow' bit works in those links, so Watts doesn't get any extra traffic)

Robert said...

Goddard responds over at tamino saying it was his mistake

stevengoddard | September 2, 2010 at 3:20 am | Reply

Phil.

As I am sure you are aware, Anthony shut down comments – so it would be pretty difficult for me to respond.

However, it does appear that the 1999 “global graph” probably excluded the 70% of the globe which comprises the oceans, so the basis of my article was most likely incorrect.


Interesting how he didnt say this in front of his followers...

Anonymous said...

Climate Progress is back up

Litte Mouse

Horatio Algeranon said...

Credibility is like arctic sea ice: once it's gone, it's very hard to get it back.

dhogaza said...

That's the best steven goddard thread yet.

Do you if enough of us ask nicely that Anthony will take him back? Entertainment of such quality is so hard to come by!

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Goddard could have just RTFC on the figure. Hell he even linked to the page with the caption trying to tell me I was wrong, telling me to "look at it in context".

bluegrue said...

We are talking about two entirely different errors by Goddard. The one error Goddard conceded at tamino is that he compared a 1999 land only temperature graph and a current land and ocean temperature graph, insinuating insidious changes done to the record by Hansen/NASA.

The error JMurphy pointed out is that Goddard does not understand the triple point of water.

If you look at 2006, extent dropped rapidly right before it flatlined. This year may be a repeat of that pattern. Given the triple point of water at 0C, the behaviour of the ice can change dramatically with a very small change in the weather.
and in reply to the question Do you know what the triple point of water is? It is not 0C, but you are fairly close, but what pressure? Goddard replied:
The ocean is at 1 bar atmospheric pressure. That is how it is defined.

We did learn a little about phase diagrams in my graduate school geochemistry program.


The rest of the reply was snipped, it went downhill from there.

David B. Benson said...

It does indeed seem that J.C. has gone emeritus, as the saying is.

EliRabett said...

Please, please bluegrue, tell Eli you are kidding. Pretty please.

bluegrue said...

I'd love to, Eli, alas I can't.

David B. Benson said...

Even more gone emeritus.

wottsupwiththat.com said...

Best statement by Steven Goddard ever: "we scientists".

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Well, as long as we are dealing with the failings of WUWT, here is another example of, well I really don't know, but it is pretty stupid.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/03/and-the-hits-just-keep-on-coming-the-book-the-ipcc-plagiarized/#more-24399

Ron Broberg said...

I think perhaps people are assigning the title to me, and just to be clear, that was Donna’s title which is why I have it in quotes. See the link “Donna writes…” I’m going to make that a little clearer. – Anthony

Translation: I'm not responsible for the charges of plagiarism. I'm just a conduit for charges of plagiarism. And please take no note of my words of praise for the author of charges of plagiarism. Or the fact that it was my choice to post the charges of plagiarism on my blog.

What a weasel.

J Bowers said...

Hmmm, the book is by AJ McMichael (Anthony McMichael)

Hmmm, an IPCC AR4 WG2 review editor is called Anthony McMichael. And then there's the TAR WG2, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Based on a draft prepared by: ..... Anthony McMichael....
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/108.htm

Did the IPCC also plagiarise his name as well? Crikey.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

J Bowers, this actually goes back to the SAR.

And what Tony, and LaFramboise, miss is the fact the he cited the underlying research. And oh yeah, the increase in asthma and other respiratory diseases due to sandstorms was first noted during the 1930's. That little incident called the "dustbowl".

J Bowers said...

Rattus Norvegicus, thanks for the extra info. I found the AR4 and TAR info within ten minutes but left it there. The plagiarism "talking point" will no doubt be doing the rounds this week from the plastic sceptics.

Adam said...

My head is spinning. The idiocies of Watts, Goddard, Curry, et al. pile up one upon another so fast that my powers of derision are overwhelmed. How must it be for faithful at WUWT? Do they even perceive the avalanche of stupid thundering down upon them?

Put yourself in the place of a tenor in the WUWT choir. You've been cheering Goddard's series of posts claiming that the whole "Arctic sea ice is melting" thing is BS, but now you've been confronted with irrefutable evidence that your hero is an ninny. Even a witless denier like you must acknowledge the truth of this when your guru Watts is forced to slap Goddard down.

But now, loyal denier that you are, you must confront the larger, more disturbing notion that your guru himself, Watts, is suspect. After all, he featured this twit in his blog multiple times. Where is your touchstone now? Where is your connection to reality? Who can you trust to tell you what to think?

chek said...

"Who can you trust to tell you what to think"?

In the midst of such times of uncertainty and turbulence, Dr Inferno, and Baron von Monckhofen may always b e counted upon to uphold the flaming torch of science and truth.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Rabett,
I was directed here through the Open Mind. I've read the first Manabe paper and I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable can help me understand something. Page 795 - the figure seems to indicate we can expect the Antarctic ice to increase (in thickness at least, although that implies extent increase to me to) for 100 years! Where am I going wrong!?
Anonyfred