Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (76777)

5/10/2017 1:00:39 PM

From: Brumar89

Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 86355

Leading Alarmist Climate Scientist Concedes NO Anthropogenic Signal Found In Tropical Pacific

By P Gosselin on 9. May 2017

Mojib Latif: Climate models fail to simulate tropical Pacific. No detectable anthropogenic signal

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Prof. Mojib Latif is a widely sought out speaker for events and the German media, and he never passes up the opportunity to warn the public of the impending climate catastrophe. However at his his daytime job he is also a scientist, and there he publishes research results on a regular basis. On many occasions we have noticed that in his scientific papers he appears to be far less dramatic and more balanced than he is in the media. Some examples follow:

<a title="Permalink to Mojib Latif im Fachvortrag in den USA: Die CO2-Klimasensitivität ist vom IPCC zu hoch angesetzt worden" href="http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=12943" rel="bookmark" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; outline: none; background: transparent; border: none; cursor: pointer; color: rgb(60, 115, 140);">Mojib Latif in a presentation in USA: CO2 climate sensitivity is set to high by the IPCC<a title="Permalink to Späte Einsicht: Mojib Latif verwirft CO2-Fingerabdruck in der Stratosphäre und setzt endlich auf Ozeanzyklen" href="http://www.kaltesonne.de/spate-einsicht-mojib-latif-verwirft-co2-fingerabdruck-in-der-stratosphare-und-setzt-endlich-auf-ozeanzyklen/" rel="bookmark" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; outline: none; background: transparent; border: none; cursor: pointer; color: rgb(60, 115, 140);">Late realization:

Mojib Latif abandons CO2-fingerprint in the stratosphere and finally focusses on ocean cycles Mojib Latif: Models must account much more for natural variability On April 5, 2017, in the Geophysical Research Letters there’s yet another example to behold. With his colleagues Latif examined the tropical Pacific. In the eastern and central parts temperatures have cooled over the past two decades. Climate models are having a hard time recreating this development. Latif and his group looked at this case and assumed that natural climate variability is behind it. They have not been able to find an anthropogenic impact on the temperature development in this region.

They conclude that the climate models would be too uncertain to make forecasts concerning the acting circulation in the region.

With that in mind, wouldn’t it be nice if Latif mentioned this the next time he appears on a talk show? But don’t hold your breath thinking this will happen anytime soon.

It’s the two faces of Mojib Latif. It’s unclear how her goes about justifying this scientifically and ethically. What follows is the abstract with the highlighted main points:

Role of Internal Variability in Recent Decadal to Multidecadal Tropical Pacific Climate Changes

Mohammad Hadi Bordbar, Thomas Martin, Mojib Latif and Wonsun Park

While the Earth’s surface has considerably warmed over the past two decades, the tropical Pacific has featured a cooling of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in its eastern and central part, which went along with an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial Trade Winds, the surface component of the Pacific Walker Circulation (PWC). Previous studies show that this decadal trend in the Trade Winds is generally beyond the range of decadal trends simulated by climate models when forced by historical radiative forcing. There is still a debate on the origin of and the potential role that internal variability may have played in the recent decadal surface wind trend. Using a number of long control (unforced) integrations of global climate models and several observational datasets, we address the question as to whether the recent decadal to multidecadal trends are robustly classified as an unusual event or the persistent response to external forcing. The observed trends in the tropical Pacific surface climate are still within the range of the long-term internal variability spanned by the models but represent an extreme realization of this variability. Thus, the recent observed decadal trends in the tropical Pacific, though highly unusual, could be of natural origin. We note that the long-term trends in the selected PWC indices exhibit a large observational uncertainty, even hindering definitive statements about the sign of the trends.

Highlights:

Pacific Walker Circulation strongly varies internallyAnthropogenic signals in the tropical Pacific sector are hard to detectThere is large model uncertainty about the future of the Pacific Walker Circulation”

- See more at: notrickszone.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (76777)	5/12/2017 8:00:21 AM
From: Eric	Respond to of 86355

Climate change scepticism Climate Consensus - the 97% More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates A new study suggests there are remaining biases in the oft-corrected University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric temperature estimates Aqua satellite in space orbiting Earth. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo John Abraham Thursday 11 May 2017 11.00 BST Last modified on Friday 12 May 2017 10.47 BST Human emission of heat-trapping gases is causing the Earth to warm. We’ve known that for many decades. In fact, there are no reputable scientists that dispute this fact. There are, however, a few scientists who don’t think the warming will be very much or that we should worry about it. These contrarians have been shown to be wrong over and over again, like in the movie Groundhog Day. And, a new study just out shows they may have another error. But, despite being wrong, they continue to claim Earth’s warming isn’t something to be concerned about. Perhaps the darlings of the denialist community are two researchers out of Alabama ( John Christy and Roy Spencer). They rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming. To provide perspective, we know the Earth is warming because we can measure it. Most of the heat (93%) goes into the oceans and we have sensors measuring ocean temperatures that show this. We also know about warming because we have thermometers and other sensors all over the planet measuring the temperature at the surface or in the first few meters of air at the surface. Those temperatures are rising too. We are also seeing ice melting and sea level rising around the planet. So, the evidence is clear. What Christy and Spencer focus on is the temperatures measured far above the Earth’s surface in the troposphere and the stratosphere. Generally, over the past few decades these two scientists have claimed the troposphere temperatures are not rising very rapidly. This argument has been picked up to deny the reality of human caused climate change – but it has been found to be wrong. What kinds of errors have been made? Well first, let’s understand how these two researchers measure atmospheric temperatures. They are not using thermometers, rather they are using microwave signals from the atmosphere to deduce temperatures. The microwave sensors are on satellites which rapidly circle the planet. Some of the problems they have struggled with relate to satellite altitudes (they slowly fall over their lifetimes, and this orbital decay biases the readings); satellite drift (their orbits shift east-west a small amount causing an error); they errantly include stratosphere temperatures in their lower atmosphere readings; and they have incorrect temperature calibration on the satellites. It’s pretty deep stuff, but I have written about the errors multiple times here, and here for people who want a deeper dive into the details. It’s important to recognize that there are four other groups that make similar measurement estimates, so it’s possible to compare the temperatures of one group against another. The new paper, completed by Eric Swanson and published by the American Meteorological Society compares the results from three different groups. He focused on measurements made over the Arctic region. His comparison found two main differences amongst the three groups that suggests the errors. To better appreciate the issues, the satellites have instruments called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) or more recently, Advanced Microwave Soundings Units (AMSUs). These instruments allow reconstruction of the lower troposphere (TLT), the mid-troposphere temperature (TMT), and the lower stratosphere temperature (TLS). But the measurements are not at a specific location (like a thermometer) - they are smeared out over large spaces. As a consequence, it’s possible to have one layer of the atmosphere contaminate the results of another layer. You wouldn’t for instance, want your measurement of the troposphere (lower atmosphere) to include part of the stratosphere (above the troposphere). Among the key differences among the research teams are their methods to ensure this contamination is minimized. According to the recent paper, which was published in January 2017: At present, the UAH v6 (most recent Christy/Spencer data) results are preliminary and a fifth revision has now been released as v6beta5 (Spencer 2016). The release of the UAH version 6 products before publication is unusual, and Spencer recently stated that a manuscript has been submitted for a peer-reviewed publication. While some may find it scientifically inappropriate to utilize UAH v6b6 data before publication, these data have already been presented in testimony during congressional hearings before both the U.S. House and Senate and have also appeared on websites and in public print articles. The author compared the Christy/Spencer data (UAH data) with another group (the RSS group) and found that the results diverged during the 1986-1988 time period. This shift “could arise from a step change or bias in either series.” When the author compared UAH with the third group (NOAA), the difference was still evident. However, when he compared RSS to NOAA, there was hardly a difference. The author also noted that the timing of this divergence coincided with the merging of a new satellite NOAA-9, and this satellite has previously been identified as a source of error in the UAH results. But the author continued the analysis to more recent times and found another anomaly in 2005 which has since been corrected in NOAA. Look, measuring temperatures from satellites flying high above Earth is hard. No one doubts that. But let’s not be deluded into thinking these satellites are more accurate than thermometers ( as some people suggest). Let’s also not blindly accept low-ball warming information from research teams that have long histories of revising their data. I created the image below a few years ago to show the upward revisions made by the Christy/Spencer team over time in their global troposphere temperatures. University of Alabama at Huntsville estimates of the atmospheric temperature trend before and after correcting for various errors. Illustration: John Abraham It is relevant to be reminded of these revisions; had we believed the results from the 1990s, we’d still think the world was cooling, and we’d still be wrong. theguardian.com