Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 Next
Comments 96001 to 96050:
-
JMurphy at 12:14 PM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
With reference to the high/low ratio : This is now the 10th month out of the last 13 since last January that heat records have exceeded cold ones. The ratio of high temperature records to low temperature records over that period is 2.18 to 1, and the cumulative excess of heat records is almost 7000. January Heat Outpaces Cold -
rhjames at 12:09 PM on 13 February 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Thanks - I'll go through this in detail. Where possible, I try to get as close to the data source as possible (eg the Hadcrut data I listed earlier). I get concerned when someone modifies data, and gets a different gradient or trend. Normalisation with a baseline shift is fine, but the basic trends normally shouldn't change. I expect I'll find the answers when I study the text. Keep in mind that my earlier comments were based on data I've looked at from the actual data sets before these adjustments are applied, so I'm seeing a different picture. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:49 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I would be very curious to know how many papers PopTech has read in order to get 850 that he believes challenge "AGW alarm." -
JMurphy at 11:43 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
The main thing about Poptech's little list is that no matter what the authors of the papers actually think, they are, in his own mind, supporting his own version of what he considers 'AGW alarm' to be, i.e. he has his own world-view and beliefs and he can twist any paper into agreeing with what he thinks 'alarm' means. It's a very good example of Conservative reality-creating, necessitated by the real world being too inconvenient. -
JMurphy at 11:25 AM on 13 February 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
protestant, I notice you still haven't retracted or backed-up your accusation of "unjustified interpolation", so, to help you out, please look at the following comment. You can reply there to retract or back-up your accusation. -
Chemware at 11:24 AM on 13 February 2011Coral Reef Baselines
I visited the Cairns area in 1967, and clearly remember inshore reefs right on the coast on the drive up to Port Douglas. When I next visited that area in the early 1990s they were gone. Clearly, any survey that started in 1986 will not include these reefs, so any claims that the GBR was in a pristine state at this time are ridiculous. -
JMurphy at 11:17 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
I thought I would add the actual image from the first link I gave previously, just in case :
-
JMurphy at 11:13 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
johnd, instead of seeing Australia as one entity that can only get wetter, drier (whatever it is that you want to argue against), why not have a look at a trend map where you will see that the majority of the country seems to be trending wetter, while a significant minority seems to be trending drier. You see, the two states can exist at the same time in different parts of the country, because Climate is complicated. That is why people easily get confused when they expect Global Warming to mean that warming will occur linearly everywhere, year by year. It's a shame that it needs to be constantly re-iterated. As for 30-year trends, laugh at this : The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years, with the latest covering the 1961–1990 period. However, many WMO members, including the UK, update their averages at the completion of each decade. Thirty years was chosen as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations. MET OFFICE I believe you will find that they decided that before Al Gore and all his alarmists thought it would be a good idea to use 30 years, to be mean to all the so-called skeptics...well, according to the so-called skeptics, anyway. -
Rob Painting at 11:06 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
John D - "Your comment about the relevance of the most recent drought indicates that perhaps you are more influenced by such short term aberrations rather than the bigger "broad-scale" longer term picture." Define what you mean about aberration. We have over 40 years of a general drying trend in Australia:
When does your aberration end and non-aberration start?.
How does this relate to your own assertions?
From Gallant & Karoly 2010
John D -"These trends mostly stem from changes in tropical regions during summer and spring."
I do hope you understand that rainfall totals can fall in a region yet extreme rainfall events can increase. You get that right?. The long term drying trend is what causes drought.
-
Polar Bear at 11:04 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
There are a lot of people with bs degrees in Nursing who do not know much science..After an associate degree,work experience gets credit toward the degree..that could explain why my state nursing organization did not want to discuss global warming when they had a big meeting about the environment and health -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:56 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Toolmaker... Regarding an analysis of the points made on the OP, that's a little outside the point I'm trying to make with this article. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:47 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Toolmaker... Good catch. Updated the post. -
johnd at 10:40 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Rob Painting at 07:18 AM on 13 February, 2011, the conclusions of the Gallant & Karoly 2010 paper were "Around the mid-late 1970s, the broad-scale Australian environment changed from a period where colder and drier extremes dominated to one where hotter and wetter extremes were more prevalent. Such changes manifested in annual, seasonal, and daily extremes." How does this relate to your own assertions? Whilst they noted regional differences, the conclusions were defined as referring to "the broad-scale Australian environment". Your comment about the relevance of the most recent drought indicates that perhaps you are more influenced by such short term aberrations rather than the bigger "broad-scale" longer term picture. It is only when the status-quo has been re-established after a drought and the ground water reservoirs have been replenished that any indications will become obvious. Indeed even in the paper it was the only the focusing on very short time scales, 5 years and less that allowed their conclusions to be reached, and that leads me to wonder what is the relevance of it all as I feel measuring anything less than the time frames that are found in the various ocean based cycles yields little. Just as there are shorter and longer periods of dry weather, so too are there shorter and longer periods of wet weather. The systems that bring rain to one region, generally deprive another region of theirs. In Australia's case that means not just regions within Australia, but includes Indonesia, India and Africa all being within the Indian Ocean region. One other aspect that I am not sure of in such studies that are analysing extremes is whether or not double counting or worse occurs or not. Generally if the systems are such that it brings above average rainfall to one region, another region is deprived of theirs. This should not be counted as two extreme events, but given how it was indicated in the paper that contrasting extreme events were evident in some regions, then I suspect they were accommodated as two separate pieces of data. How do you think they have been accommodated, or should be accommodated? Recent events worldwide also indicate that perhaps the same may apply to heat, if the various systems coincide in such a way that the heat carried by them is directed into a single region, then it will be at the expense of other regions. Any thoughts on that? -
Rob Painting at 10:35 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Marvin @ 34 - If this six weeks of extreme weather events in 2011 is an indicator of AGW, then could we assume that six weeks or more of relative inactivity indicates the opposite? If you ignore the preceding 3 centuries of increasingly more extreme weather in Australia, and focus only on the last 6 weeks, then maybe. Sounds a tad unscientific though. -
ToolmakerSteve at 10:34 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
make a correction please: 0.001 is 0.1% (not 0.01%). [I rounded the 0.00099 to 0.001, because the values given don't have enough accuracy to justify two decimal points. besides, it is easier to grasp the correct values with that rounding.] Related topic - the scientific summary in the pdf on that petition site: can you provide an analysis of the points that they raise? -
Paul D at 10:13 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Ah, so because I live outside the US, I'm not a scientist (I'm not in the real world, but I could apparently qualify as being one in the US!). -
WSteven at 10:06 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Excellent article. I'm glad to see someone making the effort to put things into perspective. -
rockytom at 10:04 AM on 13 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
As a geologist I must defend the science. However, as a geologist I find Harrison Schmitt an embarrassment. Obviously, he is a geologist that has been blinded by his conservatism and possibly hasn't read a scientific paper outside his specialty in some time. I don't intend to write an ad hominem piece, but there are so many more like him, not just geologists but "scientists" like S. Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke, Jr., etc. The Earth is warming and mankind is the major contributor and those who deny this have not looked at the evidence no matter what their background. One would think a geologist (an Earth scientist) would be able to read and understand climate science, which is after all an Earth science. Thanks for all you do on this blog! And I do mean all the contributors. Tom -
Brendon at 09:52 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
As a discussion on Nova's forum pointed out, to make the 800 list a paper can qualify as follows: 1. It must disagree, even if only slightly, in part with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper, rather than disagreeing with the IPCC or mainstream scientific opinion (eg Knorr). 2. The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW (Scafetta & natural GHG feedbacks). 3. The papers can hold completely opposing views with each other and that’s ok (Gerlich, says no greenhouse effect, Scafetta says there is). 4. The paper can be seriously flawed (Idso). 5. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, pollitical views are ok. 6. "Poptech", the guy who maintains the list, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper, in this way they can avoid the conflict of point 3 and dispute point 2). -
Alexandre at 09:42 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I tried to find something worthwhile in that list, when it first appeared with the "450 peer-reviewed studies". It was just an amateur attempt, of course. I picked one or two, then challanged some skeptics friend to pick some too. I think we went over some 6 or 7. They were all either non-peer-reviewed (E&E or opinion piece, for example), or did not challenge the consensus (like some paleoclimate study saying that sometime in the past we had higher temperatures somewhere, or saying that the PETM cannot be explained by CO2 alone). I'm sure there MUST be some real challenge hidden in there, but the "denominator" certainly chops it down to just a handful (if any). If this list had more attention of the denialosphere3, it could deserve a rebuttal post here by someone better qualified than myself... -
muoncounter at 09:34 AM on 13 February 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#133: "I pointed out that at least 30 years is needed for a trend to be meaningful." Sorry, I thought your conclusion was "Basically, we really don't know what it's doing ... only time will tell" which seemed to be based on 15 years of something or other. Thirty years (or 50 years) of temperature data doesn't support that conclusion. "something seems very wrong" Read the Tamino post; he's made a series of adjustments to put the datasets on a common baseline and take out the oscillatory noise. What he's showing is a trend that is common to all measures -- and that trend is quite meaningful. -
heystoopid at 09:27 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Ah, those evil numbers from the real world strike again, such infamy! -
rhjames at 09:20 AM on 13 February 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
muoncounter - if you read my post again, you'll see that I pointed out that at least 30 years is needed for a trend to be meaningful. I've selected this period because it was mentioned in an earlier post. Interesting - when I compare the above plot to my plot taken from Hadcrut data, it's very different. The Hadcrut site http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt gives the following : 1997 : 0.349 1998 : 0.529 1999 : 0.304 2000 : 0.278 2001 : 0.407 2002 : 0.455 2003 : 0.467 2004 : 0.444 2005 : 0.474 2006 : 0.425 2007 : 0.397 2008 : 0.333 2009 : 0.437 2010 : 0.468 This concerns be because something seems very wrong - possibly in my data source. I would appreciate it if someone can clarify why my Hadcrut data seems wrong. Sorry I can't insert the plot. I'll check the Tamino link to see if it explains the data source. -
Bjarne Mikael Torkveen at 08:47 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Kudos for the math. But the numbers are even more cruel to the climate deniers when you take into account that not everyone on the Oregon Petition is an actual scientist or even an actual person. The same goes for the PopTech list where not every paper is published in a peer reviewed journal. The all too familiar name "Energy & Environment" pops up quite often on that list. -
RickG at 08:40 AM on 13 February 2011There is no consensus
muoncounter, Yes, I'm well aware of the lack of credibility of the "petition project" list. That's why I asked the question in light of the statements in #281. I wanted to see if he supported the "petition project" but not the Doran study. Or perhaps I misunderstood what he was suggesting. -
Marvin Gardens at 08:15 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
If this six weeks of extreme weather events in 2011 is an indicator of AGW, then could we assume that six weeks or more of relative inactivity indicates the opposite? It's a fair question. -
muoncounter at 08:11 AM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
#18: "Conversely it has to increase the CO2 response for the last 30 years." Of course it has to increase. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is a strongly concave up function of time. CO2 concentration drives radiative forcing by the log of the ratio of current year CO2 to a reference level (usually the 'pre-industrial' 280 ppm). Some have argued (see Monckton #3) that warming must slow because the log function is concave down, but CO2's upward concavity trumps. So even after taking the natural log of this ratio, we still see a concave up temperature vs. time. Hence the slope of the temperature graph increases. See sample graphs here. -
muoncounter at 07:35 AM on 13 February 2011There is no consensus
#282: "concerning the "petition project"... " See the thread on the very same petition project. When the petition first came out, I checked some of the names: Quite a few dentists, pediatricians, astrologers, people who had taken a science degree and then gone on to business school or law school ... even some who were deceased at the time. -
Rob Painting at 07:18 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Johnd @ 30 - and a notion that it all can be analysed through a number of formulas or graphs What do you have in mind to replace it?, chicken bones and tea leafs?. Actual analysis shows extreme events are increasing in Australia. It would be nice to have information further back in time, however until someone invents a time machine, we have to use what is available. I constantly had to point out that Australia in fact, was not getting drier, but instead getting wetter And of course you were constantly wrong. Northern Australia is indeed getting wetter: Weather Extremes Are Growing Trend in Northern Australia, Corals Show and A Combined Climate Extremes Index for the Australian Region - Gallant & Karoly 2010 but that isn't the case for other regions of Australia, as the last decade of drought should have made obvious. And when this La Nina is over?. Back to drought again for many regions. -
Kevin C at 07:08 AM on 13 February 2011Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
Nice work Caerbannog! I had one interesting idea on a variant of the baselining technique: Calculate a baseline on the whole period rather than 1950-1980 (which will therefore be poor), then calculate the geographically averaged monthly anomaly. Then go back and recalculate the baseline for each station subtracting the monthly average to get a better set of baselines. Calculate the monthly anomaly again. Calculate baselines again. Iterate until stable. The result should be a poor-man's approximation to Nick Stokes' TempLS algorithm. -
Rob Painting at 06:53 AM on 13 February 2011Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
Caerbannog - I liken "skeptics" to dogs that chase after cars. They get all excited and noisy, but when the car stops they have no idea what to do. Same with skeptics and the raw data. -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:37 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Here's a 2003 paper that supports a broad perspective on Australian climate change impacts: http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/pdf/subs/climate%20change%20review.pdf A 2000 paper shows that a simple index like "total rainfall" may not be as illuminating as indexes that show rainfall events decreasing while the intensity of the events increases: http://www.vsamp.com/vsamp/resume/publications/Haylock_Nicholls.pdf My inclination is to cherry pick some advice from the first paper to emphasize impact mitigation (instead of emission mitigation). -
caerbannog at 06:00 AM on 13 February 2011Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
Thought that the citizen-science thread would be a good place to post this. Not enough material to justify a full guest post, so I'm just leaving a little note here. I've added some new features to my "Quick and Dirty" global temperature anomaly app. It now performs a simple gridded average (geospatial weighting) that produces results that are remarkably similar to NASA's "Meteorological Stations" temperature index (NASA results here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ -- scroll down to the Global Temperature (meteorological stations) plot). The app now allows you to generate urban vs. rural results side-by-side (it reads the GHCN v2 metadata file to extract rural and urban stations separately). You can now debunk the "Urban Heat Island" talking-point in real-time. The all also allows you to generate ensembles of results, each computed from a different set of randomly-chosen temperature stations. You can throw out 90 percent of the temperature stations and still get results that are quite consistent with the results you get when you process all of the data. Here's a plot of the program's output vs. NASA's equivalent results (note: I used GHCN "raw" monthly-mean data):
For those who are interested, the latest source-code can be found here: http://forum.signonsandiego.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8142&d=1297529025
(Run the app without any arguments to get a semi-helpful "usage" message).
Now, back onto the soapbox for a bit:
It was surprisingly easy to implement the gridding/geospatial-weighting routine (much easier that I originally thought that it would be). The result posted above is what popped out on my first "full-up" run -- i.e. not tweaking or data-fiddling required. Only a few modest changes to my app would be required to perform all the temperature-data analysis/processing that Anthony Watts has been promising (but has failed to deliver) for years!
Getting a crude version of this app up and running took something like a weekend in my spare time -- the bulk of the time spent was cleaning it up and getting it into a form where others might find it useful.
The one major thing that I learned from this project is how breathtakingly inane and brain-dead the denialists' campaign against the surface temperature record has been. A major part of the "climategate" campaign against the CRU was based on the claim that nobody could verify the CRU's global temperature results because the CRU supposedly was "hiding" a small fraction of the data used in their global temperature calculations.
That, of course, is completely absurd -- what my exercise demonstrated is that someone with basic programming skills and the ability to read documentation should have no trouble validating the CRU's results with just a weekend's worth of effort. There is enough public temperature data and plenty of free software tools to enable any technically competent person to debunk the entire basis of the so-called "climategate" scandal with just a couple of days worth of effort.
The "climategate" campaign truly has taken "stupid" to unprecedented heights.
I'm keeping my app handy so that the next time some loudmouth starts spouting off to me about NASA's/CRU's "cooked" data, I'll be able to whip out my laptop and shut him up. I've found that having someone see me generate results "on the fly" from my own app makes a bigger impression than handing him/her a link to a NASA web-page.
Hopefully, others can find this app useful in the same way. I've given it a fair bit of testing, so I don't think that there are any "showstopper" bugs (but no guarantees!).
Moderator Response: [DB] Converted URL's to links. -
dana1981 at 05:54 AM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
mozart - I recommend you look over the 'Climate sensitivity is not specific to CO2' section here. I discussed the 'efficacies' of various climate forcings - how effective they are in changing global temperatures. If anything, solar irradiance has a lower efficacy than CO2, so comparing the response to solar irraidance to the response to CO2 is a reasonable thing to do. -
Same Ordinary Fool at 05:31 AM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
#9 Marcus and #17 dana 1981..........There's a lesson here. I wasn't researching Monckton, I was just browsing through the blogrolls on several websites. "We are a service for journalists and the online climate community. Our team of researchers will provide a rapid response service for climate science stories. We go straight to peer-reviewed science and the relevant scientists to get their opinions. Right now we are in the early stages of developing the site." "We (at carbonbrief.org) are a project of the Energy Strategy Centre." "The Energy Strategy Center...is the communications unit at the European Climate Foundation." "(The) Energy Climate Foundation aims to provide climate and energy policies that greatly reduce Europe's greenhouse gas emissions, and help Europe play an even stronger international leadership role in mitigating climate change." And, there's a second lesson here. Some of what is said in Europe, stays in Europe...when just doing standard googling, stateside. -
johnd at 04:26 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Daniel Bailey at 02:08 AM on 13 February, 2011, it often amuses me how the 30 year period is used by some to make a point about climate trends. A few years ago when Australia was in the midst of a drought, time and time again alarmists would trot out a graph showing the decline in rainfall over the preceding 30 years. As I argued back ad-infinitum, the beginning period, the mid 1970's, was likely the wettest period Australia wide since first settlement. I constantly had to point out that Australia in fact, was not getting drier, but instead getting wetter as indicated by comparing the second half of the 1900's to the first half, and that in turn to the entire 1800's. Now I expect the see the 30 year period being trotted out again, probably by the same people, to support arguments that Australia is now getting wetter given both the current conditions and the fact that 1982 was a bad drought year. :-( -
mozart at 04:15 AM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
Oops...and "site" should read "cite". I'm humbled. -
johnd at 03:58 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Ken Lambert at 23:36 PM on 12 February, 2011, I agree, one of the problems with climate analysis is the reliance on a relatively short data set, and a notion that it all can be analysed through a number of formulas or graphs. In Australia there exists a much larger "data base", that being the unofficial information that has been accumulated by both anecdotal evidence and personal records, especially in the agricultural sector. This information is relevant and should be accurate as it documents how the weather and climate manifested itself where it really matters, in the production of food. Historic crop production records are very good proxies that covers broad areas, but more importantly are indicators of whether we are capable of adjusting to any changes the climate has visited upon us now or in the past. With regards to the Brisbane floods, whilst there seems to be discussion about the effects of cyclones or otherwise, the bottom line is that it is the terrain that is the ultimate determining factor, and it is irrelevant whether the next flood will be cyclone induced or otherwise. Interestingly, the first "extreme" weather event apparently occurred when the first fleet arrived at Botany Bay. Whilst still on board the vessels, the arrivals were subjected to a week of 100 degree temperatures. -
johnd at 03:58 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Albatross at 15:39 PM on 12 February, 2011, perhaps you need to go back and carefully read my post that you were replying to, in particular the second last paragraph, and you will see that my post was in fact a response to your comment "Yes, something very different is going on alright." As I indicated, I find it prudent when considering any such analysis that compares trends over specified time frames, especially very short time spans such as the one in question, to consider the prevailing conditions at both ends of the surveyed period, and if those conditions were in a state of oscillation, give careful consideration as to whether similar outcomes would be achieved by adjusting the survey period forward or back to a point where the oscillating conditions had changed. Rather than passing judgment on the paper itself, I instead indicated the state of the IPO and ENSO cycles at the relevant points, and that doing a due diligence rather than blindly accepting the results, you, or anyone, would be better able to evaluate the value of any conclusions reached. If you want to discuss aspects of the paper referred to by you then perhaps one of those aspects that I am giving some thought to is the use of percentiles in determining extreme events. In itself it would normally be acceptable, however in the case of precipitation, and specifically precipitation over Australia, as you may or may not be aware, there are large areas with minimal rainfalls as well as areas with tropical rainfalls, and as is well documented, whilst the higher rainfall areas are generally subject to a reasonably regular pattern, in the marginal areas rainfall is both sparse and irregular with long completely dry cycles. Whilst it is often made as a joke that there have been kids 10 years old that had never seen rain, it needs to be considered that it is based on fact. Getting back to precipitation percentiles, does identifying the extremes from large areas with say a historically irregular 5" rainfall with those from a regular 40" rainfall allow a valid analysis to be made regarding extreme events, and even it was acceptable for the purpose of the analysis, could any worthwhile conclusions be drawn as to what is actually occurring over such a large and diverse land mass? -
RickG at 03:53 AM on 13 February 2011There is no consensus
@281 Interesting! with that in mind, what is you opinion concerning the "petition project" signed by some 31,000 scientists stating, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere"? -
mozart at 03:51 AM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
Apologies...."Maybe a 0.35% rise" should read "Maybe a 0.35 degree rise". An edit function would be helpful. -
mozart at 03:47 AM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
Thanks dana I appreciate that answer, and it makes sense. But I guess the net of all of that is the 20th century relationship CO2 to temperature is somewhat weaker than a 23.7% rise in CO2 produces a 0.57 degree C rise. Maybe a 0.35% rise? Conversely it has to increase the CO2 response for the last 30 years. Muoncounter my only problem with the link you site is the solar response is in fact derived from an assumed CO2 response. Given that's the variable most in dispute....the reasoning seems a bit circular. "So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2 to 4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007), which corresponds to a range of 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W-m-2) for λ. We can then calculate the change in global temperature caused by the increase in TSI since 1900 using the formulas above."Moderator Response: Also use the Search field to find the Post "Climate time lag." -
dana1981 at 03:40 AM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
SOF #8 - nice article, thanks. Good to see Monckton Myths mentioned there! Mozart - two things. 1) The solar radiative forcing over the past century has been about 10 times smaller than the CO2 radiative forcing. A smaller forcing means thermal inertia causes less of a lag. 2) Solar irradiance hasn't increased in over 60 years now. Even with a radiative forcing as large as CO2, most of the warming is realized within that timeframe. But with changes as small as the solar irradiance increase, most of the warming is realized within 5-10 years. -
SamPatt at 03:20 AM on 13 February 2011There is no consensus
The study mentioned in this article, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, is a very poor study. The survey questions asked are so crafted that nearly everyone, regardless of opinion on AGW, would answer yes. To prove it, Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Michaels both answered positively to the survey, even though they are routinely considered 'deniers'. Details are in this article: Study claiming ’97% of climate scientists agree’ is flawed -
Bob Lacatena at 02:14 AM on 13 February 2011Coral Reef Baselines
'Type'? Looks like a misteke to me.Moderator Response: [DB] Gud wun. -
Daniel Bailey at 02:08 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
KL @ 24 wants to have his cake and eat it too. The established length of time series for climate significance is typically 30 years or more. With a robust enough dataset, shorter periods may also be significant. Numerous times on various threads here at SkS he has proclaimed about the lack of oceanic warming since 2003, but never has that trend risen to the level of statistical significance. Now he would have us ignore the results of a dataset going back 100 years for...why, again? I would humbly suggest, Ken, that you refrain from characterizations of other people's comments as you have just done with that of Albatross (note the 2nd "s"). That tends to get you in trouble here, as you well know. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 02:00 AM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
#15: "To simply ignore the effects of solar... " No one is ignoring the effects of solar (where did I hear that before?) See How we know the sun isn't or any of the threads that show all the forcings are used in warming calculations. "As always, a little reading and research shows that climate scientists aren't ignoring these obvious questions." -
mozart at 01:48 AM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
I'm referring to the relationship between CO2 and temperature for the 20th century. The 0.57 degrees centigrade rise, is linked to a 23.7% rise in CO2. But the solar irradiation number in 2000 was higher than in 1900, which should account for some of the rise? So is the basic relationship weaker? To simply ignore the effects of solar, because it doesn't correlate well in the last 30 years seems unwise....particularly as it was solar irradiation fluctuations that took us in and out of the little Ice Ages. Let me pose the question in a different way. If a new Carbon level has a delayed response, do we believe a step to a new plateau level in solar irradiation is played out immediately, over ten years, over 50 years? -
JMurphy at 01:46 AM on 13 February 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
protestant, you need to look at Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino to learn more about the different datasets and how global their coverage is. You also need to look at Are surface temperature records reliable?, before backing up your accusation of "unjustified interpolation". -
muoncounter at 01:35 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
#25: "the indigenous reports of flood high levels" Something suggests to me that if those indigenous reports were to the effect of "It never used to flood here," KL would be discounting them entirely.
Prev 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 Next
