tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post6809710702807952337..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Klotzbach in the BlogosphereMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-21352047879300177352009-08-20T09:50:59.311-07:002009-08-20T09:50:59.311-07:00Gavin again addresses the so-called "bias&quo...Gavin again addresses the so-called "bias" in surface trend:<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/resolving-technical-issues-in-science/comment-page-4/#comment-134337Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13742905742181959851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-29090098532561849872009-08-19T13:29:33.759-07:002009-08-19T13:29:33.759-07:00Faster link to the comments at James's for any...Faster link to the comments at James's for anyone interested.<br /><br />http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/curiouser-and-curiouser.html#commentsDeep Climatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07739846320319167391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-70350200680318412652009-08-19T13:26:29.733-07:002009-08-19T13:26:29.733-07:00I don't think you and James are that far apart...I don't think you and James are that far apart.<br /><br />Klotzbach et al claim that various surface/satellite discrepancies provide evidence of a "warm bias" in the surface land temperature series.<br /><br />That claim simply doesn't hold up, due to various problems, including use of the wrong amplification factor and incomplete statistical analysis.<br /><br />I've expanded on this at James's blog, so I won't repeat it all now, although I'm interested in your reaction (and his).<br /><br />But, to me, one telling point is that incorporating GISS amplification factors results in better agreement between HadCRU and the sat observations over land than over ocean (or globally). So it can no longer be argued that there is "warm bias", even a reduced one, in the HadCRU land temperature series.<br /><br />Or am I missing something?<br /><br />For more see:<br />http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/curiouser-and-curiouser.htmlDeep Climatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07739846320319167391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-48786783698539350992009-08-19T12:08:12.693-07:002009-08-19T12:08:12.693-07:00In the comments, I paraphrsaed Gavin as saying &qu...In the comments, I paraphrsaed Gavin as saying "Therefore the problem you propose to solve does not exist."<br /><br />James says "This correction immediately knocks off half of the missing amplification effect that Klotzbach et al was explaining."<br /><br />In fact I don't entirely understand what James is saying, but James is one of those people who, when when they disagree with me on a matter of substance in their expertise, I am immediately inclined to abandon my position. <br /><br />Maybe I retreated too far now that I think about it. <br /><br />I think what James is saying is that there remains a small difference between what the models say should be the difference between the surface and the tropospheric trends vs what the observations say<br />about it.<br /><br />Is that what we are supposed to be losing sleep over? A small difference between the small differences of small trends between the predictions of an imperfect model and an imperfect measuring system? Not my idea of a very robust statistic, even if you can paint the latitude-height map of it as a bright pink bullseye.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-33224234332844060812009-08-19T08:37:10.652-07:002009-08-19T08:37:10.652-07:00@Paul
Where do think you went a little to far?
N...@Paul<br /><br /><i>Where do think you went a little to far?</i><br /><br />Not to speak for MT, but if James/Gavin are correct, it's looking less and less likely that the Klotzbach paper actually does reconcile the suspected discrepancy between surface and topospheric trends, which MT had stipulated for the purpose of argument and thought was significant enough of a finding as to make all of the sidelong winking at the Watts crowd bizarre.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-26256565086611760222009-08-19T07:37:19.405-07:002009-08-19T07:37:19.405-07:00Michael,
Where do think you went a little to far?...Michael,<br /><br />Where do think you went a little to far?<br /><br />Paul MiddentsPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13742905742181959851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-40763682357294150672009-08-19T07:20:48.553-07:002009-08-19T07:20:48.553-07:00It appears I've gone a little too far above. J...It appears I've gone a little too far above. James summarizes <a href="http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/curiouser-and-curiouser.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-68342579400050969002009-08-18T23:29:33.886-07:002009-08-18T23:29:33.886-07:00Hmm... so there is no boundary layer effect due to...Hmm... so there is no boundary layer effect due to nighttime out-radiation to speak of. It's all the thermal inertia of the ocean...<br /><br />I's like to be a fly on the wall when the time comes to agree on the title of the new paper.Martin Vermeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04537045395760606324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3324254913532246442009-08-18T20:06:17.540-07:002009-08-18T20:06:17.540-07:00Never mind - the Paul's link to RP jr seems OK...Never mind - the Paul's link to RP jr seems OK again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-84401421681778036202009-08-18T16:41:52.218-07:002009-08-18T16:41:52.218-07:00Something funny going on - the link to the post do...Something funny going on - the link to the post doesn't work, but it's still up at the front page.<br /><br />I have a feeling they jumped the gun.<br /><br />Anyway. If you look at the recalculated amplification metrics, Hadley shows better agreement with satellites over land than over ocean. Doesn't that completely negate the essential point about land "bias"?<br /><br />And I still think the significance thresholds don't look right (as I commented at Janes Annan's).<br /><br />The response from K et al is hilarious, unintentionally of course. <br /><br />I'd like to see a comment, or even better, a paper from Schmidt and others (wonder if Santer has time), with a proper analysis of land vs ocean amplification in models and observations. It's not as if a proper analysis hasn't been done before (e.g. for the tropics).<br /><br />Poor old JGR - that's two problematic papers in a month.Deep Climatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07739846320319167391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-27519070117727300492009-08-18T15:46:07.384-07:002009-08-18T15:46:07.384-07:00Informal translation of Gavin's comment. Someb...Informal translation of Gavin's comment. Somebody please correct me if this is wrong.<br /><br /><em>"One wouldn't expect tropospheric amplification over land and it doesn't appear in the models. Therefore the problem you propose to solve does not exist.<br /><br />"The reason to not expect amplification over land is simple and requires no appeal to subtle boundary layer processes. Most tropical land is not far from the ocean, and the ocean dominates the patterns in the tropical belt. Accordingly, the tropospheric profile in the tropics will be close to the oceanic one. On the other hand the land surface heats much faster than the ocean. (This is well known. It's basically because the ocean transports heat downward in currents and eddies so you have to warm a larger mass to make a difference.) So the usual amplification over the ocean doesn't appear over land in the models or in the data, there really isn't much to explain, and there certainly is no need to appeal to the effectiveness of boundary layer mixing."</em><br /><br />Informal translation of K et al reply, as usual, is beyond me, but it seems to say "thank you for confirming our results"!Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3395227401815572192009-08-18T14:57:55.154-07:002009-08-18T14:57:55.154-07:00Gavin Schmidt has weighed with some important soun...Gavin Schmidt has weighed with some important sounding stuff on the surface to altitude amplification ratios alluded to by James in his blog post. <br /><br />http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/exchange-with-gavin-schmidt-on.html<br /><br />Paul MiddentsPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13742905742181959851noreply@blogger.com