• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

the pause and the data sets

Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO[/h] Posted on December 28, 2015 | 49 comments
by Craig Loehle
This is a short summary of my new paper Global Temperature Trends Adjusted for Unforced Variability.
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Since the AMO is based on SST, by subtracting out the AMO from global temps, you're subtracting out part of the global warming signal. It is therefore totally unsurprising that the remaining warming, after this manipulation, is less than what the real data shows.
 
Poor Debater said:
Since the AMO is based on SST, by subtracting out the AMO from global temps, you're subtracting out part of the global warming signal. It is therefore totally unsurprising that the remaining warming, after this manipulation, is less than what the real data shows.
Click to expand...

This is a short summary of my new paper Global Temperature Trends Adjusted for Unforced Variability.
The possible implications of internal or unforced variability in the Earth climate system is a frequent topic on Climate Etc. I hypothesized that the AMO might provide an index to unforced variability. I scaled it and subtracted it from the Hadley global data (Fig. 1). Subtracting the scaled AMO reduces the variance of the data and changes the shape.
Figure 1. Hadley global temperature anomalies (black) with series adjusted by subtracting the scaled AMO (red).
I extracted total anthropogenic forcing from the IPCC AR5 appendices. A comparison of the adjusted Hadley data with forcing estimates (Fig. 2) shows a remarkable similarity of shape with a simple correlation of 0.92.Figure 2. Adjusted Hadley global temperature (black) vs. scaled (arbitrary scale) anthropogenic forcing (red).
Based on an approximately linear temperature trend since 1970, I obtained an estimate of 0.83 deg C/century for the warming rate over the 44 years. This would give 0.71 deg C more warming by 2100 as a simple extrapolation. This corresponds to TCR=1.2 and ECS=1.5.
Since the paper is open access and is short, I encourage you to read the full paper.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is a short summary of my new paper Global Temperature Trends Adjusted for Unforced Variability.
The possible implications of internal or unforced variability in the Earth climate system is a frequent topic on Climate Etc. I hypothesized that the AMO might provide an index to unforced variability. I scaled it and subtracted it from the Hadley global data (Fig. 1). Subtracting the scaled AMO reduces the variance of the data and changes the shape.
Figure 1. Hadley global temperature anomalies (black) with series adjusted by subtracting the scaled AMO (red).
I extracted total anthropogenic forcing from the IPCC AR5 appendices. A comparison of the adjusted Hadley data with forcing estimates (Fig. 2) shows a remarkable similarity of shape with a simple correlation of 0.92.Figure 2. Adjusted Hadley global temperature (black) vs. scaled (arbitrary scale) anthropogenic forcing (red).
Based on an approximately linear temperature trend since 1970, I obtained an estimate of 0.83 deg C/century for the warming rate over the 44 years. This would give 0.71 deg C more warming by 2100 as a simple extrapolation. This corresponds to TCR=1.2 and ECS=1.5.
Since the paper is open access and is short, I encourage you to read the full paper.
Click to expand...

None of which rebuts my criticism. Note also the recent comments to this paper at Climate Etc.: because of acceleration in warming, the linear de-trending process removes too much warming signal early and too little warming signal late. Therefore warming signal remains in AMO data post-1970, and therefore subtracting AMO from temp removes warming signal in the post-1970 period. Loehle's response was basically, yeah, good point, but too late now.
 
Poor Debater said:
None of which rebuts my criticism. Note also the recent comments to this paper at Climate Etc.: because of acceleration in warming, the linear de-trending process removes too much warming signal early and too little warming signal late. Therefore warming signal remains in AMO data post-1970, and therefore subtracting AMO from temp removes warming signal in the post-1970 period. Loehle's response was basically, yeah, good point, but too late now.
Click to expand...

Did you take a look at the full paper?
 
Jack Hays said:
Did you take a look at the full paper?
Click to expand...

Yup. Since the AMO has a residual trend of +1.26° C/century during the period 1970-2015, that would have raised the AMO-corrected trend to +2.1° per century if it had been done properly.
 
Poor Debater said:
Yup. Since the AMO has a residual trend of +1.26° C/century during the period 1970-2015, that would have raised the AMO-corrected trend to +2.1° per century if it had been done properly.
Click to expand...

If your objection is thus in the technical realm then you really should present it at Climate Etc.
 
Lord of Planar said:
All these adjustments bother me. I found they are also adjusting TIM, what is suppose to be a very accurate and stable solar TSI measuring equipment of SORCE.

This is unacceptable. It is next to impossible these days to find any unadjusted data. Even what I though was only adjusted to 1 AU is now adjusted otherwise, for assumed instrument variations, when it was dubbed as an exceptionally stable piece of TMDE.
Click to expand...

they have been doing this for years.
not only that they have been collecting data from earth based stations in very poor and down right pathetic locations.

61% of the USHCN monitors have a CRN rating of 4. which means they have a >= 2 degree heat bias built into them.

8% of them have a CRN rating of 5 which is a >= 5 degree heat bias.
only 10% of the monitoring stations have a rating of 1 which is 1 Degree or less heat bias.

Then people wonder why we don't trust their measurements.
the whole thing is a joke.

Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions - NaturalNews.com

yea this is what we call science. I have to laugh at the claim.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
If your objection is thus in the technical realm then you really should present it at Climate Etc.
Click to expand...

Since you're no longer defending the paper, I think we're done here.
 

[h=1]NOAA’s New “Pauses-Buster” Sea Surface Temperature Data – The Curiosities Extend into the 1st Half of the 20th Century…[/h] …PLUS AN OBVIOUS ERROR IN THE NEW NOAA ERSST.V4 PAPER Guest Post by Bob Tisdale We’ve discussed NOAA’s new ERSST.v4 “pauses-buster” sea surface temperature reconstruction in a number of posts this year. They are linked at the end of this post. We can add yet another curiosity to the list…this time relating to the global…
Continue reading →
 
Zeke Hausfather's comments reflect essentially the same concerns as mine. He's a player, so one would think they would be taken seriously. Yet Loehle has had no substantive response. It's looking to me like the results are not robust. You should be able to find them by search.
 
Poor Debater said:
Zeke Hausfather's comments reflect essentially the same concerns as mine. He's a player, so one would think they would be taken seriously. Yet Loehle has had no substantive response. It's looking to me like the results are not robust. You should be able to find them by search.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Looks to my amateur eye like the discussion is ongoing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom