Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 Next
Comments 97501 to 97550:
-
Chris G at 10:14 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Well, HuggyPop has taken a beating already, but... "My mind asks if it is the last few percentages that heat quicker,..." 'If' is key here. In fact, rate of energy loss is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature. So, given some constant rate of additional energy inflow, there will be a more rapid rise in temperature rate immediately after the additional energy source is added than there will be from that point forward. A graph of temperature curve would show a decreasing slope over time; that is exactly the opposite of what every global temperature record reveals, which is an increasing slope over time. It doesn't really matter what the forcing is; the only way you can get an increasing slope over time is if you increase the forcing faster than the body can reach an equilibrium. To use Huggy's analogy, the only way to keep a graph with an increasing slope is if you start the recording of the pot's temperature and then gradually crank up the juice. So, other than GHGs, what factor affecting the thermodynamic equilibrium of the planet has been increasing over the last ~150 years? -
HuggyPopsBear at 10:02 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Looking again at the graph the moderator put on my comment #5. I am being serious here. We have temperature records for the last 150 years or so tagged onto the end of a string of data taken from core samples and such. If the same technique of research/analysis was done on the last 150 years, would there be a different recording on the end of this graph? -
Nichol at 09:48 AM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Is it right to use the word 'skeptic' to describe Monkton? How can somebody that always searches for arguments for the same result, less warming, be a 'skeptic'? Especially if the arguments are so consistently weak or invalid? If 'contrarian' and 'denier' are considered words to be avoided, to keep discussion polite .. what descriptive word could one use? Anti-warming advocate? Anti-warming lobbyist? The least one should do is not to honour him with the title of 'skeptic'. -
Marcus at 09:31 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Once again Pirate seems under the delusion that scientific fact is determined by a "democratic vote". Unless those 28 out of 30 students can then go on to *prove* what the driver of climate change is (other than CO2, CH4, NO2 & CFC's), then what they *believe* is responsible is totally irrelevant-whether they're accepted into College or not. If all that was required was what the *majority* of people believe, then the US would have to abandon the Theory of Evolution too. -
michael sweet at 09:30 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate: In the last interglacials the sea level was up to 6 meters higher than it is now. That would put Miami and 5 million other people under water in Florida alone, not to mention hundreds of millions elsewhere. If that is normal for you OK but where I live that is abnormal. I call anything over what existed in the last 2000 years abnormal and we are well over that now. I teach AP Chemistry and I notice that studetns usually agree with whatever teacher is in the room. What you hear from them reflects what they think you want to hear. -
RickG at 09:28 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
@46 apiratelooksat50 As someone who has taught middle school Earth Science, I find your comment a bit hard to believe. However, if true I would imagine that their AGW skepticism originated from sources other than a science class. -
SRJ at 08:54 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
# 53 I should add that my attempt is not working properly. There is something wrong with my way of area weighting. -
SRJ at 08:53 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
# 34 Robert Way I have looked a little into the japanese data (JMA). The problem is that the data one can download are gridded. To make a global average it must be area weighted. Which is step 4 in the methods of JMA My attempt in Scilab is here: Averaging JMA data -
muoncounter at 08:39 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#45: "until "abnormal" is quantified, the question cannot be answered" Interesting. Pirate can state categorically that we are within historical norms for temperature and then turn right around to declare that 'abnormal' isn't known. So how can being within norms have any meaning? Oops, I'm forgetting that logic need not apply. -
muoncounter at 08:34 AM on 27 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
#54: "composition of local air is site specific" Within a given band of latitudes, CO2 concentrations are stunningly consistent as a function of longitude all the way around the globe. There's a worldwide network of atmospheric gas measurement stations; the primary variables are time of year and latitude. Even the timing and amplitude of seasonal cycles are consistent by latitude. The only way to see significant local variations is to measure CO2 around an urban center. You find that CO2 concentrations rise and fall with traffic volume, on both daily and weekly cycles. That's a good proof that CO2 is anthropogenic.Moderator Response: A relevant post is "CO2 is not increasing." -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:24 AM on 27 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
h pierce The greenhouse effect is not determined by the absorption of IR radiation at the surface, but in the upper atmosphere (upper trophosphere/stratosphere), where the air is dry, pure and CO2 "well mixed". The composition of air my be site specific at the surface, but that doesn't mean it isn't homogeneous where it matters for the greenhouse effect (and therefore for the models). A 30 year animation of the weather around the world would be very pretty, but not very informative. Data is not the same thing as information and statistics is generally a good way of distilling information from data, which is why climatologists use statistics such as global averages or trends. -
Chris G at 08:24 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I would certainly agree that combining data sets in order fill in gaps in one or the other is useful and worthwhile, but I maintain that averaging models that treat the same set of missing data differently muddles the meaning you can take from them. From a mathematical standpoint, it's clear what each means on their own, averaged, the meaning is less clear. With respect to GISS versus HadCRUT, I tend to agree with you, but that is a judgment call above my level of expertise. If they have a professional difference of opinion, and that difference is immaterial to me, I'm content to let it be. -
Ron Crouch at 07:57 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
You can't directly compare temperatures of past inter-glacials such as the Eamian to the Holocene Pirate. The planets celestial alignment to the sun was probably different than today. Eamian You would need to work out all the forcings applicable to the Eamian before trying to make any direct comparison to the Holocene. And I'm afraid that your ancestors knew quite well how to knock two rocks together, even during the Eamian, and quite likely before it. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:56 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
45, apiratelooksat50, So you think we shouldn't worry because "normal" temperatures for the planet are those which existed in a time without the human race (and probably represent temperatures with which much of the current human race might find difficulty existing)? Could I posit that, for the purposes of human civilization, we would best consider"normal" temperatures to be those in a range within which human civilization has thrived and grown in the past 2,000 years, and anything too far above that represents an extreme danger?Moderator Response: ... as discussed in "It’s not bad." -
Bob Lacatena at 07:53 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
46, apiratelooksat50, So they have been mistaught and mislead. Why does this not surprise me? Hint: High school students do not have the time or background to research things thoroughly themselves, so they believe what they are told. Who told them? Fox News, and their teachers.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Let's not forget their parents. Ideally, their science teachers could do some good in opening their eyes to the science; after all, we're supposed to present 'both sides' of the debate. But this is off-topic. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:40 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
You can't blame this one on me. I am covering an AP (Advanced Placement) Physics class for another teacher. He is multi-degreed in Chemistry and Physics and happens to support the AGW hypothesis. Of the 30 students in this room, 28 of them are already accepted to college and half of them are going on scholarships. Not one single student supports the AGW theory. They think human activities have effect on the climate and contribute to temperature changes, but they do not think CO2 is the driver. This will probably be deleted - I know. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:36 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Michael @ 40 Before I answer your question, we need to define what is abnormal. We might be hanging around a max temp longer this time and that may be abnormal, but we still have not matched the peaks of the previous 3 interglacial periods. So, until "abnormal" is quantified, the question cannot be answered. Since the previous 3 peaks occurred before humankinds first ancestors knew how to knock 2 rocks together, wouldn't we have to call that normal?Moderator Response: See "It's Not Bad." -
Bibliovermis at 07:29 AM on 27 January 2011It's not bad
I was replying to the irrelevance of Eric's quote, not giving my opinion on where reality (e.g. changes to BAU) will fall in the spectrum. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:29 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Gordon - You might be suprised to hear this from me, but I think the best current explanation for the sustained higher temperature could possibly be the increased CO2 levels. -
Riccardo at 07:26 AM on 27 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
Trueofvoice "we do it by direct measurement." and the same site shows, guess what, the Mauna Loa data :) h pierce please do not presume that atmospheric scientists do not know that the air pressure varies and the amount of CO2 will vary accordingly. Didn't you notice that CO2 concentration is usually quoted in ppm rather than in Kg/m3? -
Daniel Bailey at 07:24 AM on 27 January 2011It's not bad
Re: 103 & 104 "If the good news is that the worst of the projections probably won't happen, then the bad news is that the best won't either." "Why do you have optimism that the worst will not happen?" It won't take all of the worst happening. Some will be quite enough. BAU merely guarantees enough of the worst for overkill purposes. We live in interesting times... The Yooper -
michael sweet at 07:19 AM on 27 January 2011It's not bad
Bibliovermis: MIT just updated their forecast and doubled their estimate of temperature rise. The next IPCC report will more than double the sea level rise estimate. The Arctic sea ice and the Great Ice Sheets are melting faster than the worst projections. Why do you have optimism that the worst will not happen? We need to change from BAU in order to be optomistic. -
Albatross at 07:10 AM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
Please keep us updated Neven. Thanks. -
Bibliovermis at 07:03 AM on 27 January 2011It's not bad
If the good news is that the worst of the projections probably won't happen, then the bad news is that the best won't either. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:57 AM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
Thanks, Neven! Good to see you here! The Yooper -
Trueofvoice at 06:52 AM on 27 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
H pierce, From your link: "On an annual basis, the concentration of carbon dioxide in air rises and falls in a seasonal pattern; with the span between the seasonal high and low values typically being about 6 ppmv; or about one-and-a-half percent of the average annual value." Hardly evidence that CO2 concentrations are much lower than anyone realizes Furthermore, we don't determine CO2 concentrations by modelling, we do it by direct measurement. -
h pierce at 06:22 AM on 27 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
Mod at 48 What I want to see a 30 year animation of weather maps for all regions of earth. All climate models are fatally flawed because the concentration of CO2 used for the calculations is only valid for purified dry air which does not occur in the earth's atmosphere. Go to Universal Industrial Gases Inc.'s website at: http://www.uigi.com/air.html and study the tables that show the effects of temperature, pressure and humidity on the properties of air. The data are for air samples that do not include clouds. Note that moist tropical air is much less dense than cold dry air. There is much less CO2 in the air than is indicated by air analysis. In particular the article mentions that composition of local air is site specific and this determines the type of equipment used for processing of real air. -
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.
Prev 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 Next
