Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 Next
Comments 96351 to 96400:
-
MichaelM at 21:05 PM on 9 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
RSVP: It's telling that your ideas seem to be based on a thorough misunderstanding of scientific principles. Oxygen: it's generated all the time by plants and algae. "My idea here does not represent science, nor pretends to, nor needs to." It does need to. If you are going to make stuff up as a means of arguing it does become rather pointless and tedious for all concerned. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:58 PM on 9 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
RSVP@13 Ah I see, word games. You are indeed free to buy an idea or not; however that freedom doesn't make your choice rational. As this is skepticalscience it is probably best to stick to ideas that are intended to represent science and leave the word games to one side. -
jyyh at 20:47 PM on 9 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
#12 dorlomin, that's a good question. I can only guess reasons for that, one might be the exchange of water between atlantic and other oceans is less in amount than that between indian and pacific. That would be because of the antarctic circumpolar drift, but I'm only guessing here. -
RSVP at 20:27 PM on 9 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
#11 " "even if the petrolium should never run out, the oxygen will" interesting suggestion, care to expand? " Combustion depends on oxygen. For all practical purposes oxygen is free "fuel" that is slowly getting consumed, and without oxygen, petrolium becomes quite useless. (I suppose the airlines will be the first to notice this problem.) The point of all this was to illustrate that an idea can have its basis in an understanding of scientific principles (or some notion thereof), as opposed to claiming to represent science. My idea here does not represent science, nor pretends to, nor needs to. If the information is useful, its no different than knowing what the price of bread is in local grocery store. You can buy it or not, embodying a concept called freedom, etc. -
BillyJoe at 20:19 PM on 9 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
I have been interested in climate change for nearly a year now. It seems it's paying off with all correct answers in the quiz :D Thanks to Real Climate and Sceptic Science. :) -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:05 PM on 9 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
HR 'changing the flow rate between the two vessels while I alter the flow rate into the whole system.' That isn't the case. The flow through the system is reduced when we first constrict the valve. This is the initial change in the flow into/out of the entire system. This then starts to produce an accumulation of water in the 2 tank system. This imbalance can only be restored when the level of the smaller tank rises enough to force an increased outflow. However, the smaller tank cannot reach this new balance level until the larger tank also reaches this level. So most of the accumulation is actually going into filling the larger tank - around 90% in the case of the climate. Until then, the flow into the largert tank artificially limits the rise in the smaller tank. Only at equilibrium does it all come back to level -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:02 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
apiratelooksat50@67 Good, we both agree that CO2 can be a temporary driver of climate. The next question is how long is temporary. The reason volcanos have a short lived effect is that the aerosols they eject into the atmosphere are short lived, and are gone in a couple of years. CO2 however is much longer lived, the adjustment time of CO2 is several hundred years, and full equilibriation takes tens to hundreds of thousands of years (because full equilibriation requires geological weathering to permanently remove the excess CO2 out of the active carbon cycle and into the lithosphere). There is a good book by David Archer called "The global carbon cycle", which explains the mechanisms involved in detail. The equilibriation from the PETM took on the order of 100,000 years - which is not very temporary from a human perspective (although it is a blink of the eye in geological terms). See Archers book, page 45 for details. Essentially, in your ice in a pan analogy, you need to take into account how long it takes to melt the ice. Sure the effect of CO2 is temporary, but that doesn't mean it is not relevant as "temporary" on a geological timescale is a very long time for us. However, you are continually refusing to answer the question I posed earlier. This sort of evasion is generally an indication that someone is not taking the discussion seriously and making a rhetorical argument rather than a scientific one. If you are not interested in the truth and only want to win a rhetorical debate, then perhaps this is not the site for you. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:54 PM on 9 February 2011Voicing values and climate change
A fantastic idea. But oh my God - how do you moderate it to keep everything OT. Discussions of solutions Only, not the Climate Science itself. One insight, if it hasn't been considered already, is separating the different streams of 'solutions'; Technical like energy technologies, Economic, Political, Social, Psycholocal, Advocacy and Outreach. Keep us posted. -
BaerbelW at 17:43 PM on 9 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
@Eric L Thanks for your feedback (and finding yet another typo!). I'll collect suggestions and will then re-upload the modified files. The quiz originated in connection with a 350.org activity which is why I included a question about 350 ppm. The individual questions are not numbered so any print-outs can obviously select suitable questions and/or re-arrange them as needed. @Daniel Bailey Thanks for the pointer about Greenland ice in 2010! A general "problem" with questions like the one about the Greenland ice is that they are moving targets. Ideally, these types of questions should be updated whenever new data (plus the corresponding graphics!) become available.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You're very welcome. A graphic expressing the Greenland mass-loss growing quadratically (which it is) would be nice, if achievable. A 3D version of this graph, but showing the loss growing instead of the mass declining, if you will. -
SME at 17:16 PM on 9 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
To further help inform people you could try a question of this form: What percentage of its ice was lost by Greenland last year? A) 5% B) 1% C) 0.1% D) 0.01% Answer: 286 Gigatonne or 0.01% of ice was lost by Greenland last year. _____________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet Total Greenland ice (ice sheet plus glaciers) ~= 2.85 megagigatonnes (2.85 E15 tonnes) 2.86 E9 / 2.85 E15 ~= 0.01% If all ice melt was considered to be land based ice, consequent sealevel rise would have been about 0.7 mm. Not a trivial amount in absolute terms. IF melting from this source continued at this rate for 100 years it would cause about 70mm (almost 3 inches) sea level rise. SMEModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] A couple of points: 286 Gigatons was the 2009 amount. The corresponding 2010 value was 600 Gigatons. The latest research suggests future Greenland and Antarctic ice losses will be anything but linear, with multiple-meter rises in sea level possible in decadal timescales. -
mozart at 16:28 PM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
[ -Snip- ]Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] If you insist to continually be off-topic, the moderators will have no choice but to intervene. You persist in your focus on record highs and lows in spite of everyone here trying to help you. Discussion of highs and lows should take place on the dedicated thread for it. No one wants to stifle dialogue. But it needs to be channeled into the appropriate venue for it. Thanks for your understanding! -
Eric L at 16:12 PM on 9 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
This is great. I would note: you mispelled "decade" on page 17. Also, I would have another question introducing the issue of CO2 acidification, as it is not a problem many are aware of and I suspect many would be confused by the question or find it ridiculous. Also, and this is just my feeling, but I think the 350 question is kind of subjective for a quiz to teach people the facts (that isn't to say it's not correct), and also given the following question may give people the impression that the damage is already done and there's not much point in trying to fix it now. -
watchingthedeniers at 15:38 PM on 9 February 2011Voicing values and climate change
This is a terrific initiative, and I look forward to the forth coming blog. It is a much needed voice. -
Phila at 15:16 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
You continue to neglect physics. To be precise, he continues to neglect physics that people here have repeatedly taken the time and trouble to explain to him, in this thread and others. Which is beginning to seem somewhat rude, as well as irrational. -
ahaynes at 15:01 PM on 9 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
Also, Michael Tobis has had some good puzzlers, on In It; though I'm not sure how to find them again though. And Yulsman's What are you looking at? "mystery image" -
muoncounter at 14:51 PM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#154: "providing no support for the view that a shift has occured." Your daily records analysis makes no sense whatsoever. Climate change is about trends established over many years and large areas. The GHCN temperature trend in the 5x5 degree lat/long grid in the Chicago area (40-45N lat, 85-90W long)? Up 0.22 degrees C per decade since 1970. The shift has occurred, whether you can see it out your window or not. -
ahaynes at 14:39 PM on 9 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
I should clarify that the quiz over at the Warming101 post (link) has a lot of Qs different from Baerbel's quiz (though they do overlap). Baerbel's is much more beautiful, with the images... -
dana1981 at 14:32 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Marvin - fossil fuels are artificially cheap because we don't pay for the climate change or associated damages their co2 emissions cause. That's what economists call an "externality". Pirate - the whole reason the planet is warming is because it isn't in equilibrium, because of the ever-increasing co2 forcing. You continue to neglect physics. -
muoncounter at 14:25 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
#67: "equilibration comes into play (i.e., after a major volcanic eruption) and temps go back to their normal phase" It might be wise to check your facts, especially if you intend teaching this idea. Robock 2003 provides a thorough and definitive analysis. The June 15, 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption was a large but relatively shortlived shock to the Earth’s atmosphere. Temperature and CO2 records conclusively show that a brief cooling and temporary reduction in the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 were done with within 2-3 years of the eruption. So no, there's no 'equilibration,' whatever that is supposed to mean. But your right, temps went back to their normal phase -- increasing due to the forcing of anthropogenic CO2. -
scaddenp at 13:50 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Pirate, just an addendum. Volcanoes make short-lived contribution (your ice-cube) because the aerosols are quickly gone. CO2 is not quickly gone. -
scaddenp at 13:48 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
I've considered that CO2 can "drive" climate and rejected it. So what psuedo-skeptic nonsense did you fall for? Got some peer-reviewed science to back your conclusion. What do you mean by your reference of "artificially cheap fossil fuels"? Fossil fuels are subsidized. That makes them artificially cheap. IEA estimated subsidies worldwide to be US$557B in 2008. See IEA report for the details. Ending subsidies is a good way to get an different energy structure started, but bad for fossil fuel company shareholders. -
scaddenp at 13:41 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Pirate - and if you continue to add ice cubes? CO2 is eventually removed by geological processes but at geological rates. Meanwhile, we keep adding CO2. What concerns me is that you can postulate all kinds of nonsense if you don't do the maths. Doing the maths means comparing the relative strengths of forcings and the effects on temperature. (That we you don't get the "recovering from LIA" nonsense). -
GFW at 13:36 PM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
Rhjames is the very definition of a "concern troll" (google that if you're not familiar with the term). Note his hilarious use of "We" to open three paragraphs. Hence, I don't expect him to return, or to read the reasonable responses people have written if he does. Nonetheless, in case someone else was taken in ... I'll expand on Phillippe's response a bit. The global sea ice plot at Cryosphere Today shows a clear downward trend. All studies of land ice on Greenland show significant mass loss (see elsewhere on this site) and recent studies of Antarctica are showing the same sort of decline (also referenced on this site). That's all the "polar ice" so, yes, total polar ice is decreasing. As for the NW passage, there was exactly one single-year passage before recent years (when there have been many, some in very light craft that couldn't take any serious impact with ice). That historic passage was of course commanded by Henry Larsen in the St. Roch, which was a heavily reinforced schooner. The St. Roch was able to squeeze down leads in ice that would look solid had there been satellite images back then. So really, the passage wasn't "open" in the sense that we use the term - meaning clear blue water on the satellite images. Larsen was a brave man who got lucky. Considering his one other passage took 3 years, we can say he averaged 2y per passage. In 2010, some Norwegians did the EW passage and the NW passage in a couple of months, using an ultralight fiberglass trimaran. There's just no comparison. -
Albatross at 12:57 PM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
As if we did not need more evidence. From a paper to appear very soon in the prestigious Journal of Climate: "The role of human activity in the recent warming of extremely warm daytime temperatures Nikolaos Christidis, Peter A. Stott, Simon J. Brown Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Change, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK Abstract Formal detection and attribution analyses of changes in daily extremes give evidence of a significant human influence on the increasing severity of extremely warm nights and decreasing severity of extremely cold days and nights. We present an optimal fingerprinting analysis, which also detects the contributions of external forcings to recent changes in extremely warm days using non-stationary extreme value theory. Our analysis is the first that attempts to partition the observed change in warm daytime extremes between its anthropogenic and natural components and hence attribute part of the change to possible causes. Changes in the extreme temperatures are represented by the temporal changes in a parameter of an extreme value distribution. Regional distributions of the trend in the parameter are computed with and without human influence using constraints from the global optimal fingerprinting analysis. Anthropogenic forcings alter the regional distributions, indicating that extremely warm days have become hotter." -
Albatross at 12:56 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Pirate @66, You continue to be disingenuous with your flippant and unsubstantiated remarks. People have repeatedly directed you to the science which demonstrates that the planet is experiencing a net positive energy imbalance on account of the radiative forcing from GHGs and that the majority of warming is attributable to the rapid increase in GHGs from human activities. From a paper to appear very soon in the prestigious Journal of Climate: "The role of human activity in the recent warming of extremely warm daytime temperatures Nikolaos Christidis, Peter A. Stott, Simon J. Brown Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Change, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK Abstract Formal detection and attribution analyses of changes in daily extremes give evidence of a significant human influence on the increasing severity of extremely warm nights and decreasing severity of extremely cold days and nights. We present an optimal fingerprinting analysis, which also detects the contributions of external forcings to recent changes in extremely warm days using non-stationary extreme value theory. Our analysis is the first that attempts to partition the observed change in warm daytime extremes between its anthropogenic and natural components and hence attribute part of the change to possible causes. Changes in the extreme temperatures are represented by the temporal changes in a parameter of an extreme value distribution. Regional distributions of the trend in the parameter are computed with and without human influence using constraints from the global optimal fingerprinting analysis. Anthropogenic forcings alter the regional distributions, indicating that extremely warm days have become hotter." -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:50 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Dikran @ 64, From what I've read, I am in tentative agreement that large releases of CO2 can have a temporary effect as a driver of global temperature. But, equilibration comes into play (i.e., after a major volcanic eruption) and temps go back to their normal phase, whether rising or falling. Start a pot of water boiling and drop in one ice cube. What happens? The rate of reaching boiling slows down temporarily until that ice cube is gone. But, then it rapidly goes back to the original trend. -
climatesight at 12:49 PM on 9 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
This is a really good tool for public communication...fantastic job. I am wondering if a dynamic online format, similar to your PowerPoint animation idea, would be good. People could go to SkS and take the quiz without having to download anything. I think an online form of the quiz would be fun, and not too hard to code. -
Albatross at 12:49 PM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Agnostic @15, As you know, getting data from the Russian authorities is not easy. For this reason the estimates of the deaths vary wildly, from 15000 to 56000. The latter number (56000) is from this United Nations press release. In my earlier post I could not remember the exact number that I read originally, so I gave a range and erred on the conservative side. Whatever the final number of fatalities actually was, it was very likely in the tens of thousands. 2010 was a grim year for natural disasters. -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:42 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Temp, CO2 and human population. Kinda tied together ain't it? In what order - who knows? -
Marvin Gardens at 12:26 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Dana @ 63 I've considered that CO2 can "drive" climate and rejected it. What do you mean by your reference of "artificially cheap fossil fuels"? -
Albatross at 12:05 PM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
"These record highs and lows are from a city which has just been impacted by Arctic cold" Can only hope that is was simply "affected" by the cold-- "impacted", ouch. The point that you seem to keep missing Mozart is that the loss of ice can lead to strongly negative models of the NAO/AO which leads to the so-called 'warm Arctic, cold continents' phenomenon-- i.e., unusually strong cold Arctic outbreaks. I do not think anyone is seriously suggesting that these excursions will last the entire boreal winter, nor are they suggesting it will lead to a trend in boreal winters. Europe was cold in late November and most of December, but has been mild ever since, the meteorological winter 2010-2011 (DFF) for Europe could end up being near normal. IMHO, this pattern suggests much larger wings in temperature and precipitation over the northern continents during the Boreal winter. Time will tell.... Mozart at 156 starts to show his/her true colours. You will probably think otherwise, but people have actually been very patient with you Mozart, and have repeatedly tried to guide you as to how this site works. It works for other 'skeptics' who frequent the site, so no reason that it cannot work for you. -
Riduna at 11:44 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Albatross @ 3 …. the Russian heat wave that killed an estimated 40-50 thousand. At the time, Russian authorities estimated 15,000 premature deaths. Have they revised that estimate? -
Steve L at 11:17 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
KR @11, Thank you -- that was the point I was trying to make! This blog post states "increase in record high temperatures". I don't think that's accurate, and so other wording should be used. As for the ratio of record lows to record highs ... I actually prefer numbers that sum to 1, and therefore percentages could be better. For example, I think projections for the future should be: "by 2050 5% of record temperatures will be cold; by 2100 that will drop to 2%." But this is just semantics. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:17 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
Rhjames' Arctic sea ice has decreased a lot more than Antarctic sea ice. Global sea ice is clearly in the decline. Picking 2007 to try to suggest that the ice decline has stopped is as misleading and wrong as suggesting that temperatures have been flat since 1998. Both claims are equally wrong, the data shows that very clearly. In fact, the decline in summer Arctic sea ice shows an accelerating decline up to 2010. If you can not understand that this does not necessarily mean that every year will be lower than the previous one, you have some serious catching up to do with the basics. The very significant decrease in Arctic sea ice in the Arctic summer opens up large areas of ocean to absorb sunlight. The Northwest passage has never been reported to open as much and as long as in recent years. All Northwest passages crossings in more distant history took several years. There has never been in recorded history so many days when both the NW and NE passages were open at the same time as there was in the past few summers. All this has been explored earlier on this site, proper research here or on Google will take you to all the sources and data you need. -
Stephen Leahy at 11:04 AM on 9 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
WRT to CC, I like the phrase: "we may even see new ‘flavours’ of ENSO emerge as we move into the future” --Julia Cole, a climate scientist at the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona. -
iana at 10:19 AM on 9 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
This is really a great resource. Thank you! -
villabolo at 10:08 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
John C, I do agree with Billy Joe at @7. The semantics do not allow for a contradiction in that particular point that Monckton is making. This, irrespective of all his other contradictions. -
Albatross at 10:05 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
SteveL @10, The information for years from 2002 can be found here. National records are labeled as such. -
Record high temperatures versus record lows
mozart - See the above graph with declining numbers of highs and lows. The longer the data set, the fewer extrema you will expect to see later in the data set, as records are only set when either internal variation is high or when the midpoint shifts. The ratio of highs to lows over any time period is an indication of trends. -
Global Warming and Cold Winters
mozart - Please look at (and comment further upon) the thread Record high temperatures versus record lows: I've already referred you there, and it clearly demonstrates your misperceptions.Moderator Response: I've deleted mozart's last couple of comments and a reply to one of them, because mozart has failed to follow the directives to put comments on the appropriate thread, "Record high temperatures versus record lows." -
Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Steve L - It's difficult to compare year to year in terms of absolute numbers of records; the longer you study a system the fewer extremes will be seen, due to having more data. See Record high temperatures versus record lows for examples. However, the ratio of record lows to record highs over any time period will be low (more highs than lows) if it's warming, high if it's cooling. That's the indicator to look at. -
villabolo at 09:43 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
When talking about record hot weather, Monckton points out that while heatwaves happen, so to do cold snaps: In my opinion the immediate rebuttal to this, before bringing out any further evidence, should be that it was the heatwave in the Arctic that pushed the frigid polar air towards us therefore causing those cold snaps. By making a direct link between that heatwave and the coldsnaps we have a higher chance of quickly neutralizing Lord Monckton's argument in the minds of the layman. -
mozart at 09:27 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
We have a sixty year period. We would expect the highs and lows to be distributed evenly through that period in the absence of any trends. So now look at monthly data for January. There will be 31 highs and 31 lows reflecting specific days through the 60 year period. We would expect 5.16' of those daily highs and 5.16' of those daily lows to occur in each decade. Multiply that by 6 decades and you get a high and a low for each day in the month (is this confusing?) Unexpectedly though we get far fewer highs and lows, for January, February and March.....providing no support for the view that a shift has occured. If anything the variabilty is reduced. -
JMurphy at 09:18 AM on 9 February 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
I thought it worth posting a link to a forecast by the Met Office from 10 Dec 2009 : The latest forecast from our climate scientists, shows the global temperature is forecast to be almost 0.6 °C above the 1961–90 long-term average. This means that it is more likely than not that 2010 will be the warmest year in the instrumental record, beating the previous record year which was 1998. Climate could warm to record levels in 2010 Not bad, especially as a summation of all the major analyses. Of course, to so-called skeptics, the Met Office never get their forecasts right... -
Steve L at 09:17 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Hi Michael. I was referring to Meehl et al 2009. That study is more limited in terms of both temporal (the paper obviously didn't include 2010) and spatial (conterminous US only) coverage than the records you discuss. But please note that the metric, "increase in record high temperatures," which I took to mean increasing frequency of record high temperatures, makes it difficult to use information such as that provided by you & Albatross. How many countries experienced record highs in previous years? -
Albatross at 08:52 AM on 9 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Poodlebites, Thanks for the link to the Tans paper. What we have to keep in mind is that the forests can act as a net carbon source (as opposed to a C sink) during and shortly after drought, as the recent paper of the Amazon droughts in Science demonstrates. Anyhow, some good news, the forests are still providing a buffer-- a buffer that is very much needed. on a side note, a concern is that the pine beetle invasion has progressed from British Columbia into Alberta, scientists are concerned that is could spread into the Canada's Boreal forest. -
Albatross at 08:37 AM on 9 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
The Poodlebites, "My main point was no significant trends in hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, precip, snow." Actually there are trends in drought and heavy precipitations around the globe (e.g., Dai et al. (2004): "Together, the global land areas in either very dry or very wet conditions have increased from ~20% to 38% since 1972, with surface warming as the primary cause after the mid-1980s. These results provide observational evidence for the increasing risk of droughts as anthropogenic global warming progresses and produces both increased temperatures and increased drying." I provided links to several papers investigating the increase in heavy rainfall events around the globe here and here. And there is also a statistically significant trend toward less N. Hemisphere snow cover in the spring and summer as documented by Dery and Brown (2007). Numerous papers using fingerprinting techniques have identified the AGW signal, as discussed in section 9.4 in the IPCC AR4 and here and here and here on SkS. Those are the facts. Sorry, but while you and I are entitled to our opinions and interpretations of the science and data, the facts stand on their own and they present a very clear and consistent picture. To deny that is not being "skeptical"..... -
scaddenp at 08:18 AM on 9 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Mozart - Firstly the "percentage" arguments are smoke and mirrors. ppm for pre-industrial(1830) is 280, 560 is double that. Growth from 1830 to 1950 was 30ppm - 10% and 0.25ppm/yr Growth from 1950 to 2000 was 55ppm - 20% and 1.1 ppm/yr Growth from 2000 to 2010 was 25ppm - 9% and 2.5 ppm/yr Still need another 60% to get to doubling, but at 2.5ppm per year, this takes 66 years. Where did you get the idea CO2 rates were flat 10 years ago? Another assertion without evidence. Why exactly do you think that China and India (or US for that matter) will stop burning coal? Anyway, the point of SRES scenarios is that you can take the scenario that you think is best likely to describe the future (by looking at the assumptions it makes, not wishful thinking) and then looking at WG2 to see what world would look like with that scenario. -
thepoodlebites at 08:07 AM on 9 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
#63 (AT) Let's stick to the facts. My main point was no significant trends in hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, precip, snow. The website you provided is not accurate. The average radius of the Earth is 6,370 km, not 5,925 km. The present rate of CO2 increase is 2 ppm/year, not 3 ppm/year. The parameters used should be accurate, that's all I was trying to point out. The conclusion concerning deforrestation is in dispute, see Tans 2009, specifically, Fig. 3. You seem to be setting up strawman arguments about null hypotheses so that you can knock them down. From current observations, the CO2-induced AGW signal is still inconclusive. That's how I see it. -
michael sweet at 08:04 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
TorB: Check the NCDC Climate Monitoring reports to find Global weather averages. I find October 2009 as 6th warmest on record (0.5C above average), November 2009 as 4th warmest (0.59 over) and December 2009 as 31st warmest (0.35 over average). It is unlikely that the decade results above will be lowered since the average temerature in those months was higher than the rest of the decade. October was only "cold" compared to the previous record hot years. Check your data before making wild, unsupported claims. Steve L: In 2010 19 countries recorded all time record high temperatures and none recorded all time record lows see here (h/t Albatross). 20% of the Earths land surface is included in those records. Where is the room for questioning the "increase in high temperatures"?
Prev 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 Next
