Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 Next
Comments 89201 to 89250:
-
muoncounter at 11:54 AM on 13 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Yooper#226: Well, that leaves an entire 10 cm of ice through the summer. No problemo! -
villabolo at 11:53 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
"Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please restrict images to width=500" Sorry, Muoncounter. I pasted the URLs from SkS and thought they would have already been properly sized.Moderator Response: [DB] I put some extra (hopefully useful) image code on the Posting Tips page. You can use any size up to 500; since the images in the comments will then be hot-clickable, clicking on the scaled image will then bring up the full image in all its glory. -
muoncounter at 11:46 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
shawnhet#31: "for much of the graph TSI and GCR lie pretty much on top of each other" I'm not sure what you think this means. The phi parameter shown in figure 5 inverts the GCR flux, so that phi highs and TSI highs are GCR lows. Better graphs of GCR flux are available on the cosmic ray thread. Another version is Figure 1 in Stozhkov et al 2000, showing GCR peaks in 1965, '76, '87 and '97, which are all sunspot lows. Stozhkov also found a small negative trend in the solar cylce peaks of GCR flux over the 45 year period analyzed. Follow-up GCR-specific comments should go to the thread linked above. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:39 AM on 13 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
As an aside, one of the findings from this year's Catlin Arctic Survey is that the holes they've been drilling have been through 1.6-meter-thick ice. A typical Arctic melt season will witness about 1.5 meters thickness sea ice melt; more if predominantly new ice (first-year ice - H/t to Artful Dodger). The Yooper -
HumanityRules at 11:24 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Steinhilber, F., J. Beer, and C. Frohlich (2009), Total solar irradiance during the Holocene, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19704, doi:10.1029/2009GL040142. SBF 2009 did a similar reconstruction. You can even access and have a play with the data (data file and readme file) They show a similar general result, i.e. millenial/centennial scale variation in TSI of approximately 1W/M2. Although the MWP is a period of relatively high TSI. Dana I'm curious about this statement of yours "Thus TSI appears not to have played a particularly large role in the MWP, accounting for perhaps 10-20% of its peak warming." What accounts for the remaining 80-90%? I'm guessing not external forcing. Internal variation? -
Marcus at 11:10 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"I remind you that Iceland produce much more renewable electricity than they need (they use a fair part of it in aluminium and ferrosilicon factories, but they could use it for their personal needs). So what is the "benefit" for them to use oil ? I don't understand."You really, *really* do have a listening & comprehension problem, don't you Gilles?We've already said that their oil imports are for *transportation*!!! { snip }Moderator Response: [muoncounter] DNFTT! -
Dan Moutal at 11:05 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Tom Curtis #157 The idea of issuing permits often (weekly or monthly) is interesting, but would require serious study to understand what effect that would have. I haven't heard this proposed before so for now I remain skeptical. And I still think a tax is simpler, which I think is very important when it comes to public policy. BUT I do think there is benefits is separating the flow of aid money to poor countries who will bear the brunt of global warming from pricing carbon. I suspect many people here will disagree with me on that. But the issue of aide is one that frequently ties up international co-operation in reducing GHG emissions. Would it not be easier to deal with these two important issues separately so that lack of progress in one of them doesn't hold up the other? And #158 I am not very familiar with the Australian carbon tax proposal so I wont comment directly on it. But I will note that it is certainly possible to implement a carbon tax poorly. I think it was France where the courts struck down a carbon tax proposal because there were too many exceptions. And Here in Canada in the province of Quebec there was talk of a carbon tax (not sure where it ended up) but politicians were making noise that power producers should eat the cost of the tax, which of course defeats the purpose entirely. @scaddenp I agree with you about the subsidies, but the nice thing about a carbon tax, if done right (and that means that some sort of price on carbon would have to be implemented globally) is that you don't have to muck around with banning coal, or thing like vehicle efficiency standards. The carbon tax allows the free market to handle this far more efficiently. -
shawnhet at 10:59 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
dana:"It's unclear whether you're talking about the variation or the trend. But it's the trend that matters, and there is no long-term trend in cosmic ray flux on Earth over the past 60 years, just like there's no trend in TSI. So my point stands." I'm talking about whether or not you can get a reasonable estimate of indirect forcing by multiplying the direct TSI forcing by some factor. Clearly, in that context, the variation is the important information. Anyways, you'd earlier asked me to substantiate the following claim:""Since we can be pretty sure that most of the leading candidates for indirect effects do not vary linearly with TSI..." and I thought I'd answer that question(luckily I was able to find a relevant graph). ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/AGU-Fall2005/AGU_poster_Fall2005.pdf Please see the top panel of figure 5 - for much of the graph TSI and GCR lie pretty much on top of each other(which would be consistent with your approach), however, note the size of the blue and red spikes in the middle. GCR spikes much higher than TSI in relative terms. -
villabolo at 10:58 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
@46 Gilles: "A piece of evidence is shown by the fact that during intense El Niño/la Niña events, like in 1998, 2005, or 2010, the average surface temperature experience "huge" variations of 0.5°C or more, corresponding to several decades of "average" trend, in only some months - but of course the energy content of the Earth has not been able to vary so much , so rapidly ! so average surface temperature is *not* a precise indicator of global energy content." Please see my article on El Niño/La Niña events, and how their fluctuations are indicative of the fact that both El Niños and La Niñas are increasing in temperature (and this with a cooler sun starting in 2002!). What is the relevance of those "huge" variations of .5C when La Niña's lowest temperatures, as well as El Niño's highest, are both above those before 1995/1998? You can eyeball it here:
First note the green and pink lines and how they ratchet up. Then the brown trend line going up, "huge" variations notwithstanding.
These temperatures are increasing overall, irrespective of the variations you mentioned. Where does that heat go to? The oceans absorb over 90% of it. Oceans have been steadily rising in heat content with the usual fluctuations. Those fluctuations make no difference, no matter how large they are, to the long term trend; as can be seen here:
Now a reminder. You said:
"so average surface temperature is *not* a precise indicator of global energy content."
@50 Ian Forrester said:
"Who has ever said that it was? The energy content of the globe is found in a number of places some of which are accurately measured (surface and oceans down to 700 metres) and others which cannot be accurately measured with today's technology (deep oceans).
The ocean temperatures, of course, is what we can measure down to 900 meters. Do you seriously think that the heat pulse travelling down the ocean depths is going to stop where our instruments just happen to be?
Simple deduction indicates where the unaccounted for energy is going to be. In fact, since the heat pulse is obviously not going to stop at the 900 meter level, there has to be unaccounted for energy below it! In fact, it would be amazing if Trenberth did not have that accountability problem.
Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please restrict images to width=500 -
The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Gilles >Fine- what's the final result for both and with which accuracy ? I'll give you a hint: look at the diagram. -
Gilles at 10:18 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Ian #50 "You are incorrect when you state that we cannot measure energy in and out. We can. Incoming energy has been measured for some time and outgoing energy has recently been measured using satellites." Fine- what's the final result for both and with which accuracy ? -
Gilles at 10:16 AM on 13 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
so any news from the ice of Lincoln sea? -
Gilles at 10:01 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Other question about Mark Jaccard : did he forecast the spike in oil prices and the subsequent recession ? where?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Oil price forecasts are off-topic for this thread. -
Gilles at 09:59 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Marcus A) could you please indicate me a country reaching 70 80% of duty cycle with Windmills , or basing their power supply on biogas or tidal energy ? -but even if you found one, it wouldn't do better than the countries that I've cited, that have already 100 % renewable power, as I said. B) "Hmmm, clearly you've never heard of fuel cells, which can generate electricity from liquid fuels." Oh, yes, surprisingly, I've heard of them ! but I still didn't see any personal vehicle using them on a street. Again, technical possibility doesn't mean economical possibility. "Indeed, electric arc furnaces are able to reduce mixtures of metal oxides & scrap metal" I would be interested in knowing how an electric arc can reduce metal oxides, without carbon ... C) could you be a little bit more quantitative on the number of hydrogen vehicles in Iceland and electric vehicles in europe and america ? -
Gilles at 09:48 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"So when Iceland imports FFs, they get the benefits" I remind you that Iceland produce much more renewable electricity than they need (they use a fair part of it in aluminium and ferrosilicon factories, but they could use it for their personal needs). So what is the "benefit" for them to use oil ? I don't understand.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Let's try staying on topic; save Iceland for another thread. -
Gilles at 09:46 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
So, why am I "defeatist" following you ? which defeat ? which war ? what are you advocating against me ? could you please be more explicit on your final goal ? -
Riduna at 09:32 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Sphaerica @ 168 I object. How can you possibly use the term “intellectual integrity” when commenting on Gilles “contributions”. Such an oxymoron! As Dan Moutal @155 notes, Gilles does nothing more than invite commentators into a warren of off-topic rabbit holes. That so many accept the invitation is absolutely astonishing! Sorry Moderators if this too is off topic. -
Tom Curtis at 09:16 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
From Peru @29, according to Hegerl et al the major driver of the MWP was an almost complete lack of volcanic activity in the 11th and 15th centuries (see their figure 2). I believe Hegerl has been the lead author of a more recent paper, but do not have the time at the moment to look it up. -
From Peru at 09:00 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
If variations in Total Solar Irradiance and their effects in temperature were so weak during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, then what else could have driven the warming then? It could not have been ocean cycles: both ENSO and PDO were in a permanent cool phase (La Niña + negative PDO) during the Medieval Warm Period. Maybe is solar effect after all, via cosmic rays. But if is not TSI nor cosmic rays (weak effect) and not ocean cycles (that were in a persistent cool phase), what else could have caused the Medieval and Roman Warming Periods? -
Bob Lacatena at 08:49 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
117, scaddenp, I agree, for the most part. And harsh regulations (in effect, a tax) on coal plants in particular would be good in so many ways. First we have to get past the "would you like some oil with your Tea" Party crowd. A hugely backward, Joe McCarthy style denial movement appears to be brewing in the U.S. Senate and Congress. I'm waiting to see what sort of nightmares it tries to create over the coming months -- or years, if the next election goes too poorly. -
shawnhet at 08:47 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
For the record, I was not attempting to discuss the GCR link, but I find it surprising that someone who is familiar with the proposed link would try and suggest that a reasonable approximation of it is to take change in TSI forcing and multiply it by some factor. GCR does not vary in lockstep with TSI. I will say (since it was raised by the moderator) that the evidence for climate effects due to GCR is primarily paleo in nature but there is plenty of it. Cheers, :) -
dana1981 at 08:29 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Yes, I wrote the advanced "it's cosmic rays" rebuttal that I linked to in comment #3. And as I already noted in comment #10, TSI and solar magnetic field (which impacts galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth) are strongly correlated.
It's unclear whether you're talking about the variation or the trend. But it's the trend that matters, and there is no long-term trend in cosmic ray flux on Earth over the past 60 years, just like there's no trend in TSI. So my point stands.
-
muoncounter at 08:21 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
scaddenp#177: True dat. Especially since corporations gained the right of free speech in the form of political contributions. Who wins when elections are bought and sold? The BrothersGrimKoch. -
shawnhet at 08:12 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Oops, the above was directed to dana@ #19. -
shawnhet at 08:11 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
??? Well, since you are clearly aware of the proposed GCR climate link, I don't know what you are asking for here. IIRC, cosmic ray counts have varied by ~30% over the last few hundred years where TSI has changed in the ballpark of 0.1%. If you have two quantities one that can vary by ~30% and one that can vary by 0.1% does it make sense to compare the effect of the two by multiplying them by a constant quantity as you do? Cheers, :)Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Cosmic rays are so popular among the denial crowd that they have their own thread (a personal favorite). No substantial correlation exists between cosmic ray counts and warming; the causal link (cloud formation) is also unsubstantiated. -
muoncounter at 08:08 AM on 13 April 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP#358: " all energy delivered by all fossil fuels and nuclear reactors ... this energy is in backlog of whatever is considered equilibrium and therefore constitutes an excess which can only have been accumulating." Suppose for a moment that this is correct. We should expect to see 'hot spots' near places that deliver this energy. Indeed we do, when the fires are burning or the discharged coolant (water) is still hot -- I posted a false color IR of an Illinois power plant some time ago, on either this or the prior waste heat thread. But if this heat 'accumulates,' it must show up elsewhere in the environment. If RSVP is correct, it should eclipse other forcings. Luckily, we can test this idea: Belgium has an interesting website with thermal IR of a good chunk of the Antwerp area. Unfortunately its lacking in geographic references (and I don't read Belgian), but with Google Earth, you can find yourself. On the IR, just off the A12 highway in Stabroek, there is a peculiar rectangle of dark red (hot). Locating this point on GE, it is an old fort surrounded by a shallow water-filled ditch. There are several of these forts plainly visible in IR; Fort Merksem near the port of Antwerp is a beauty. They all have the same sort of shallow water-filled ditch (moat?). These are not industrial heat sources. They show up on the IR as hot because the water's low albedo absorbs solar energy. Conclusion: No evidence of accumulated industrial heat. Lots of evidence of solar-heated water. Now we must ask: Why doesn't the water cool off? -
daniel maris at 08:07 AM on 13 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
I won't respond to the detail in view of the moderator's comment but I will say that I think you have a lot more to fear from population rise than temperature rise. -
mspelto at 08:07 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam's data of course ends in 2000. I did note in a paper I published that Jakobshavn was in approximate equilibrium with climate in the 1980's. It is the last decades warmth that has driven the amazing response of the glaciers that is the focus of this post. So the key climate data is that of the last decade. -
GFW at 07:53 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Anyway, if a reasonable estimate of the direct TSI impact is *less* than 10-20% of observed change in any of the warmings or coolings examined, with the assumed-to-be-proportional indirect effects bringing the impact *up* to 10-20%, then unless the error in assuming proportionality is many times the entire size of the estimate, there is no change to the conclusion. In concrete numbers, say in one warming the direct TSI accounts for 12% of the warming, and we're estimating indirect TSI = 0.25 direct TSI, so full TSI accounts for 15% of the warming. Sure, that 0.25 might actually vary a bit as a function of TSI rather than being constant, but unless it varies up to 10 times larger, it doesn't affect the conclusion that overall TSI is not the most important factor in the warming. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:45 AM on 13 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
101, daniel maris,...costed value of additional crop yields...
I'm not sure where you get this, but in the long run, globally, everything I've seen says that crop yields will be down. Unlike much of the world, the USA is expected to benefit in the short term, as precipitation and temperature increases in the center of the continent are expected to be more mild, however, the southwest will eventually be hard hit by both drought and extreme temperature ranges, and the fact that climate zones move north does not necessarily translate into "let's just farm farther north." You need to take into account length of day, precipitation, quality of soil, irrigation sources, etc. And if the weather becomes more erratic, even the better areas may be subject to crop killing droughts as often as not. Changing the temperature of the planet also dramatically changes the distribution of water and precipitation patterns in not entirely predictable or useful ways. Crop yields may rise fractionally for a decade, maybe two, then things go way, way down. And it only gets worse if biofuels are one of the more serious solutions to getting away from fossil fuels (i.e. if we need to use productive land to produce fuel instead of food). Of course, that may not matter much if it pushes us into WW III by 2050 or so -- over food and arable land (the climate losers may not take kindly to the USA using its meager climate benefits to produce biofuels instead of helping to feed a starving world).Moderator Response: Everybody, please get back to the topic of this thread. -
dana1981 at 07:44 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Albatross - indeed, nice links there. Gerda - no, the other 80-90% were due to other factors, like natural variability and such. The solar feedbacks are included in the 10-20%. From Peru - we don't just provide author plus date, we also provide links to the papers themselves. Unfortunately, I forgot to do that in this case! I'll edit the article to include the link. Thanks for noticing that. -
From Peru at 07:41 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
There is the bad habit of showing as a reference of a paper only the author plus the journal and the date, without inluding the most important information: the TITLE of the paper. This happen in a lot of publications and unfortunately also here. This is a problem because one has to try different combinations of the names of the authors plus the name of the journal plus the date(that often is only the year, without indicating the month and the day), and as a consecuence sometimes one finds not one, but a series of articles by the same authors. To help the readers of skepticalscience, here is the link: Evolution of the solar irradiance during the Holocene -
scaddenp at 07:40 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
"If all of post 1970 warming was due to humans, then it would have meant that the warming that occurred on Greenland during that period would have also been caused by humans. Yet, as shown by all of the papers I provided you and by Dana's own graph, for those 30 years Greenland temperature remained below what it was 60 years ago. This clearly contradicts AGW." CO2 is not the only driver of climate Not that simple. -
littlerobbergirl at 07:38 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
still 12th april here (just). happy anniversary yuri! possibly i have not understood any of this post but, does this mean the other 80 - 90% of historical warming/cooling was down to climate feedbacks in response to the small changes in solar irradiance? we really are stuffed if that's the case. but what about early anthropocene influence? lots of forest cleared, increases in population and domestic animals, in roman times, and especially in medieval period before the plagues (and a lot less after). but that's not too hopeful either, considering our current population and behavior. and how do we tease those two terrestrial factors apart? -
Albatross at 07:37 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Dana @17, "Not quite enough for another LIA!" Not even close. And you are in good company. The next ice age has been delayed indefinitely, also see Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010). -
scaddenp at 07:36 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
I agree that #1 needs treaty but I think its easier to get than an emissions treaty. On 2/, well our previous government did just that. No new FF thermal unless you could deal with the emissions. It certainly spurred interest in clean coal and alternatives. A lot easier that designing a C&T without undesirable loopholes. US needs to deal with fundamental problem of lobby power. It's destroying your democracy. -
dana1981 at 07:34 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
I think I'm arguing with a brick wall here. Adam, I'm looking at my calendar right now, and it tells me the year is 2011. So I'm having a hard time understanding why you're unwilling to consider Greenland temperatures after 2000. There's a word for that, we don't like to use it here, but it starts with the letter "d" and sounds like a river in Egypt. As for this claim:"If anthropogenic CO2 was the cause of 1994-2010 warming, then according to the theory, that period should have warmed faster, but it didn't."
As Daniel and I have explained several times, this is a logical fallacy, and a false statement. As Rob notes in #37, none of us have ever claimed that CO2 is the only factor impacting global temperatures, and certainly not local temperatures. I suggest you take some time to learn and understand the AGW theory before claiming you've disproven it. -
michael sweet at 07:34 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
The paper that Dan linked here about a survey of economists supporting a carbon tax would be worth a thread by itself. Thanks for the heads up. -
dana1981 at 07:25 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
shawnhet #18:"Since we can be pretty sure that most of the leading candidates for indirect effects do not vary linearly with TSI..."
Please substantiate this claim. -
shawnhet at 07:23 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Dana, again, your approach is only reasonable if 1.the indirect solar effects vary linearly with TSI or 2. they are essentially trivial. Since we can be pretty sure that most of the leading candidates for indirect effects do not vary linearly with TSI your position is de facto that you believe 2 to be true. Cheers, :) -
dana1981 at 07:22 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Something I didn't mention in the article - recently "skeptics" have claimed to be worried that a new Maunder Minimum (late 17th century) event would trigger another Little Ice Age type event. As shown in the article, this would cause on the order of 0.2°C cooling. Not quite enough for another LIA!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:19 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam said... "for the past 70 years, as often pointed out by AGW believers, CO2 levels have skyrocketed. If anthropogenic CO2 was the cause of 1994-2010 warming, then according to the theory, that period should have warmed faster, but it didn't." Really? Is that what we say? I would modify that to say "if there were no other forcings on the climate system..." then yes, you'd be right. But no one claims that CO2 is the only mechanism that affect climate. We only say that CO2 is the biggest control knob. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:17 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
174, scaddenp, On #1, absolutely, yes, I can't believe it even needs to be discussed... except for the political power of the FF industry, and other complexities in the issues, such as the fact that the issues are not that simple... if some tax breaks are taken away, the obvious business response would be to let American oil fields lie untapped and put more resources into tapping foreign oil, which many companies can do without paying US taxes and paying lower foreign tax rates. The net result would be the same oil production, lost American jobs, and a negative political fallout for the politicians that endorse it. Like most things, it's not as simple or as obvious as it sounds. On #2, you'd similarly have a lot of lobbies to fight through (coal miners, coal economy states, coal industry heavyweights, etc.). And again its not that simple. What if the new, cleaner (if not clean) coal plant that you want to prohibit is to be built so that they can shut down an old, inefficient and dirtier one? Do you force them to build nuclear instead? The reality is that we will never be able to turn any source of energy off like a tap. The economy is too complex and interdependent, and the infrastructure is too inflexible. That's why action needs to begin soon, in a variety of areas (changing that infrastructure, such as how power is delivered, how vehicles are fueled, etc.) We don't need dramatic solutions, so much as we need to begin concerted work on a variety of solutions, so that we have better options as things get worse. This is the whole reason for general solution tax mechanisms like cap-and-trade or fee-and-dividend. If you try to target specific items, that's the "communist, centralized economy" approach that tends to fail abysmally. There are always pitfalls that people didn't foresee, and there's no reason to be so single-mindedly focused, no matter how obvious the solution may seem to be. A broad brush attempt to try to make FF carry their full (including externalized) costs will lead instead to many different, but hopefully appropriate, solutions in different arenas, as is fitting in each case. -
dana1981 at 07:17 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Alexandre - I actually hadn't heard that particular myth before Sam mentioned it. You're right, it might make for an interesting post. Thanks for the suggestion. -
Riccardo at 07:17 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
... and it can not explain a significant portion of the temperature variations during the last 2000 years, as clearly seen from fig. 2 and 3. -
muoncounter at 07:14 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam#34: "for the past 70 years, as often pointed out by AGW believers, CO2 levels have skyrocketed." If by 'skyrocketed,' you mean an increase of between 1 and 2.5 ppm per year. "If anthropogenic CO2 was the cause of 1994-2010 warming, then according to the theory, that period should have warmed faster," Apparently you are unfamiliar with the way that radiative forcing works. 'It should have warmed faster' ... than what? There are ample threads here, all with pointers to the relevant literature, explaining this process in detail. Look at the rate of temperature increase in the northern latitudes since 1970 or so, they are increasing pretty quickly: 0.3C per decade in Europe, 0.5C per decade in parts of Canada, close to 0.6C per decade farther north. There are ample threads here for that information as well. -
Albatross at 07:05 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
This is beginning to be a case of 'anything but CO2' wishful thinking. Dana is right-- if certain predictor variables (e.g., solar parameters) are highly correlated with each other, and one is applying a multiple linear regression to explain the variance in a dependent variable (e.g., such as global surface air temperature), then one has to choose one of the correlated group of predictor variables. Interesting (problematic) thing about multiple regression is that as soon as one adds more variables the R^2 (variance explained) goes up, when in reality might not be explaining more of the variance in the dependent variable--that is why statisticians use the adjusted R^2 when using multiple parameters. And again, some caution, without a physical mechanism to explain a relationship, correlation does not imply causality. At the end of the day, solar can not explain a significant portion observed warming since circa 1880, and this is especially true for the recent warming. Pretty sad that so many people continue to believe that solar is the primary cause. -
Alexandre at 07:02 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Dana #8 I meant that alledged unreliability of the ice cores due to supposed contamination before proper compression. I think that's what Sam's claim is about, and also the excuse Ernst Beck used for relying on chemical measurements on his below-standard E&E paper, with this CO2 time series:
Richard Alley metions the ice core reliability on his Biggest Control Knob lecture, and I'm sure there are some early papers to back this up. I thought it could be a good subject.
Well, I'm going way off topic here. Just didn't know where else to suggest it. Feel free to delete this after considering the suggestion.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:01 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam... Surely you jest. You are claiming that his published research is showing something completely different that what is expressed by his opinion? That's quite an alarming claim. -
dana1981 at 06:55 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
I didn't move any goalposts. The article clearly states "conservatively estimate". These are all estimates, but my approach was a mathematically reasonable way to incorporate indirect effects. And it's not sufficient to claim that some solar effect varies by 10% over some timeframe. You have to have a mechanism whereby this solar effect is impacting the global climate. You know, that damn causation thing again.
Prev 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 Next
