Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 Next
Comments 59451 to 59500:
-
scaddenp at 13:09 PM on 4 May 2012It cooled mid-century
Hmm, I'm skeptical. Any evidence that aerosol loading from tests and large enough and continuous enough to have a significant effect on aerosol loading compared to industrial emissions? -
Realist at 12:56 PM on 4 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Andy I agree. Many countries would not be what they are today without what the US military budget has done for them. Poland, France, England, Australia, Libya to name a few. -
bill4344 at 12:26 PM on 4 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Typo: Rob 3rd para 'dramaticly'.Moderator Response: [RH] Thanks. -
r.pauli at 11:58 AM on 4 May 2012It cooled mid-century
Between 1944 and 1980 there were more than 1800 nuclear explosions were conducted - many above ground - including the biggest H-bombs. This time period was a mini-nuclear winter. -
Andy Skuce at 11:56 AM on 4 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Realist @63 I wasn't actually advocating cutting the military budget, just pointing out that if we can afford spending sums like that protecting one country from possible threats from another, we could perhaps spend a smaller sum to protect everyone from probable harm resulting from everyone else's emissions. If we don't mitigate emissions, I expect that we'll have to increase military budgets to cope with the imbalances that climate change will provoke. The US military actually has a rather sane perspective on climate change, as Peter Sinclair's excellent video shows: US Military Forges Ahead with Climate Security. Deniers Still Looking for WMDs. -
Realist at 11:40 AM on 4 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Andy #62 Why stop at cutting the military budget by half? You could also cut the budget of all police forces, justice systems and prisons by half to raise even more funds. -
supak at 10:22 AM on 4 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
@les They have all kinds of markets at Intrade. You can even predict when they'll find the Higgs Boson. But yes, the climate markets are the one market that's money in the bank if you play it right. And they encourage insider trading! @muoncounter This is the data they go by for the monthly and yearly temp anomalies. As I continue betting in the future, the chances of .55s paying off gets higher. -
Bob Loblaw at 09:53 AM on 4 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Dan Olner (and dana1981): There is a really big difference between the 1981 and 1988 papers in terms of the type of models. The 1981 paper used a one-dimensional radiative-convective model, which resolves the vertical atmosphere and detailed radiation transfer very well, but has no "geography" - it simulates a global average condition, and the primary output is a single temperature profile. The 1988 paper used a 3-d general circulation model. Completely different beasts. It's not a matter of the 1988 work being a tweaking or adjustment of the 1981 model - it's a major change in the analysis. In 1981, a radiative-convective model (RCM) would have been well-developed, and the success in getting a sensitivity close to today's "best estimate" is [you choose] a) somewhat fortuitous, or b) an indication that even a 1-d model of this type can represent many of the important factors. You don't see much use of RCMs these days, when it comes to trying to narrow down sensitivity - they don't do the things that need to be examined. In 1988, GCMs were still undergoing significant development - as they are today, muchly due to greatly increased computing power. GCMs are hungry beasts, and eat CPU cycles like Chiclets. Everyone on the team likely wants some extra FPU time, and a faster computer will always let you do more stuff that was only a gleam in the eye last year. In 1981, Hansen et al wouldn't have had the horsepower to run a GCM (they did exist) over a time period like they did with the RCM. -
Andy Skuce at 07:46 AM on 4 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
steve from virginia @45: "Alley's supposition is incorrect because it does not include the economic effect of a successful conversion on competitors." In many big European cities there was a job-intensive industry built around human waste disposal: emptying cess pits, hauling waste out of the city and selling it to farmers for fertilizer. Indeed, there was a lot of opposition to building proper sewage facilities from various vested interests, complacent government and even civil libertarians in the Victorian period. See my post on the Great Stink of London. "We cannot get a grip on our climate, fuel, food, water and other resource problems without acknowledging there will be large trade-offs and sacrifices. We cannot 'have it all'. " I tend to agree. The costs of mitigation are downplayed sometimes and the challenge we face in getting rid of carbon emissions is often made to sound too easy. However, if the world can afford spend 2.6% of its GDP on the military, as it does now, surely it could spend half of that sum instead on fighting climate change. The hardest part is the politics, not the economics or the engineering. -
scaddenp at 06:15 AM on 4 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
Just a further addition, the log relation of concentration to radiative forcing drops straight out of the RTE - see Ramanathan and Coakley 1978. The basic radiative properties of the gases is based on experimental data but going back a long time. I dont have them to hand, but try Weart's excellent Discovery of Global Warming for the historical work. The same equations also predict the spectral signature which can be compared to observed. Eg See Harries 2001. -
dana1981 at 04:09 AM on 4 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Lucas @1 - surface temperature changes have been consistent with a 3°C equilibrium climate sensitivity. See here, for example. We'll have more on this issue next week as well. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:13 AM on 4 May 2012There's no empirical evidence
@einhverfr further to what DSL wrote, the source code for several GCMs are in the public domain, so if the journal papers that explain the assumptions are not sufficient, you can always download the code and find out for yourself exactly how they work and test out the sensitivity of the projections to those assumptions by altering them and running some simulations. If you can show something interesting then there is nothing to stop you from submitting a journal paper questioning the assumptions. It is interesting to note there has been no attempt by the skeptics to make a GCM that explains the observed climate without CO2 (they seem to much prefer statistical models). I suspect that there is a good reason for this, which is essentially that it can't be done without making obviously unrealistic assumptions about the physics. -
Lucas Verma at 03:04 AM on 4 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
"the Earth's surface will warm on average approximately 3°C in response to doubled atmospheric CO2." Based on what we know, this seems a reasonable statement, CO2 should reduce emission to space and given observations, around a three degree rise in temperatures should be required to return emission to space to pre CO2 increase levels. But observations of surface temperature change indicate a rate that's about half of the 3 degree rate. We know we are right that CO2 should increase surface temperature, but we don't know how much. -
Tom Curtis at 03:04 AM on 4 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
Jeff18 @14, the constant change in temperature per doubling of CO2 is primarily a consequence of the fact that the radiative forcing of changed CO2 levels is constant per doubling. The direct radiative forcing is known from detailed studies using radiative transfer models, the results of which are directly compared with observations. To get an idea of the accuracy of the models, I suggest you read my post, "Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere", particularly the sections, "No more hand waving" and " Settled science"; and also my comment 43. The actual temperature response depends on feedbacks, which are not as well known. Therefore they may vary from the equal temperature change per doubling of CO2, but because the change in forcing is constant, they will not vary much, and certainly not enough to make the response near linear. -
shoyemore at 02:57 AM on 4 May 2012New research from last week 17/2012
The Yiou et al paper on the Medieval Climate Anomaly appears to be saying that while temperature dropped in the Little Ice Age, there was not much change in weather apparent. We find that the transition from a Medieval Warm Period to a Little Ice Age in the North Atlantic does not imply changes in patterns or frequency of weather regimes, although the mean surface temperature change is significant. The MCA was 950 to 1250, the LIA 1350 to 1850 - if there was fairly uniform weather for that milennium, it seems to rule out the idea of balmy and mild weather around 1000 influencing historical events like the Norse expansion. Makes sense, since the alleged cold weather around 1600 did little to hinder English and French expansion to North America. Danish missionaries returned to Greenland in the 18th century. But maybe I am readng too much into it? -
Riccardo at 02:57 AM on 4 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
Jeff18 there can obviously be no experimental data on the effect of doubling CO2 concentration on current climate. Though, the forcing can be calculated fairly accurately. The "standard" reference is Myhre et al. 1998. -
Jeff18 at 02:40 AM on 4 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
My thanks to Tom Curtis and scaddenp for their response regarding my post about the planet Venus. When I said it was about 800 degrees hotter than Earth that was degrees F. I should have made that clear. If the temperature change related to CO2 is not linear, that certainly throws my calculations out the window. When you say the temperature change goes up for each doubling of CO2, is there experimental data to back that up? How was that determined? Any publications for that? Thanks. -Jeff -
shoyemore at 02:39 AM on 4 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
N-G has a new post up at his website, responding to comments about the post in the thread. http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/05/lack-of-warming-a-followup/ -
DSL at 01:13 AM on 4 May 2012There's no empirical evidence
einhverfr, "assumption" is a loose word in science (about as loose as "consensus"). If you want to learn about what goes into IPCC modeling, you could go directly to the source (noting, of course, that this is AR4 from 2007). Go here for discussion on range. -
dana1981 at 00:59 AM on 4 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Dan Olner - the overall difference is that the sensitivity of the model used in 1981 was 2.8°C while the sensitivity of the model he used in 1988 was 4.2°C. Evidence now indicates that the sensitivity of the '81 model was quite close to the real-world. As to why the sensitivity of the earlier model was closer to the real-world value, that's a difficult question to answer, because model sensitivity is a result of the many different complex parameters of the model. It probably has something to do with the representations of the oceans and ocean processes, which are very difficult to model, as I understand it. But that's a question for a modeling expert, which I am not. Regardless, the bottom line is that both model projections suggest that real-world sensitivity is close to 3°C for doubled CO2. The most interesting aspect of these old model projections is not whether they were "right," but what we can learn from them. -
Dan Olner at 00:25 AM on 4 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
John #5: that's a plausible explanation for me, if it's right, and does fit with what Dana appears to have said. That is: the model structure was good in 81. Calibration later provided better sensitivity estimates. That still leaves me wondering why the model method's skill seemed to get worse in the intervening years (or wondering if an entirely new modelling approach was used... I should read the papers, shouldn't I!?) I take your point on getting lucky: precisely why testing through straightforward data-fitting is always a bit tricksy. But if sensitivity estimates improved in the intervening years, I'd have expected the model range to become more accurate too. The problem's at least in part that the 81 model doesn't appear to supply any range/s.d. values - maybe the full paper does? -
einhverfr at 00:22 AM on 4 May 2012There's no empirical evidence
Question: For these predictive models, what is their range of predictions? And what are their assumptions? Do we get access to those assumptions and get to question them? -
KR at 23:34 PM on 3 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
johnd2 - The rate of ocean warming is actually fairly steady, as discussed in multiple threads here, such as The Earth is Warming. But if the ocean heat absorption varies only a tiny bit (proportionally) in the presence of an ongoing forcing imbalance, that amount of energy can cause a quite large variation in the atmosphere. The atmospheric temperature delta then becomes the 'tail' on the ocean variation 'dog'. -
DSL at 23:09 PM on 3 May 2012GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Why look, scaddenp, even the far right has no problem with being green. In a few years, in fact, we'll undoubtedly see them come out with their own final solution to global warming. -
John Russell at 21:49 PM on 3 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
@Dan #4 Mine is a layman's comment; but the way I've always thought of model predictions is not -- as fake sceptics like to portray them -- scientific fortune telling where success is measured on how close they prove to be to reality; but rather as useful indicators, which might or might not work out depending on whether the parameters that they are built on, change. It's therefore possible for a model prediction to 'get lucky' -- like picking the Derby winner -- but not technically be as useful as another model where a base parameter changed after publishing but the model usefully predicted what could have happened. I guess what I'm saying is that it's probably best not to trumpet the 'success' of models that happen to 'get lucky' because it then makes it more difficult to defend models that didn't. The truth is, 'right' or 'wrong', they're all useful in their own way. Have I got this right? -
robin6721 at 21:05 PM on 3 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
muoncounter " Perhaps a look at the thread, 'Its the Sun' (#2 on the Most Used Myths) is in order." That proves my point perfectly, not a single mention of the very large solar wind variations.Moderator Response: TC: Nor is there anywhere I have come across a single plausible mechanism explaining how variations in solar wind could influence the Earth's temperature. However, if you are aware of such a mechanism, by all means discuss it on the relevant thread. Of course, if your "plausible mechanism" is the modulation of Cosmic Galactic Rays, I note that that is discussed under the "It's the Sun (advanced)" article; but that the most appropriate thread is here. In either event, further pursuit of either argument is of topic on this thread, and may result in summary deletion of your posts. -
Dan Olner at 20:20 PM on 3 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
I hope you'll know I'm not being 'skeptic', in the climate sense of that word, but I am a bit confused. This appears to be saying that Hansen's 1981 work is good because it made a reasonably accurate prediction. But the previous take on his later 1988 work doesn't make sense to me: "Hansen's 1988 projections were too high mainly because the climate sensitivity in his climate model was high. But his results are evidence that the actual climate sensitivity is about 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2." So I don't really know what's being said. If predictive success is the criteria, didn't Hansen get something wrong in the later work? If so, what changed? If, as I think the 1988 analysis is saying, the point is rather that Hansen's model structure was correct, but he just got some parameter values a bit skewy, *why* were they skewy? How did his work make worse predictions later? Don't we want predictive success to be the criteria for climate models, and shouldn't that include asking how incorrect sensitivity estimates were arrived at? I'm imagining the answers are in the papers somewhere, based on what kind of modelling each was doing, so apologies - this is just a first-glance reaction. -
Rob Painting at 20:06 PM on 3 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
johnd2 - the transfer of heat into the ocean is through one means only - sunlight. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the ocean in much the same way that they trap heat in the atmosphere - via slowing the loss of energy (heat) out of the ocean. It is by this mechanism that the oceans warm over time. See SkS post: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean As counter-intuitive as it may seem, El Nino is when the Earth loses energy -as heat is given up to the atmosphere and is eventually radiated away to space, and La Nina is when the Earth gains energy - as heat is buried in the subsurface layers of the western tropical Pacific and upwelled cold water, on the other side of the ocean, is brought to the surface to be heated by the sun. The global picture is more complex, but that's the basic gist of ENSO's effects. -
johnd2 at 18:59 PM on 3 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
These El Nino-related arguments seem quite plausible at explaining year-to-year variations in warming trends. But one thing puzzles me as a relative layman in this field: It seems like the oceans have a huge capacity to buffer and blunt the effects of GW, potentially for many years to come. But the kinetics of heat transfer into the oceans seem slow and variable - otherwise why would these ENSO patterns have such an effect on apparent warming. So why is heat transfer into the oceans apparently so slow and inconsistent? (I know there's probably not a simple answer to this, but if anyone is looking for a subject for a future topic post...) -
Michael Whittemore at 17:56 PM on 3 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
@ Tom Curtis, I wanted to ask if you know of a way to ask a question about a paper here at skeptical science. -
Paul Magnus at 15:53 PM on 3 May 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
It would be grat if you had a db also about ways to discuse reasons for reducing ff directly aand specificlly like arguments for coal reduction or what we shouldn't ship the stuff to china because some one else will etc etc. See here .... http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/02/475761/climate-change-message-objective-reality-urgent-crisis-we-must-talk-about-it/#comment_link -
DSL at 12:56 PM on 3 May 2012New research from last week 17/2012
Nice, Ari. In a lovely world, we would pick one of the articles and coax the author(s) on for a little Q&A. -
Tom Curtis at 12:40 PM on 3 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Realist @59, I agree. However, that is just another way of saying the cost of the energy lost as waste heat in the production process is small relative to the total production costs. If that remains the case into the future, then the energy costs continue to be small, so that waste heat is not a significant problem. On the other hand, if energy costs increase as Dave 123 expects, then recovering waste heat will be economical, and most of the waste heat will be recoverable as energy. In either event, waste heat from steel manufacture does not shown any particular impediment to conversion to a renewable economy. -
muoncounter at 11:56 AM on 3 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
robin#53: "Given the minimal cooling following Krakatau (VEI6)," Given? Perhaps you could offer a citation for that 'given,' hopefully someone more substantial than Eschenbach. But here's a USGS study comparing Tambura, Krakatoa and Agung: ... decreases in surface temperatures after the eruptions were of similar magnitude (0.18-1.3 °C). The amount of material injected into the stratosphere, however, differed greatly. By comparing the estimated amount of ash vs. sulfur injected into the stratosphere by each eruption, it was suggested that the longer residence time of sulfate aerosols, not the ash particles which fall out within a few months of an eruption, was the paramount controlling factor (Rampino and Self, 1982). "so few people consider the large changes in the particular output of the Sun" Perhaps a look at the thread, 'Its the Sun' (#2 on the Most Used Myths) is in order. -
scaddenp at 11:39 AM on 3 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
robin - well Maunder minimum, being the description of a solar event, has nothing to do with volcanic activity. If you meant that LIA was caused by volcanic activity, then no, the science doesnt believe that either. Instead, it is postulated that solar variation, compounded by volcanic activity were cause of LIA. Explanations for LIA have to account for response of climate to other variations on solar activity; and to spatial pattern of LIA temperatures (much more pronounced in NH). -
Realist at 11:23 AM on 3 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
I think for a slag waste heat recovery system the economics might come down to risk. Even with a reasonable heat recovery and generation ability, the savings are small compared to the production costs of a steel furnace. If the generation system caused 1 day of lost steel production through slag blockages or any other reason and such reasons cannot be eliminated, it may be a very long while before the losses are made up. -
Lazarus at 11:01 AM on 3 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
I looked at this paper myself after Hansen's TED talk and featured it on my own blog; What Hansen et al got right decades ago. http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/what-hansen-et-al-got-right-decades-ago.html -
robin6721 at 09:16 AM on 3 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
Given the minimal cooling following Krakatau (VEI6), I don`t believe for a moment that Maunder was caused by volcanic activity. I am staggered how so few people consider the large changes in the particular output of the Sun in relation to Earth`s temperature variations. -
pvincell at 05:28 AM on 3 May 2012New research from last week 16/2012
Interesting post, Sphaerica. Thanks. -
KR at 23:57 PM on 2 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Glenn Tamblyn - Quite right, ENSO shifts generally have shorter time-scales, although over the last decade the ENSO pattern matches the apparent decadal slowdown in surface temperatures. Reminds me of grad school - Not ready to graduate? Read another paper! Clearly I need to read some more... -
Glenn Tamblyn at 23:19 PM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
Roger Revelle actually did the fundamental chemical analysis that cracked the question of how much CO2 the oceans would absorb in the late 30's. Howeverthis didn't come to prominence until his paper with Suess in 1957 - Busy year 1957, the International Geophysicl Year. Spencer Weart also comments that the recognition if the implications of Revelle's earlier work in R & S 1957 seems like an after thought, perhaps added at the prompting of reviewers. Perhaps R & S didn't quite want to bite the bullet initially on what their findings meant. Also during this same period Revelle was involved in another study that serendipitously shed light on ocean mixing or the lack thereof. After a US test in the 50's of a Depth Bomb - an atomic depth charge designed to destroy a submarine no matter what - Revelle was on an oceanographic research ship that went back to the test area months later. They took water samples in the region around the balst site. Remnants from the blast had spread out over an area of over 100 sq miles. Not that far when you consider it was months later. But the real find was the vertical distribution of blast products. They were found in a layer in the water only meters thick. Months later! That is a patch of ocean that really, really doesn't want to engage in vertical mixing, even after a Nuclear blast. Strongly suggesting that vertical mixing of heat, chemical changes, dissolved gases etc is quite slow except in regions where vertical currents facilitate mixing. The oceans don't mix things up as much as might be imagined. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:03 PM on 2 May 2012New research from last week 16/2012
12, pvincell, Just as a note... despite all of the brouhaha created by the denialsphere, the right way to look at things is not through the prism of supports vs. refutes. The paper you cited, no matter what the results, adds to the body of knowledge on the subject. As such, it does support the model of anthropogenic climate change because everything supports that model, as in "refines and improves" it. The whole problem with the denialsphere is that they keep looking for the "one paper" that will knock the foundation out from under all of the science. They keep hoping it's GCRs or clouds or low sensitivity or whatever, and nothing ever sticks, because even such a paper only serves to "refine and improve" the current theory, not to devalue it. So that is never, ever going to happen. The science is too deep, too broad, and too well founded. At this point one would need a thousand papers overturning a thousand facets of the science. And in the end we're left with what you see... a regular production of papers, each adding incrementally to our knowledge and helping us to sort out exactly what is what. -
les at 21:59 PM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
5 - supak Hummm... for the US voting and the Oscars results, the 'truth' is identically people think; whereas the "Global Temperature Anomaly" is what physics does. Just because asking people what they think people think is quite accurate, doesn't mean that asking people what they think physics does will be accurate! Mind you, you should expect a better spread for the latter and therefore better betting options. -
pvincell at 20:27 PM on 2 May 2012New research from last week 16/2012
Just a note to laud Skeptical Science for posting citations to the occasional papers that seem to not support the model of anthropogenic climate change (the example above being "Tropical Pacific spatial trend patterns in observed sea level: internal variability and/or anthropogenic signature?"). I accept the scientific consensus--I am not disputing the key role of human activities in climate change. I am just acknowledging the scientific integrity of this excellent web site. Scientific credibility depends on open-mindedness to peer-reviewed reports challenging any prevailing consensus. Skeptical Science is a remarkable resource, in part because of it's openness to all relevant peer-reviewed scientific research. You folks have my deep gratitude and respect. -
michael sweet at 20:16 PM on 2 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Dana, Good job. It is remarkable how accurate this paper was. As you show, it is difficult now, 30 years later, to determine if Hanasen was right on with his prediction or slightly low. Realclimate recently posted a similar analysis of Hansen 1981. They have similar conclusions to yours. Of course we will get skeptics (on other threads) claiming Climate Theory does not make predictions that can be falsified! Link them to this one! -
Tom Curtis at 19:19 PM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
An amendment to my comment @3. On checking my claims, I noticed that the surface temperature of Venus is 735 degrees, K, making it just 447 degrees K (or C) warmer than the Earth. Consequently, if we were to determine climate sensitivity by a simple comparison with Venusian temperatures, we would find a climate sensitivity between 26 and 34 degrees C per doubling of CO2. The 26 degrees is from the fact that it takes 17 doublings of CO2 to exceed the CO2 concentration of Venus if other atmospheric components are held constant, and not simply replaced by CO2. At the 17th doubling, the Earth's atmosphere would have 37 times its current mass, compared to the Venusian atmosphere which has 93 times the mass of Earth's atmosphere. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:46 PM on 2 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
dagold/KR I don't think KR's reply is quite accurate. El Nino/La Nina is associated with changes in warm and cool water, particularly across the Pacific, down to depths of several hundred meters. The Hiatus periods identifed by Meehl et al and showing up in OHC data are comparing roughly 0-700 M vs 0-2000 m. And they operate over timescales longer than ENSO - a decade rather than a year or so. So it is better to regard the hiatus periods as being akin to a deeper and slower ENSO cycle. And that this isn't confined just to the Southern Pacific. They may be related. The Hiatus period cycle could certainly impact on the ENSO cycle, changing the dynamics of it. But they aren't the same thing. But related, possibly. -
bill4344 at 18:26 PM on 2 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Thanks Dana! Fascinating stuff, and I wonder if Hansen in '81 had any inkling as to what lengths some would be prepared to go to keep the 'fascinating global geophysical experiment' running! I've yet to receive a reply to a related question from any self-described 'conservative' contrarian: 'What is the conservative position on conducting a radical experiment with the one atmosphere we possess?' I'm surprised this post has been up for so long without receiving flak, given it's about Hansen's projections, which are second only to the hockey stick, surely, as a target of 'skeptic' ire! But no doubt it's coming... -
70rn at 18:12 PM on 2 May 2012New research from last week 17/2012
Cheers for that dude. -
Ari Jokimäki at 15:03 PM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
I also have written about this time period.
Prev 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 Next
