|
Post by steve on Mar 2, 2011 10:20:15 GMT
As I've repeatedly said, if UH was a significant factor in the global temperature trend it would be relatively easy to show. No-one has managed to show it because no UH signal exists in either the GISS or Hadley records. That is precisely why i do not trust GISS or Hadley. The real UH is well known IRL but nonexistent in models. At least should GISS and Hadley have some signal due to urbanization, but no. Not any signal whatsoever, despite a growing population and strong urbanization worldwide. *Nonexistent in models*!!! What *are* you talking about. A study of the surface stations, using the categorisation given by Anthony Watts surface stations project shows that the trend of the stations judged worse is the same as the trend of the stations judged the best. Studies looking for growing urban effects, such as the Parker paper, find growing UHI in a few stations, but the proportion of affected stations is small and the increase in the UHI effect is small. So there *is* a signal, but it is tiny. This appears to be one of the climateaudit threads where Steve Mosher saw the light: climateaudit.org/2007/06/14/parker-2006-an-urban-myth/
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 2, 2011 10:10:35 GMT
The Muslim Brotherhood is backing Elbaradi in alternative government negotiations, so say many of the 600,000 Google search results for El Baradi or Elbaradi Muslim brotherhood. Knew you couldn't rely on Google;) WSJ: Having the backing of is slightly different to being linked to. The opposition in Egypt has been somewhat fractured. This is an indication that the Muslim Brotherhood see that a coalition led by El Baradi is their best option. The Muslim Brotherhood do not have wide support in Egypt, so the phraseology of what you wrote sounded like it was an attempt to inspire paranoia about a person who has criticised the US in the past.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 2, 2011 9:27:07 GMT
magellan, So you anticipated that response but reply with a response to glc Presumably because you don't have a response as... ...the observations support the fact that a warmer world correlates with increased levels of *OBSERVED* extreme precipitation. Thank you What observation of increased extreme weather? We're talking about precipitation, not weather in general. See the papers I linked to.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 2, 2011 9:21:07 GMT
Sounds to me like you may be reproducing a smear. Sounds to me like you may be reproducing a smear. Sounds to me you are in the beginnings of reproducing a lie. Unless you have some insight into Egyptian politics that noone else has, you must as a sceptic recognise that a phrase such as "connected to" is carefully selected to deceive without lying. When the implied criticism is about someone who has criticised the US in the past your alarm bells should be ringing.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 1, 2011 10:33:11 GMT
IAlso, El Baradi was the chief UN weapons inspector. He is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood and is now tipped as a candidate in a new Egyptian Government, although unlikely to succeed as he has been out of the country too long. Be careful what you believe. Sounds to me like you may be reproducing a smear.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 1, 2011 9:13:24 GMT
There's been an East West split in the UK, so Devon was lovely and warm last week with plenty of Sun and temps into the mid-teens. Bit chilly and drab so far this week though.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 1, 2011 9:09:39 GMT
An early result from the Berkeley project can be found within this presentation. It seems it is with just 2% of their data. www.lbl.gov/Publications/Director/docs/CC2_all_hands_Jan_2011_apa.pdfThe results are not dissimilar to the other datasets. Of course with further analysis they may find a 0.001C lower centennial trend which will set the blogosphere alight
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 28, 2011 10:14:11 GMT
Magellan
You need to tell Anthony Watts to get his **** in gear to publish something on surfacestations. Otherwise he's going to miss the IPCC submission deadline.
Lets talk about UHI then.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 28, 2011 9:52:38 GMT
magellan, So you anticipated that response but reply with a response to glc Presumably because you don't have a response as... ...the observations support the fact that a warmer world correlates with increased levels of *OBSERVED* extreme precipitation. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 27, 2011 19:10:44 GMT
magellan
You call glc and matt clueless and then you make a dumb misinterpretation like the above. Really, it is absolutely not worth talking to you sometime. Now reread and say something sensible please.
More "I can't think of an argument so I'll take a crack at models with an evidence free criticism".
As I understand it, the forecast resolution for the regional models have only recently become good enough to resolve Boscastle type events (intense very localised precipitation) - their resolution is less than 10km. The highest resolution global models are measured in 10s of km resolution.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 27, 2011 14:56:45 GMT
Magellan,
Sigurdur is interested in evidence of observed data, not models. The observed data shows increased examples of extreme precipitation with rising temperatures. As it happens, so do the models. That the distribution of the precipitation changes may not be correct is a different issue related to the computer-power limits placed on global model resolution. Studies such as the one you link to need to be done on regional models.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 26, 2011 18:59:58 GMT
Both data and models show increase in extreme precipitation. But just because you think models are garbage does not make it so. I think I have figured out that if you think the evidence agrees with your gut feeling then you will accept it. More gut feeling then. There are other studies that show little change, so this is noise and can be ignored. Steve: Please show me the data showing there has been an increase in extreme precipitation. I have googled schoolar to find papers that actually show this, and have come up empty handed when one takes a long term view. Also, I have found that stream flow, etc can't seem to get in the papers I have read. I am all ears if you had papers that show your thoughts to be valid. Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation Authors: Alexander, L. V. et al Free PDF bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/1477/1/Stephenson.pdfTrends in intense precipitation in the climate record PY Groisman, RW Knight, DR Easterling… - Journal of Climate 2005 Sub required: journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3339.1
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 26, 2011 18:45:54 GMT
spaceman, The temperatures are fitting within the envelope of the model projections (though over the relatively short period of model projections there is quite a lot of leeway). The models predict roughly 0.1-0.2C of warming per decade, and that is roughly the amount of warming observed. That rate of warming will continue for 2-3 decades even if we stopped CO2 emissions - don't know if you think that counts as "dramatic". The proxy reconstruction arguments are about whether the current extent and rate of warming has occurred in the past. The argument against the hockeystick type reconstructions is that the resolution and sensitivity of the proxies may not be good enough to show a signal of the sort of warming we are seeing now. The longer the current warmth remains and the longer the warming goes on, the weaker that argument gets (unless someone can do a more sensitive proxy reconstruction).
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 25, 2011 16:41:57 GMT
Steve: I think you have figured out by now that if the evidence is credible, I will accept it. Forget the models. They feed on themselves and are really starting to produce garbage. Give me data. Thank you. Both data and models show increase in extreme precipitation. But just because you think models are garbage does not make it so. I think I have figured out that if you think the evidence agrees with your gut feeling then you will accept it. More gut feeling then. There are other studies that show little change, so this is noise and can be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 25, 2011 16:00:58 GMT
In other words, you mean that your bet is that you are wrong - temperatures will continue to rise, but you are preparing the ground on which you will state that it has nothing to do with any future catastrophes such as floods enhanced by sea level rise, strong hurricanes, examples of extreme precipitation or long and intense heatwaves. Interesting Steve. So far, there is no evidence that the additional warmth has caused any type of weather disaster anywhere. You're wrong there, unless you mean no evidence that you are prepared to accept, which is of course not the same thing. Both data and models show increase in extreme precipitation, and there are attribution studies that link warming to the 2003 European heatwave that killed 10s of thousands. There is no evidence of a rise in people who are sceptics in the US.
|
|