Unthreaded
Pcar
Notice that the part of Golkany's paper I criticised had nothing to do with Zhu et al.
I've been looking at Zhu et al and have noticed a couple of points.
Firstly, my suggestion that the net effect of extra CO2 in arid/ semi-arid areas is negative. Look at the maps in Figure 1.
The most well defined arid area, Australia, shows pale green or yellow in all maps and definitely yellow in GLAS. Leaf area has reduced. I think Matt Ridley is mistaken.
Now look at Figure 1d, the trend probability distributions. The modes, the maximum probability values, are what I am looking at.
Both GIMMS and GLOBEMAP show no trend at all. AVG shows a trend of 0.002. That is an increase of 20cm^2/m^2/year, two postage stamps.
Since a typical crop will have a leaf area around 10,000 sq.cm, that is an annual increase of 0.2%,
Only GLAS shows significant change, a trend of 0.025. This is an increase of 250sq.cm, half a sheet of A4 paper, and an annual increase of 2.5%.
With two out of four sensors showing no trend and only one showing a significant change, Zhu et al is very weak evidence of greening. Goldany and Ridley are making a propoganda mountain out of a greening molehill.
Entropic man
@stewgreen, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:33 PM
Re: WWF vetebrates reduction
As this was aired today to coincide with WWF release, save the thick useless birds on Gough Island will be repeated ad infinitum.
BBC From Our Own Correspondent - Linguistic confusion and mass killers
Most birds are very defensive of their nests and children and attack predators much larger than themselves.
imho these birds are stupid. If after 100 years of mice eating their eggs and chicks they have not learned to defend their territory & children then extinction is justified. It's evolution.
Pcar
@Pcar if you are still talking about Greening you could either put the posts in a new thread or use the Matt Ridley debate thread if that was the main topic ..
---------------------
I've got another titbit ..
BBC bias : I see newswatch actually keep a whole set of transripts in their PDF studies of BBC bias
Their archive is here
I'm sure they'd have a job for Alex Cull
upto Oct 11th they'd been studying Brexit bias Blog introduces the Brexit report also introduced in a in a david-keighley blogpost
stewgreen
@EM,
What about the Zhu et al paper?
Where is it wrong? What errors does it contain?
Critiquing papers based on Zhu's without critiquing their source is mendacious.
Pcar
BTW that BBC WWF species decline piece actually doubly debunks it's own headline
"World wildlife 'falls by 58% in 40 years'"
cos buried in the text is
"This analysis looked at 3,700 different species of birds, fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles - about 6% of the total number of vertebrate species in the world."
#1 it's only vertebrates
#2 They didn't include 94% of vertebrates species in the survey..just 6%
stewgreen
"Share and Dismay" is the motto of the Guardian Facebook/Twitter page
stewgreen
Stewgreen, yes, DECC are a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
TinyCO2
Osseo, pcar
An example of Golkany's error. He has a graph comparing CMIP5 output with RSS and radiosonde data.
This is based on the graph John Cristey took to Congress. It has three faults.
1) He chose the 45 highest warming CMIP5 runs rather than using the average of the full 250+ .
2) He used original 2005 runs rather than forcing adjusted runs.
3) He is not comparing like with like. The CMIP5 output is surface temperatures of a similar format to HadCRUT. He is comparing it with RSS satellite data and radiosonde date. Both measure temperatures at various levels in the aatosphere, not the surface.
That graph was disappointing. It marked the point at which John Cristey ceased to be a respected scientist and became a political sceptic.
For a clearer comparison of the CMIP5 data with observation, try Ed Hawkins.
On greening, do you want to start a discussion thread?
Entropic man
Pcar
I've started a greening thread and transferred my 10.45 post.