New Research

[knocker]

 

[dusk]

http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15A-00004.1

Such identification of oscillators and general trends over 160 years would be of great importance for distinguishing long-term, natural developments from possible, more recent anthropogenic sea-level changes. However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world's best recorded region.

[knocker]

 

[knocker]

Predicting annual temperatures a year ahead

Quote

I have a post at Nate Silver’s 538 site on how we can predict annual surface temperature anomalies based on El Niño and persistence – including a (by now unsurprising) prediction for a new record in 2016 and a slightly cooler, but still very warm, 2017.

The key results are summarized in the figures that show how residual variations in the global temperatures (after detrending) related to the ENSO phase at the beginning of the year (defined using the MEI), and the predictions for 2016 (two methods) and 2017.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/predicting-annual-temperatures-a-year-ahead/

[knocker]

The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism

Quote

Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable. People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking. Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earth’s climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. Hence, claims that the globe “is cooling” can coexist with claims that the “observed warming is natural” and that “the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us.” Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that “something must be wrong” with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-016-1198-6 (Open Access)

[knocker]

Lancashire temperatures, visualised

Quote

This visualisation of temperatures in Lancashire (UK) shows annual mean data from 1754-2015. The long-term warming trend is clear, with variability from year to year, and some temporary cooler periods due to large volcanic eruptions. The average of the 19th century (black line) separates the warm and cold colours.

This image will be displayed as part of the Into The Blue science festival in Manchester in October.

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/lancashire-temperatures/

[knocker]

 

[dusk]

On 20/09/2016 at 16:55, knocker said:

The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-016-1198-6 (Open Access)

I thought this was a thread concerning "new research" on the subject of climate "science", not the regurgitation of psycho-analytics from AGW alarmists that examine thought processes rather than the science.   

[BornFromTheVoid]

8 hours ago, dusk said:

I thought this was a thread concerning "new research" on the subject of climate "science", not the regurgitation of psycho-analytics from AGW alarmists that examine thought processes rather than the science.   

I'm afraid it is a scientific study, published in a scientific journal, by scientists and it's related to climate change. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the fact that it's on topic.

[dusk]

Ah.

I see.

"New Research" in this sub-forum allows for papers authored by psycho-analysts (Lewandowsky) and those that distort evidence through advocacy websites such as SkepticalScience (Cook).

I suppose that new papers submitted by the likes of Mann / Bradley / Hughes / Ammann / Hegerl / Jones / Briffa / Overpeck et al will be posted as clear evidence of AGW, despite using short-centered cherry-picked proxies.

[jvenge]

20 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

I'm afraid it is a scientific study, published in a scientific journal, by scientists and it's related to climate change. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the fact that it's on topic.

Well, it is a psychology study mainly and not published by a scientist in a field even loosely related to climate. Not peer reviewed either. Indeed, when it touches on science, it undermines it. Because skeptics hold different views on the cause of recent warming, they all must be wrong UNTIL a new theory, accepted by all, replaces Co2. According to them, anyway.

Thankfully that's not how science works.

It is also trash, just like their previous "work". 

Edited October 15, 2016 by jvenge

[BornFromTheVoid]

7 hours ago, dusk said:

Ah.

I see.

"New Research" in this sub-forum allows for papers authored by psycho-analysts (Lewandowsky) and those that distort evidence through advocacy websites such as SkepticalScience (Cook).

I suppose that new papers submitted by the likes of Mann / Bradley / Hughes / Ammann / Hegerl / Jones / Briffa / Overpeck et al will be posted as clear evidence of AGW, despite using short-centered cherry-picked proxies.

Short-centered cherry-picked proxies, a fine example. You see, given the large amount of climate inaction, it's important to understand why people like you dismiss thousands and thousands of peer reviewed research by experts, each, with decades of research experience in favour of sound bites they picked up from agenda driven blogs.

4 hours ago, jvenge said:

Well, it is a psychology study mainly and not published by a scientist in a field even loosely related to climate. Not peer reviewed either. Indeed, when it touches on science, it undermines it. Because skeptics hold different views on the cause of recent warming, they all must be wrong UNTIL a new theory, accepted by all, replaces Co2. According to them, anyway.

Thankfully that's not how science works.

It is also trash, just like their previous "work". 

First of all, it is in a peer reviewed journal, so lets be clear on that! It's easy to call something you don't like trash, but usually, in science, trash papers get debunked by subsequent papers that refute their findings.

Secondly, as pointed out earlier, it's important to understand why, despite such a massive body of evidence and agreement among the experts on the subject, so many laypeople continue to deny the existence or extent of AGW. Exploring areas such as the kind of physcological reasoning they employ to so often hold such seemingly contradictory and hypocritical views, their relationship to conspiratorial thinking can help in understanding these problems. This is what the paper in question appears to do.

This kind of research is important for many things, not just climate science. If we want the produce enough food for an ever growing population, we need more acceptance of GMOs, but despite expert consensus on their safety much of the public (mostly left wing folk) are against them. Similarly with anti-vaccination groups, or people that believe in homeopathy over actual medicine. These are important problems in science with which the opponents involved display a lot of the same conspiratorial thinking, so attempts to understand the biggest one - climate science, can potentially provide insight into the cognitive biases involved in other forms of science denial/disdain
 

[jvenge]

If you really read the paper and previous work by those "scientists", even though every single one was debunked, and still agree it is meaningful, I guess I'm done looking here. As there is more point talking to a wall.

It is a trash paper, already discredited, just like the authors others before it and isn't even remotely scientific. It has no place here and no place anywhere, to be perfectly honest. Well, I know where I put my trash ;-)

 

[knocker]

New research – temperature (October 18, 2016)

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/new-research-temperature-october-18-2016/

[BornFromTheVoid]

Met Office research increases skill in predicting winter outlook

17 October 2016 - Met Office research is showing the first skilful predictions of European winter one year ahead

The winters of Europe and North America are notoriously variable and until recently were believed to be too unpredictable to forecast, being driven by largely chaotic processes.

In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience, scientists at the Met Office have demonstrated significant advances in predicting up to one year ahead the phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which drives European and North American winter variability. The NAO - a large-scale gradient in air pressure measured between low pressure around Iceland and high pressure around the Azores - is the primary driver of winter climate variability for Europe.

More here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2016/winter-forecast-skill

Full Paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/ngeo2824.pdf

[Gael_Force]

3 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Met Office research increases skill in predicting winter outlook

17 October 2016 - Met Office research is showing the first skilful predictions of European winter one year ahead

The winters of Europe and North America are notoriously variable and until recently were believed to be too unpredictable to forecast, being driven by largely chaotic processes.

In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience, scientists at the Met Office have demonstrated significant advances in predicting up to one year ahead the phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which drives European and North American winter variability. The NAO - a large-scale gradient in air pressure measured between low pressure around Iceland and high pressure around the Azores - is the primary driver of winter climate variability for Europe.

More here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2016/winter-forecast-skill

Full Paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/ngeo2824.pdf

I'm taking issue with the part in bold. My understanding has always been that the NAO index is a reflection of what the current weather is doing and is not something that, of itself, drives circulation patterns. Is this press release badly worded or is there something new discovered that I'm missing?

[BornFromTheVoid]

5 minutes ago, Gael_Force said:

I'm taking issue with the part in bold. My understanding has always been that the NAO index is a reflection of what the current weather is doing and is not something that, of itself, drives circulation patterns. Is this press release badly worded or is there something new discovered that I'm missing?

In the paper itself they describe it as the "primary mode of atmospheric variability in the North Atlantic region" rather than a driver. Press releases often aren't the most scientifically accurate

[Yarmy]

The full Spring Nature Sharedit version is here, which means you can read the whole thing for free (at I can read the whole thing on my mac, but the paywalled partial version comes up on my iPad):

http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2824.epdf?referrer_access_token=jKTubgewPuIDh8OqD1S7tdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OzBduhqTzC8BUtSPJEpoNjCfWQXhPSWLjHiX_6tZL0TQuhKaCS_4WDclf_gov_dmYw_ZDgMW-M0rkcJbcPxfG6CFtsgeSL2Pjb7TJ3G3A-TV6nIeHpBPPTR4ohed-U5rMCyFlX-51TWSiCJ1-mKDjPzeQyMJLcLBZTf-8WuVXE9omg88Xltk-GFUfyso9e3JnlKOjKcq28mZb33Qkg1WqoF8bjshd1r9x4LqAq2zuaOBjqu4lNLxeuDvfPcypntG8%3D&tracking_referrer=www.telegraph.co.uk

Quote

In summary, the MLR and correlation analyses (Figs 3 and 4b) both indicate that the two dominant drivers of the second-winter NAO skill are ENSO and the SPVS, which we also note are not significantly correlated with each other.

(SPVS = Stratospheric Polar Vortex Strength)

 

 

[knocker]

Historical records may underestimate sea level rise

Quote

A new NASA and university study using NASA satellite data finds that tide gauges — the longest and highest-quality records of historical ocean water levels — may have underestimated the amount of global average sea level rise that occurred during the 20th century.

A research team led by Philip Thompson, associate director of the University of Hawaii Sea Level Center in the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, Manoa, evaluated how various processes that cause sea level to change differently in different places may have affected past measurements. The team also included scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, and Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2504/historical-records-may-underestimate-sea-level-rise/

[knocker]

Arctic amplification: does it impact the polar jet stream?

Quote

It has been hypothesised that the Arctic amplification of temperature changes causes a decrease in the northward temperature gradient in the troposphere, thereby enhancing the oscillation of planetary waves leading to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. To test this hypothesis, we study the response of the atmosphere to Arctic amplification for a projected summer sea-ice-free period using an atmospheric model with prescribed surface boundary conditions from a state-of-the-art Earth system model. Besides a standard global warming simulation, we also conducted a sensitivity experiment with sea ice and sea surface temperature anomalies in the Arctic. We show that when global climate warms, enhancement of the northward heat transport provides the major contribution to decrease the northward temperature gradient in the polar troposphere in cold seasons, causing more oscillation of the planetary waves. However, while Arctic amplification significantly enhances near-surface air temperature in the polar region, it is not large enough to invoke an increased oscillation of the planetary waves.

http://www.tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/view/32330  (open access)

[BornFromTheVoid]

Keeping with the Arctic theme:

Persistent shift of the Arctic polar vortex towards the Eurasian continent in recent decades

The wintertime Arctic stratospheric polar vortex has weakened over the past three decades, and consequently cold surface air from high latitudes is now more likely to move into the middle latitudes1, 2, 3, 4, 5. However, it is not known if the location of the polar vortex has also experienced a persistent change in response to Arctic climate change and whether any changes in the vortex position have implications for the climate system. Here, through the analysis of various data sets and model simulations, we show that the Arctic polar vortex shifted persistently towards the Eurasian continent and away from North America in February over the past three decades. This shift is found to be closely related to the enhanced zonal wavenumber-1 waves in response to Arctic sea-ice loss, particularly over the Barents–Kara seas (BKS). Increased snow cover over the Eurasian continent may also have contributed to the shift. Our analysis reveals that the vortex shift induces cooling over some parts of the Eurasian continent and North America which partly offsets the tropospheric climate warming there in the past three decades. The potential vortex shift in response to persistent sea-ice loss in the future6, 7, and its associated climatic impact, deserve attention to better constrain future climate changes.

 

Media report of the study: Dreaded Polar Vortex May Be Shifting. As the Arctic wind pattern migrates toward Europe it could allow frigid air to descend upon the U.S.

Edited October 28, 2016 by BornFromTheVoid

[Nouska]

1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Keeping with the Arctic theme:

Persistent shift of the Arctic polar vortex towards the Eurasian continent in recent decades

The wintertime Arctic stratospheric polar vortex has weakened over the past three decades, and consequently cold surface air from high latitudes is now more likely to move into the middle latitudes1, 2, 3, 4, 5. However, it is not known if the location of the polar vortex has also experienced a persistent change in response to Arctic climate change and whether any changes in the vortex position have implications for the climate system. Here, through the analysis of various data sets and model simulations, we show that the Arctic polar vortex shifted persistently towards the Eurasian continent and away from North America in February over the past three decades. This shift is found to be closely related to the enhanced zonal wavenumber-1 waves in response to Arctic sea-ice loss, particularly over the Barents–Kara seas (BKS). Increased snow cover over the Eurasian continent may also have contributed to the shift. Our analysis reveals that the vortex shift induces cooling over some parts of the Eurasian continent and North America which partly offsets the tropospheric climate warming there in the past three decades. The potential vortex shift in response to persistent sea-ice loss in the future6, 7, and its associated climatic impact, deserve attention to better constrain future climate changes.

 

Media report of the study: Dreaded Polar Vortex May Be Shifting. As the Arctic wind pattern migrates toward Europe it could allow frigid air to descend upon the U.S.

Altering geomagnetic fields on earth and in the sun have been a bit of a crackpot theory in climate but I wonder...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817231_Are_there_connections_between_the_Earth's_magnetic_field_and_climate

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Earth_s_magnetic_heartbeat

Below diagram of shift in magnetic north is very similar to the dots in the PV shift plot in the linked paper.

 

[knocker]

Tuning in to climate models

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/10/tuning-in-to-climate-models/

[knocker]

Nothing particularly new about this but it's putting somewhere

Chemistry of sequestration and carbon cycles.

Quote

There has been some recent discussion of carbon cycles. ATTP had a good series on ocean CO₂ uptake here. And in the context of sequestration, WUWT reported on some recent experiments with sequestering CO₂ in basic basalt rocks. The discussion showed that there is a lot people don't understand about the basic chemistry driving the carbon cycle, which this chemical sequestration tries to exploit.

https://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/chemistry-of-sequestration-and-carbon.html

[Gray-Wolf]

I must admit I have been waiting for this research to appear as it was/is common sense AGW?

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3058.html

Dimming was discover during last century as it was notice that Pan evaporation rates , around the world, had fallen away as if something was blocking the solar from arriving at the surface. Particulate pollution and sulphates were found to be 'dimming' the energy arriving at the surface and so slowing warming. with our 'clean air acts temps slowly began to show increases through the 80's/90's but then the rapid growth in Asia placed another 'brown cloud' around the planet. It would appear we now know a bit more about the impacts this has placed on climate over the period of its dominance. China is now rapidly reducing its dirty pollution to try and handle the rising death rates it has caused in their major urban centres.