Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 Next
Comments 97251 to 97300:
-
Ron Crouch at 06:20 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Another data set that some here might find useful. International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set -
JMurphy at 06:06 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
apiratelooksat50 wrote : "And, yes, it does appear that something unnatural is going on with atmospheric CO2 levels. The temperature may end up becoming abnormal, but so far it is within historical norms. Projections and models are not facts until they happen." More questions to be ignored by the pirate : What "unnatural" something do you think is going on with atmospheric CO2 levels ? Can you give a definition of what you understand to be "historical norms" ? How would you define when "projections" (calculations about future events) and "models" (simulations of events) become "facts" or when they could be said to "happen" ? Do you have any criteria ? -
muoncounter at 05:52 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#38: michael notes correctly in #40 that temperatures are well beyond 'historical norms'. What is the specific natural cycle that has taken both CO2 and temperature to such extremes? Please be specific in identifying the mechanism behind this cycle and provide some documentation, if available. -
michael sweet at 05:34 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate: Examining the temperature graph at #5, the temperature is 0.5C above the extreme limits of the past 2000 years!! That coincides exactly with the increase in CO2. Do we have to have the highest temperatures in thepast million years before you will admit that the temperatures are above normal? What temperature increase would you say is "abnormal"? -
Gordon1368 at 05:30 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate, can you explain why the temperature at the far right side has not dropped the way it has in all past bumps in the natural cycle? I'd like to understand why it differs now. You see how it just keeps bumping along at a high level, whereas in the past it peaked and then fell sharply. Please tell me how that fits a natural cycle. Serious question. -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:25 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Muon @ 37, I didn't "make up" the historical "natural cycles". And, yes, it does appear that something unnatural is going on with atmospheric CO2 levels. The temperature may end up becoming abnormal, but so far it is within historical norms. Projections and models are not facts until they happen. -
muoncounter at 05:05 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#35: Pirate, we meet again! "it bolsters your point, but most of the rest on here will disagree." If you look at the far right hand side of the CO2 graph, it bolsters the point that recent atmospheric conditions are not natural. Add in the recent temperature record, such as the graphs provided by Yooper at #5, which are also not natural. A reasonable person would suspect some form of relationship between those two observations; one not found in natural cycles. Good thing there's a theory, backed by strong physics and further bolstered by numerous other observations, to explain that relationship. Or you can go on making up 'natural cycles' to explain this behavior. -
Marco at 04:44 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I'm missing the JMA data. It's here: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:33 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
HuggyPops @ 5 Here is another graph for you to look at. I think you will like it with its longer timeframe. From Woods Hole Research Center. I think it bolsters your point, but most of the rest on here will disagree.
-
Neven at 04:32 AM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
Newsflash! Global sea ice area is reaching for an all-time low: Indeed, if a drop of around 77000 square km gets reported tomorrow for the Antarctic sea ice area, Global sea ice area as reported by Cryosphere Today will have set a new minimum record. Not very significant, but fun, especially in relation to Monckton's blunt lies. -
muoncounter at 04:00 AM on 27 January 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
#30:"we still don't know the effect of AGW and ice loss on the AO." Eric, It might be useful to determine whether ice loss can be modeled by a combination of AGW and AO. If that is correct, there ought to be a long term trend with residuals. See the graphs here, here and here for ideas about the trend; quadratic looks reasonable. The oscillation's timing should be tested against any periodicity in these residuals. If the magnitude of the residuals is small, it would indicate that the oscillation is relatively weak as a driver of ice loss. -
robert way at 04:00 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
garythompson @ 20 You requested a graph on volcanism over the 20th century. See here for your request. Notice the significant "Lull"
Albatross,
I'm curious as to the coverage of the RATPAC-A data geographically. I'm also wondering as to whether anyone can find the JMA data. Thanks though. I'll have a look into it a bit.
Chris G,
Combining them is useful because the Reanalysis datasets have superior coverage of the Polar regions because they use so many different datasets. Furthermore their results validate those of GISS. The boys at clear climate code incorporated environment Canada data too and their results also validated GISS. I think assuming that the North is warming at the same rate as the global data is a flaw in hadley's analysis to be honest. In fact their whole station combination method is very good at excluding data whereas RSM (used by GISS) is very inclusive.
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Converted link to picture. -
Chris G at 03:31 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
This composite index is interesting in that it clearly shows that there isn't enough difference between the data sets to make hay of, although I've seen that attempted. However, it muddles up the meaning. For instance, in the GISS way of thinking, in the sparsity of data, it is logical to infer that that a relatively small region entirely surrounded by a region with a measured warming anomaly also has a warming anomaly of at least as much. In the HadCRUT3 line of reasoning, it's best simply to pretend that the regions with no measurements don't exist. Both are valid ways of dealing with the sparsity of data in polar regions, but what does combining them together mean, that regions with sparse data partially exist? -
Albatross at 03:28 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
John and Robert, The RATPAC-A data are available here. They recommend RATPAC-A for "studies of long-term large-scale climate change since it contains the most robust large-scale averages." -
Ten temperature records in a single graphic
HuggyPopsBear - If the heating is due to an imbalance between energy coming from the sun and energy radiating from the Earth (as is the case with greenhouse gases), the last few percent of heating take a very long time, as the rate of temperature change is proportionate to the difference between energy coming in and going out. I cannot think of a physical relationship where the last few percent of heating accelerates, unless you're looking at the apparent changes in a phase transition between solid/liquid/gas - that's not the case here. There's some ice melting, but the Earth is not a uniform block of material where at some energy level it suddenly changes state. Of course, since we're continuing to put CO2 into the atmosphere, there's not a step change in forcing - at this point we appear to be turning up the heat faster than the planet is warming, and temperature change is, if anything, accelerating. So heating has not slowed down, and we won't see a decrease in energy accumulation unless the forcings are reduced. -
Ron Crouch at 01:49 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#23 "I look at a kettle and I ask, does the water heat at a consistent rate from start to finish, or is it just the last say 10% that heats quicker?" As David pointed out the answer is yes. It heats at a consistent rate given that the heating source maintains a consistent output. Think about it Jim does an ice cube melt faster in a room that is 34oF or 90oF? It therefore follows that the more energy thrown at the ice cube the shorter duration it takes to melt, even if that increase in energy is raised slowly. Similar in principle to stepping on the accelerator in your car, except in this case humanity is stepping on the accelerator of the planet.. -
Riccardo at 00:58 AM on 27 January 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
Ken Lambert read this again ... "your eq. 2 in #8 is wrong since it applies only for constant F which is the case only in steady state." I think you should put more effort in the definition of the quantities you use. Compare this: "It is the net of all the forcings operating on the climate system." with this "That is all the warming forcings minus all the cooling forcings including S-B and WV and Ice albedo feedbacks." Please clarify what you mean by forcing and what by feedback, I maybe got confused by your ambiguity in the definitions. -
michael sweet at 00:52 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
HuggyPops Bear, Did you read the graph in the moderator response to you at #5. That gives a 2000 year record. If you search this site you can find the Vostock ice core record which goes back 450,000 years. When you say "Yes if we only rely on figures of the last 150 years or so" immediately after you are given 2000 years of data it appears that you are unwilling to read data you are given. Why didn't you read the data the moderator provided for you? If you only ocnsider the last 150 years of data it might make sense to imagine a natural cycle caused the warming. If you actually look at the much longer data record available it is clear that the warming is not natural. -
Paul D at 00:31 AM on 27 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
Harold Pierce (jr?)@48 "After watching weather reports on the TV over 50 years, I have concluded that the earth's climate has not changed much at all." Well maybe 300 or 500 years ago, such an anecdote might be accepted as wise words. But in this day of science, someone watching TV and making a personal assessment doesn't really add to human knowledge or provide any evidence. -
damien at 00:12 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
"As with all our climate graphics, this is under a Climate Commons license ... " Creative commons? -
Ed Davies at 00:03 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
@caerbanog #7, are the extra readings the ones differentiated by the "duplicate" field or just the "modifier"? I have to admit that I couldn't understand the description of the duplicate field so my own version of this just ignores it and uses the last data value for each station, but it does take the modifier as part of the station identification. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:24 PM on 26 January 2011It's not bad
I finally cracked open my new weather calendar. It starts with two rambling pages by Gregory McNamee detailing a few disasters but constantly pointing out benefits (e.g. dust storms fertilizing the oceans) and claiming that scientists are lowering their predictions of sea level rise. Some of what he says is ridiculous, like heavy rain being good for ducks. He ends with "Climate change is a fact. The numbers suggest other facts as well, among them that even if the world's governments too every step possible to counter that change, temperatures are likely to rise worldwide by an average of 3.6 Fahrenheit (2.6C) by the beginning of the twenty-second century. This may well profoundly alter the way our kind conducts its life on Earth. On the other hand, it is unlikely to be as catastrophic as some people fear - and that may be the best good news of all, even as we dream up news ways to keep alive, and even flourish, under a climate change regime." -
Ken Lambert at 22:32 PM on 26 January 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
Riccardo #20 Eqan (2) is not wrong. Read this again.... ""Delta E = F x delta t; where delta t is the time increment t2-t1 and F is a constant forcing. Therefore; Delta T = F x Delta t / K .......Eqan (2) If F was a variable forcing then F x Delta t would be replaced by the integral of function F wrt t."" You can call my 'F' - 'Q' if you like - it does not alter the relationships. I have already covered the case where F is a variable function over time. If I had an integral symbol on my keyboard I could substitute "Fconstant x Delta t" with "integral of function F wrt t". I don't think that you understand that F is the forcing imbalance. It is the net of all the forcings operating on the climate system. In a steady state F will be zero by definition. In a warming state F will be positive and in a cooling state F will be negative. -
Jesús Rosino at 22:29 PM on 26 January 2011Spanish translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
MattJ, Alexandre, The nickname fo the translator is "the lie" because his/her blog is "the lie is out there", a wink to "the truth is out there" (from X-Files) but implying that what they said was the truth is in reality the lie (conspiracy theories in general). -
David Horton at 22:27 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
"does the water heat at a consistent rate from start to finish" - yes, if you apply consistent heat from start to finish! I'm guessing that Mr Bear thinks that the water starting to bubble is a sign of more rapid heating perhaps. -
Riccardo at 22:13 PM on 26 January 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
Ken Lambert your definition of forcing as including, to make it short, everything is quite uncommon; MarkR definition, which is kind of standard, is different. Anyways, given your definition, your eq. 2 in #8 is wrong since it applies only for constant F which is the case only in steady state. Beware, it does not need to "steadily approaches zero as temperature equilibrium is reached". If for example if you have a linearly increasing (in time) forcing (using the standard definition), your F will aproach a constant value different from zero. -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:42 PM on 26 January 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Muoncounter, in the Science is Settled thread you said "What is becoming apparent is that prior predictions of these 'larger changes' were conservative. That suggests the natural cycles aren't so natural any more." I agree that the local warming feedback you referred to there is probably underestimated. What you did not consider in that thread is that the (likely natural) cycle of positive AO in the first half of the 90's also contributed to ice loss. What we will need to look at next is whether the ice loss from AGW and local feedback overwhelms the recovery we should see from negative AO and La Nina. Amd as I said in my previous post we still don't know the effect of AGW and ice loss on the AO. -
JMurphy at 21:24 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
HuggyPopsBear wrote : "My mind asks if it is the last few percentages that heat quicker, why can this not be the same for the atmosphere as we climb out of a mini Ice age?" But does your mind also ask how we are climbing out of that "mini Ice age" ? What are the natural processes involved which are causing that ?Moderator Response: ...which is covered in the Argument "We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age." -
JMurphy at 21:16 PM on 26 January 2011We're heading into cooling
Henry justice, for your own benefit you need to read further on this site. Start here, then look here. After that, look at the list of Skeptical arguments - all yours are covered. If you need to know more, comment on one of the above 'argument' threads. Finally, try to get your information from websites (like this one) that contain facts, figures and rational information - not from dodgy sites like the one you included in your post. -
HuggyPopsBear at 21:14 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Thanks Daniel I will ..........Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Per Hansen 2011, we are already at temps equal to the Holocene Maximum now. And still rising... -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:11 PM on 26 January 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
#27 Trueofvoice, yes, recovery is slower due to the negative AO (and negative NAO) bringing lots of very warm air into NE Canada. It's possible we could see the negative AO regime bringing us less ice in general. #26 Albatross, I agree that it is too short a time period to tell if negative AO is a trend or just a random excursion. The paradox paper in the other thread called it red noise causing episodic behavior. -
HuggyPopsBear at 21:09 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Marcus I am in no position nor are any of us to get into a verbal battle, my question was genuine enough though open I suppose for a little satire. I look at a kettle and I ask, does the water heat at a consistent rate from start to finish, or is it just the last say 10% that heats quicker? My mind asks if it is the last few percentages that heat quicker, why can this not be the same for the atmosphere as we climb out of a mini Ice age? Is it unnatural for such a climb? Yes if we only rely on figures of the last 150 years or so. However we know that the world once was warmer and had higher CO2 ppm. We know the pole caps were once fertile places, so why the need before data is proved should one get excited at the prospect of human induced global warming. It could be a natural phenomena.Moderator Response: See the Argument "We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age," and comment further over there. -
Ken Lambert at 19:55 PM on 26 January 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
MarkR #15 The forcing I labelled 'F' is the net imbalance forcing. That is all the warming forcings minus all the cooling forcings including S-B and WV and Ice albedo feedbacks. My F is the net warming imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m currently (09)estimated in the Trenberth paper (Aug09). Riccardo #12 == see above. Energy/time = Power which has the unit Watt (Joule/sec). The unit of area simply divides it into a rate per sq.m. "In your derivation in #8 you omitted the outgoing flux; this is why you get and ever increasing temperature even for a constant forcing, which is unphysical" My forcing F is the *net* forcing as described above. It will not remain constant as the various component forcings change. The main cooling forcing S-B will rise with T^4, so F will be a complex function which steadily approaches zero as temperature equilibrium is reached. ie: "You integrate F(t) wrt time 't'. This effectively gives you the area under the F curve - whatever the F function is and this represents the total energy gained by the mass between times t1 and t2." In reality at time t2, F approaches zero and the total energy absorbed by the Earth system will be equal to the area under the F curve representing (1) equilibrium Temperature rise x specific heat of the masses heated; plus (2) phase change heat of ice melted; plus (3) latent heat of extra water evaporated. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:51 PM on 26 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
h pierce "they don't make predictions or projections and their climate models produce only senarios since phenomena such as clouds, aerosols and in particular black carbon are difficult to model and their effects on climate are not well undersood" No, they are called projections primarily because they are contingent on assumptions about forcings (e.g. anthropogenic carbon emissions), rather than becuase of the limitations of the models. That is why e.g. Hansen gave three emissions scenarios and a projection for each one of them. He didn't know how emissions would evolve, so he could only make projections for a set of scenarios rather than a prediction. Even if the model were perfect, he could still only have made projections. "I doubt the climate scientist can model the pattern of weather for the various regions of the earth for period of about 30 years, for example, from 2070 to 2100. " Of course climate modellers can *model* the pattern of weather for various regions for thirty years, the do so quite routinely. What they can't do is *predict* the pattern of weather for thirty years. But then again, they wouldn't claim that they can becuase climate projections are based on simulating weather not predicting it. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:11 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I think it's best to look at a graph of temperatures Tamino, or (shorter period of time) here And temperature in the Arctic has its own rights. In one place is growing - in the second falls., because: “North Atlantic Ocean temperatures respond to changes in the Arctic Oscillation, locally represnted by the North Atlantic Oscillation. When temperatures are warmer in northern Europe, they are often colder on the northwest Atlantic side.” -
Ari Jokimäki at 17:37 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
There's also a new reanalysis: 20th Century Reanalysis. -
garythompson at 17:22 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Thanks for the link Bibliovermis. so low volcanic activity in the 30's is one of the main reasons for the warming. i noticed the word used in the site you referenced was 'believed'. was there a graph of volcanic activity superimposed on the temperature graphs of the 20th century to validate that? i didn't see it in the post.Moderator Response: Since this comment is about that other post, the appropriate place to put this comment is on that other thread. -
Bibliovermis at 17:12 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Gary, This is addressed in argument #39, It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low. -
garythompson at 17:05 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
From the graph in this post, one might surmise that the global temperatures started increasing around 1930. The CO2 data I have seen at the Mauna Loa site goes back to 1958. CO2 concentrations didn't really start accelerating until the 70's from that data. What is the explanation for the beginning of the temperature rist in the 30's? -
Trueofvoice at 16:18 PM on 26 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
"I doubt the climate scientist can model the pattern of weather for the various regions of the earth for period of about 30 years, for example, from 2070 to 2100." No one would bother to try projecting annual variability over a thirty year period. In effect you'd be generating noise to disguise the long-term trend from yourself. -
Albatross at 16:14 PM on 26 January 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
True @27, Essentially, in broad terms, yes. Arctic sea ice extent in December 2010 and January 2011 have been running at or near record lows. Hudson Bay only froze over completely over a month later than average. There is still no sea ice along the Labrador coast. -
Trueofvoice at 16:08 PM on 26 January 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Re # 23, Am I missing something? A negative Arctic Oscillation allows cold Arctic air to slide south, while warmer southern air moves north. Wouldn't this effectively slow recovery of the ice during winter? -
Albatross at 15:43 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Great Job Robert and John, thanks for this. Hope generating the ERA-interim global SAT data was not too much work. There is one more data set that one could add, and it may not be too much work....the RATPAC data. Gosh golly, look at this, RATPAC shows more warming than the surface data and shows 2010 to be the warmest on record....
-
Albatross at 15:36 PM on 26 January 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Eric @25, Actually I agree with you re #24. With that said, we have had two winters, back-to-back as it happens with incredibly low bouts of the AO, but two data points are obviously not enough to establish whether or not this marks the beginning of a long-term trend. I'm curious to see whether this is evidence of a transition to a new state or simple internal climate variability. Time will tell. The mechanisms and physics behind Arctic amplification in this case, are very well established. -
muoncounter at 15:05 PM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
#59: "New theories are nice, but not a sign of "Settled Science"." According to Serreze and Francis 2005, Recognition of the ice-albedo feedback as an important climatic process can be traced to the early work of Croll (1875). That hardly makes it a 'new theory.' Further, Our synthesis of the available evidence points to the Arctic as in a state of preconditioning, less advanced than that shown in the ACIA simulations for 2010–2029, but setting the stage for larger changes in future decades. This preconditioning is characterized by general warming in all seasons, a lengthened melt season, and an initial retreat and thinning of sea ice, all accompanied by strong expressions of decadal-scale climate variability. What is becoming apparent is that prior predictions of these 'larger changes' were conservative. That suggests the natural cycles aren't so natural any more. -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:58 PM on 26 January 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Muoncounter, you are looking at short term fluctuations. Last year AO also looked like it bottomed in December but then hit an all-time low (since 1954) in February. -
muoncounter at 14:50 PM on 26 January 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
#23: "we're still in strongly negative territory" What you're looking at is the three month running mean, which is strongly negative, but that's a hindcast. The daily record and the forward looks are here:
-- replaces the auto-updating graph.
Sure looks like it bottomed in mid December.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 14:39 PM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
I am asking what happened to the old theory of amplification by positive AO. New theories are nice, but not a sign of "Settled Science".Moderator Response: Thank you for parsing this comment and the previous one into the relevant threads! -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:37 PM on 26 January 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
muoncounter, thanks for the AO link, but I already look at that almost every day since it affects my own weather (an aside: AO predictions this year have been less accurate than usual). That site has the long term trends here http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/month_ao_index.shtml and we're still in strongly negative territory. As I said on the other thread, AGW is responsible for ice loss. AO is also a factor and negative AO should bring a recovery in ice. Another factor is last year's El Nino and a decline in ice. This year should see a continued recovery due to negative AO if that theory holds (paper linked on other thread). That still leaves the question on the other thread of the effects of AGW on AO according to models. -
muoncounter at 14:26 PM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
#57: Eric, Look at this AO time series, which has AO going positive very soon and respond here. Between Serreze (autumn warmth), Flanner (decreased albedo in the Arctic Ocean) and Tedesco (decreased albedo in Greenland), what part of arctic amplification do you object to?
Prev 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 Next
