Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Next
Comments 97751 to 97800:
-
WHATDOWEKNOW at 08:02 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
#16 sphaerica. IMO you are comparing apples to oranges. The MEI is a RANKING, comprised of six variables: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C). Some of which are not related to temperature. In addition, the MEI is thus not an actual measurement, such as SST anomaly, but a RANKING. It ranks the strength of ENSO events based on all these 6 variables, not only temperature. So the fact that the La Nina is strong on the MEI scale, doesn't mean it's temperature is extremely low, which in fact it is not. It simply means that ALL variables combined make it strong. I compare ONI-values (SST anomaly in degrees C) with Global land-surface temperature anomalies. (degrees C). Apples to apples. ONI can be found here Based on a temperature only value, which ENSO events in term of strong/moderate/weak are based on, the current La Nina is only moderate. As for your "indisputable evidence for a 2-month lag time"; has that posting been published in the peer-reviewed literature? If not, well... sorry... 3-4 months has (as I clearly indicated with the link in my previous comment). Please compare the ONI SSTs with for example the GISS temps and you'll see the 3-4 month lag time. E.g. the el Nino peaked in Dec 2009 with a SST anomaly of 1.8C, 3 months later the GISS peaks at .85. Even with a 2 month lag time, the atmosphere ended to respond to the El Nino June 2010 and started to respond to the La Nina September 2010. 6 months El Nina vs 4 months La Nina. Whatever you throw at it; it was an EL NINO year. -
thepoodlebites at 07:59 AM on 21 January 2011It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
#63 Sorry, typo, Jan. 2008, not 2009, See UAH. Notice the dip below -0.2 C. -
thepoodlebites at 07:47 AM on 21 January 2011It's cooling
#109 "we can measure Total Solar Irradiance, and it's actually decreasing a little right now." This is actually kinda funny, See TSI. Can you specify "a little"?Moderator Response: See the Argument "It's the Sun," and continue the conversation there. -
dana1981 at 07:32 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
Whoops sorry moderator, I didn't see your request to take this discussion to the water vapor thread. That's all I wanted to say on the matter!Moderator Response: No problem. But Bill Peddie, if you want to reply, please do so on the water vapor or residence time threads. -
dana1981 at 07:31 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
Bill, the atmosphere can only hold a certain amount of water vapor. If the atmosphere gets hotter, it can hold more. But no matter how much water vapor we emit, the atmosphere will not be able to hold any more (unless it warms). Because of the short residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere, even if we emit a large quantity, it will just precipitate out of the atmosphere quickly. Thus it can't cause global warming. However, if some other factor warms the atmosphere (like an increasing greenhouse effect), then the atmposphere can hold more water vapor, which in turn will increase the greenhouse effect further and cause additional warming. This is why water vapor is referred to as a feedback. It doesn't cause global warming, it only amplifies it. -
Alexandre at 07:20 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
The main problem here is the speed of warming. Even a very fast natural warming like the PETM could be measured in thousands, or tens of thoudands of years. Now we're talking about the possibility of a 6ºC warming in a century or two. That's even faster than some animal species can travel to catch up with it, let alone adapt. The Triassic may have been hot, but it did not happen overnight. We will not have T-rexes here in 2 centuries, just because the temperature is roughly the same. The ecological consequences will be dire. Likewise, our economy has evolved in this stable climate we've had since the Holocene began. Claiming that we can just shuffle it and it will turn out to be something better in the end is just wishful thinking. Weather extremes are usually not economically benign. We already have anedoctal reports of rainy seasons in Africa becoming shorter and nastier. The late rain does damage when it's not there in the early season, and does damage again when it comes, in a monsoon-like fashion. Calling this "beneficial" just because we had big dinosaurs at that temp hundreds of millions of years ago is just irresponsible. -
Phila at 07:16 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
Bill Peddie: Surely this is a very elementary error. You seem to be misunderstanding the article. The basic point is that CO2 causes warming, which increases water vapor, which contributes to warming. The distinction between residence times -- at least as I understand it -- is basically the distinction between a forcing and a feedback. Could you make your objection a little clearer? I would stress there is still a great deal I dont understand If you really believe this, then it would be reasonable for you to assume that it's you who's making an elementary error. Did you read the linked article on residence time, by any chance?Moderator Response: Despite Bill Peddie continuing the discussion on this thread, will everybody responding to him please do so on the water vapor thread? -
Neutrino at 07:10 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
NETDR, The equation I used (∆F = 5.35*ln(C/Co) comes from a 12y old paper Myhre 98. As far as I know thats the standard aproximation of the CO2 radiative forcing. Its odd you focused on the 5.35 rather than the important fact that the ln is taken of a ratio of CO2 concentrations. Your 4% increase is from a baseline of 1ppm not from todays or pre industrial numbers. So again from your own numbers, the forcing from now till 2100 would be 1.51W/m^2 for linear compared to 2.92W/m^2 for quadratic. Thats a 94% increase in radiative forcing! Calling that a trivial difference is disingenuous. Saying that the linear is close enough is just plain wrong. Even your conservative quadratic gives nearly double the forcing at the end of the century. Just because you feel that a 4% increase in the total radiative forcing due to CO2 is trivial doesnt change reality. That trivial 4% translates to a 1.41W/m^2 forcing which, given a climate sensitivity of 0.8, works out to an additional 1.13C temperature increase. -
mclamb6 at 07:08 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
Bill, At the risk of sounding naive/ignorant, the best comparison I would be able to offer is that a thinner blanket that is covering me 100% of the time will keep me warmer (or have as great a warming effect on me) as a thicker blanket that is constantly removed...assuming the analogy holds, I fail to see the fundamental error. -
Lou Grinzo at 06:54 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
Great piece. I also want to stress something Ron brought up above -- the inherent uncertainty in our proclamations of what is and isn't a "safe" or "acceptable" level of warming. I've been harping for quite some time that the 2C guardrail is much older than most people realize, which means it was chosen before all of the climate science discoveries of the last few decades, discoveries that heavily imply a lower "safe" limit than 2C. The oldest reference I know of to 2C came in a UN-sponsored study involving a 15-member committee from 58 countries that was published in 1972(!), called Only One Earth. The graf I quoted on my site from that book: ---------------------------------- Clearly man has had nothing to do with these vast climatic changes [moving in and out of ice ages] in the past. And from the scale of the energy systems involved, it would seem rational to suppose that he is not likely to affect them in the future. But here we encounter another fact about our planetary life: the fragility of the balances through which the natural world that we know survives. In the field of climate, the sun’s radiations, the earth’s emissions, the universal influence of the oceans, and the impact of the ice are unquestionably vast and beyond any direct influence on the part of man. But the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation, the interplay of forces which preserves the average global level of temperature appear to be so even, so precise, that only the slightest shift in the energy balance could disrupt the whole system. It takes only the smallest movement at its fulcrum to swing a seesaw out of the horizontal. It may require only a very small percentage of change in the planet’s balance of energy to modify average temperatures by 2°C. Downward, this is another ice age; upward, a return to an ice-free age. In either case, the effects are global and catastrophic. ---------------------------------- Seems like at least some people had figured out nearly 40 years ago that 2C of warming wasn't such a terrific idea. -
Bill Peddie at 06:49 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
Well I have done as the moderator suggested and gone to the article which shows why Carbon Dioxide is more important than water as a Greenhouse gas. The article says: "The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect." Surely this is a very elementary error. The water and the carbon dixide does not hold onto the energy it absorbs, it loses it in collisions which occur usually within microseconds. It therefore only matters what the concentration of water molecules is at any one instant - not how long it stays in the atmosphere. The reason why water absorbs the Sun much better is because its bonding enables it to absorb at many points of the spectrum whereas carbon dioxide with its different architecture and bonding only has three major absorbtion peaks in the appropriate spectrum region. I would stress there is still a great deal I dont understand but I would suggest that elementary stuff gets fixed in your replies.Moderator Response: Thanks for reading that post. You also need to put comments about that post on that thread rather than this one. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:48 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
8, dana1981,So ... use of current temps as the reference point isn't really a big deal.
I kind of disagree. Temps are changing so fast, what is "current temps?" 1979? 1985? 2000? 2010? I recently got annoyed because Spencer found a perfectly good reason to change his baseline from one range to another.... we have just switched from a 20 year base period (1979 – 1998) to a more traditional 30 year base period (1981-2010) like that NOAA uses for climate “normals”.
I was already annoyed with his usual graph, because he hadn't set his baseline to 1979, when the satellite record began, but rather to the average from '79 to '98, which means something equivalent to roughly 1990, which conveniently, visually skips over a full decade of warming. It doesn't help that he uses other tricks, like a Y axis scale that minimizes the variations, and a thick blue line that further blurs things. Today, skeptics and scientists alike are generating many graphs with a baseline set to the midpoint (average) of the range of available measurements (1979-2010 for satellite, for example). But the instinctive reaction of most people is to view zero as normal. Setting zero to the period average, but moving one end point of that average, effectively keeps raising the base temperature, and ignoring all warming prior to that point. In my mind, I always consider warming relative to 1979, which appears to be the point at which warming kicked in and aerosol dampening turned off. It appears to be close to what should be the "natural" temperature of the planet at this point in time were it not for elevated CO2 in the atmosphere. But my point is that "current" is always a relative term, and it needs to be nailed down whenever anyone says anything. It needs to be stated clearly. 2˚C over today's temperatures (since we've already warmed about 0.9˚C) is pretty dangerously dang hot. -
dana1981 at 06:25 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
Thanks Byron. I was going to make that point, but Steketee referenced 2-3°C from pre-industrial, and Monckton referenced 2°C from present, which is within Steketee's range. Sometimes we refer to temps in relation to pre-industrial, and sometimes from current temps. Even the IPCC uses both, as mentioned in the article. So Monckton's use of current temps as the reference point isn't really a big deal. -
JMurphy at 05:57 AM on 21 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
I have replied to Sasquatch on the It's not bad thread.Moderator Response: Thank you for redirecting the conversation! -
JMurphy at 05:55 AM on 21 January 2011It's not bad
Sasquatch wrote (on the Could Global Warming be caused by Natural Cycles thread) : "I'm currently pursuing a M. Sci. in Environmental Systems Engineering at a major liberal arts university in the US." Do you describe some of your universities as "liberal", in America ? What does that mean ? Sasquatch also wrote : "I do not personally believe that increased levels of CO2 can initiate major changes in the climate." What do you mean by "major changes" and where have you found the sources for your belief ?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Liberal arts is a catch all term used in universities to describe general studies in the humanities, math or science. It must be a fairly large university to offer a Master's in 'engineering' as well as liberal arts. It is not a political term in this context. -
muoncounter at 05:37 AM on 21 January 2011Infographic on where global warming is going
#29: You stated in #4, "According to UAH satellite records"; going back to the '70s isn't cherrypicking, its using the entire satellite record. But rather than say 'we might see a different slope,' let's look at the actual temperature reconstructions. Per Figure 8 in that post, all trends are between 0.13 and 0.18 degC/decade. Not so very different after all. Further comments regarding temperature trends should go to the appropriate thread. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:36 AM on 21 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Sasquatch, has your classmate taken into consideration that greenhouses have temperature regulation mechanisms? I mean, the whole point of a GH is to have optimized conditions. Was her study exclusively on GH with enhanced CO2 and disabled temperature regulation systems? Why would anyone do that? I have to wonder what exactly was the experimental design here. I don't know what is in your classmate's paper but the way you describe that particular point makes little sense. If you are going to include some of your statements above in your paper, you want to remove the "almost certainly" from them in order to be more credible. It is not almost certain that CO2 has an effect on climate, it is absolutely certain. You may argue if you want that the effect is too small to be consequential or whatever. But saying that it is almost certain is like saying that CO2 almost has radiative properties. By the same token, it is certain that the increased atmospheric CO2 comes from human activity. The isotopic signature clearly shows it. This site has posts on the subject. I don't understand what you mean by "research from various institutions." Research comes from researchers. It is published in peer-reviewed journals. Institutions producing research are usually universities but if the research is not in serious, well established peer-review publications, you should stay away from it, regardless what institution is involved. Stuff called research that comes from think tanks with an agenda is useless. I doubt that papers squeaked by in low impact journals or publications of dubious quality are an asset in a thesis paper. There is so much in the legitimate litterature anyway that there is no need to use subpar sources. And last point: not to be pedantic but if you're writing a PhD paper, watch your spelling. "it's" is the contraction of "it is", not the possessive. If you repeat it a few times, its true nature as a grammatical error shows and it's no longer forgiven as a typo. Everyone makes the confusion in the media and elsewhere but a graduation research paper must be better than that.Moderator Response: Sasquatch, if you reply to these questions, please do so on the appropriate threads. For example, to discuss the roles of CO2 and temperature on plant growth, comment on one of the two relevant threads I pointed you to earlier. You can post a short comment on this thread, pointing to your comment on that relevant thread. That also applies to anyone responding to Sasquatch's original comment here. Further off topic comments will be deleted. -
Byron Smith at 05:35 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
PS Thanks Dana once again. This was just a small suggestion for improvement. -
Byron Smith at 05:35 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
The answer mentions but doesn't highlight the fact that Monckton also confuses matters by speaking of 2ºC from the present, whereas the IPCC refers to 2ºC from pre-industrial times (about 1ºC above present). -
Albatross at 05:28 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
Bill, your post is largely off topic. I will not address your misguided ideas about the source of CO2 and water vapor. I'm pretty sure that Lindzen would disagree with you on both counts though. Regarding Lindzen's intriguing stance on regional temperatures , which is more or less on topic-- I cannot be sure exactly what you or he are trying to convey in opposition to global warming by mentioning that. Of course regional temperatures are important. Scientists also know that there is large regional variability in annual temperatures, and that this inter-annual and intra-annual variability increases as the time window and area decrease. Let me demonstrate the importance of regional variability, and what a warming of + 2 K in the mean annual global might mean. Here is the annual global surface temperature anomaly map for 2010 when the global anomaly was +0.63 K with respect to the 1951-1908 baseline:
Note the marked regional variability. Now what did this seemingly trivial (to some) warming mean for the people who live in and around Moscow this past summer when they experienced an unprecedented heat wave in late July and early August that killed many thousands of people? Here are the monthly, seasonal and annual temperature anomalies for Moscow from GISTEMP (again with respect to the 51-80 baseline:
July: +7.8 K
August: +5.2 K
JJA (Boreal summer): +5.0 K
Annual (2010): +2.0 K
So in a year when the mean annual global temperature was +0.63 K, Moscow experienced a summer with mean temperatures +5 K above average, with a mean annual temperature anomaly of +2 K.
A mean annual temperature anomaly of 2 K for a given location is not trivial, and as shown above doesn't mean that each and every day was only 2K warmer than average.
What I am driving at here, and what Lindzen also knows, is that increasing the planet's mean annual temperature by +2 K will manifest itself as much greater warming at regional and seasonal scales. The reason being is that the warming shifts the probability distribution function of temperature to the right, which means that the tails (extremes) in temperature are increased. It is these extremes in temperature (and precipitation), which have already been detected and which will continue to increase in frequency and magnitude, that will pose huge problems for society in the future. And that is before we have even begun to address the negative impacts rising global ocean levels and ocean acidification.
Global warming doesn't mean that the whole planet will warm uniformly, scientists know that. They predicted many years ago that the northern high latitudes would warm much faster than other portions of the planet. We are indeed witnessing that. For example, Arctic amplification has resulted in the Arctic recently warming about 3 times faster than the the planet as a whole. And that has worrisome consequences in terms of positive feedbacks.
-
Daniel Bailey at 05:25 AM on 21 January 2011Infographic on where global warming is going
adrian smits (29) Why your cherry-pick of 1936? Why not 1934? Why not go back to Year Zero:
(and yes I know it's a NH graph; I'm hiliting the cherry-pick of the question with another cherry-pick; dramatis ironae in action)
All silliness aside, the point in making adjustments for known cycles is to reduce the noise in the data to get at the signal in the data. The same principle as to why people wear sunglasses on sunny days: to see better. Let's look back to 1880 (global combined land+ocean):
The overall trend is up, despite noise inherent in the signal. The point is: we have a pretty solid idea of how the system works, that it is heating up, and why that is.
Getting pretty far off-topic here. Please use the search function to find a more appropriate thread if you wish to continue this discussion.
The Yooper
-
muoncounter at 05:19 AM on 21 January 2011It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
#64: "Do we really need much more proof " Your examples hardly prove anything. In one case el Nino coincides with a warm to cold PDO shift, in another, it coincides with cold to warm. In one case la Nina coincides with highest PDO, in another it coincides with lowest PDO. Is that supposed to be causal? -
muoncounter at 05:12 AM on 21 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
#23: "Named storms is ... ." But your 'scatterplot' is meaningful? Hardly. Let's stop throwing judgments around. Perhaps an appeal to actual science is in order. Here's Elsner 2008: Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere ... Knutson et al 2008 report a different view: we assess, in our model system, the changes in large-scale climate that are projected to occur by the end of the twenty-first century by an ensemble of global climate models, and find that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are reduced. At the same time, near-storm rainfall rates increase substantially ... What's worse? More frequent storms or stronger storms with heavier rainfall events? Check the residents of the US Gulf Coast or Queensland for their preferences. -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 05:04 AM on 21 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#59. I've started with a 12-month momentum analysis on seasonally adjusted GISS data since 1900. Below I've pasted the momentum data for each season (wi=winter, sp=spring, su=summer, fa=fall) for the last decade (which some claim hasn't shown any or much warming). The Momentum indicator is a speed of movement (or rate of change) indicator, that is designed to identify the speed (or strength) of a price movement. The fall and winter 2010 seasonally adjusted data are missing since there's not enough data yet to calculate seasonally adjusted values for those seasons. Either way, if you'd plot this data and run a linear regression line; the trend is negative: -0.0042, but the r2 is also very low: 0.0042. Now a low r2 doesn't mean it's not significant (but that's a whole other story), what this tells me is that momentum on average over the last 10 years hasn't changed much, if any the momentum of temperature is on average downwards moving towards negative territory indicating to me that the rate of change in temperature has been slowing down slowly. Now if this were a stock, I would start to consider selling it as it's upward movement (yes it's still going up) is starting to slow down (a term also called: going parabolic) season/date momentum 2000.0 wi 11% 2000.3 sp -5% 2000.5 su -9% 2000.8 fa -10% 2001.0 wi -22% 2001.3 sp -25% 2001.5 su -42% 2001.8 fa 12% 2002.0 wi 21% 2002.3 sp 32% 2002.5 su 20% 2002.8 fa 28% 2003.0 wi 31% 2003.3 sp 4% 2003.5 su 0% 2003.8 fa 35% 2004.0 wi 41% 2004.3 sp 8% 2004.5 su -17% 2004.8 fa -21% 2005.0 wi 12% 2005.3 sp -11% 2005.5 su -6% 2005.8 fa 14% 2006.0 wi 38% 2006.3 sp 0% 2006.5 su -22% 2006.8 fa 1% 2007.0 wi 19% 2007.3 sp 18% 2007.5 su 18% 2007.8 fa 3% 2008.0 wi 10% 2008.3 sp -33% 2008.5 su -27% 2008.8 fa -29% 2009.0 wi 18% 2009.3 sp -1% 2009.5 su -23% 2009.8 fa 8% 2010.0 wi 14% 2010.3 sp -2% 2010.5 su -1% 2010.8 fa 2011.0 wi Looking at the entire data set, momentum spiked in 1995 and has been decreasing ever since, with a big negative momentum in 2001. -
Phila at 04:56 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
Bill Peddie should also probably look at Lindzen and Choi show low climate sensitivity. -
muoncounter at 04:51 AM on 21 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#168: Pirate, Try Google Scholar. Type a search phrase such as 'climate change natural cycle' and look at the published science that becomes available to you. That search just gave me 1.39 million results, but the even just the top 30 or so might do. -
muoncounter at 04:48 AM on 21 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#169: "completing a research paper on AGW " Are you actually researching the science of AGW? It sounds like you've already formed your conclusions. "normal state of the planet is to be glaciated." Really? During what time period? You might want to check your sources for that. Be aware that on this site, you need to show your work and avoid making sweeping unsubstantiated generalizations (especially those that are false). "I do not personally believe that increased levels of CO2 can initiate major changes in the climate. I do believe they can contribute a great deal to climate change." In a science paper, your personal beliefs shouldn't interfere. You should look at prior threads Its not us, Its a natural cycle and CO2 is not the only driver. Preferably, for your grade's sake, before you form your conclusions. -
Phila at 04:41 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
Bill Peddie: Most of the atmospheric scientists I am familiar with say that water is the main greenhouse gas and that carbon dioxide is mainly coming from the sea in response to slightly warmer temperatures. Names and cites, please. -
adrian smits at 04:38 AM on 21 January 2011Infographic on where global warming is going
The only problem I have with your graphs is you're cherry picking 1975. How about going back to 1936 and not adjusting it at all and we might see a very different slope. -
Ron Crouch at 04:32 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
Nicely illustrates the point I keep trying to drive home with people. That being the fact that no one can state with any certainty just how far we can push the planet before the situation gets out of hand (not that it already isn't). I simply can't fathom why the human race is always so prepared to play Russian Roulette with the planet. The real danger is that should it get out of hand, decisions are likely to be made that could propel us into an even worse geo-engineering experiment than the one that was undertaken in the Industrial Revolution and has persisted until present day. The whole thing keeps reminding me of that old adage about "biting the hand that feeds you". Sooner or later it's going to bite back very hard. -
MarkR at 04:32 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
NETDR, there is an intercept because we didn't start at 1 ppm CO2 at the year 0 AD. I don't think you've followed what we're actually plotting here... please go through the maths to see. Assuming no acceleration above exponential (even though we know there is, you can tell from the residuals which you have simply ignored) you can use the linear fit for the whole period to estimate 2100 CO2 ppm. It's 580 ppm CO2. But that's wrong, because it's accelerating. If we use the fit to the log(CO2) as a function of time for the past 20 years, you get over 670 ppm CO2 by 2100. That clearly shows it's accelerating, anyone with a spreadsheet and a clue can check this for themselves. (and of course, as there is an acceleration, that means that 670 ppm is a minimum bound and the real value is higher). What do you estimate that CO2 will be by 2100? -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 04:27 AM on 21 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#57 Exactly, why then bother doing all this fancy computer model predictions on what the temperature will be in 2020 and beyond? Again, it has NOTHING to do with how stocks compare to temperature, it has ALL to do in applying different analytical/mathematical/data tools in understanding what has, is and will happen. Isn't that what we are constantly trying to do. Isn't that the holy grail? Or are you telling me we've got it all figured out? If that be the case, we can all sit back, relax, and let it get nice and toasty.. or??? -
muoncounter at 04:27 AM on 21 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#58: "Most of the trend analyzes tools (I suggested) " As I said here, data are ready and waiting for you to get started. I'm sure we'd be interested in your results. -
Sasquatch at 04:25 AM on 21 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
I'm currently pursuing a M. Sci. in Environmental Systems Engineering at a major liberal arts university in the US. I'm completing a research paper on AGW and it's relationship to climate change. A google search eventually led me to this site. My personal beliefs on AGW and climate change are that the climate has historically changed due to various natural cycles. There are macro-cycles and micro-cycles due to many, many reasons. The latest influence is the increased CO2 due to anthropogenic sources. This increase in CO2 almost certainly has an effect. My extensive research has led me to formulate an opinion. My professor requires us to look at research from various institutions in order to have a complete and balanced input before we generate our output. This site is generally scientific and has been valuable to me. Climate change is a natural and cyclical phenomenon that has occurred over the history of this planet. The normal state of the planet is to be glaciated. We are currently in an interglacial period and according to the timescale are clos to the descent into another glacial period. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising beyond historical levels. This is almost certainly due to the contributions from humans. It is reasonable to expect these rises in CO2 to contribute to further warming, i.e. climate change. The severity of these changes cannot be accurately determined, though some modeling is predicting the possibility of dire consequences. I do not personally believe that increased levels of CO2 can initiate major changes in the climate. I do believe they can contribute a great deal to climate change. A classmate of mine is conducting research into increased CO2 levels in greenhouses. She has shown increased yield and more vigorous growth from corn, beans and roses. Qualitative and quantitative improvements have been noted. She has not detected any statistically valid difference in temperature. As a legitimate question, does anyone here know why this has not occurred or where she might find some previous research on the matter? Unfortunately, politics and profiteering have entered the scientific discussion. Battle lines have been drawn and the various "sides" are digging into the sand and very little, if any, constructive debate is going on. Legislated change is unlikely to occur. This is unfortunate, because it appears little will be done to prevent any changes and the world will have to switch from a mode of prevention to a mode of reaction. If necessary.Moderator Response: See "It’s not bad," "CO2 is not a pollutant," and "CO2 effect is weak." And "Models are unreliable." Usually the comments have additional, excellent information; for example, you'll find links to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's report on CO2 and temperature's effects on crops. You also should skim the list of Arguments you can get to by clicking the "Arguments" link in the horizontal blue bar at the top of the page. And don't hesitate to use the Search field at the top left of the page. -
Albatross at 04:24 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Aargh, hit enter too soon. ...so I am surprised your post @69 was even permitted. -
Albatross at 04:22 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
BP, You continue to focus on ridiculously short periods, as you state in your post @69, to obfuscate and confuse people. And what makes it even more shameful on your part is that I know that you know deductions made about trends in these data over such short periods are meaningless, both scientifically and statistically. Besides, your post if off topic, so -
Bill Peddie at 04:22 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
I get quite uncomfortable when I see sentences and paragraphs lifted from popular articles and argued against at a different level. Most of the atmospheric scientists I am familiar with say that water is the main greenhouse gas and that carbon dioxide is mainly coming from the sea in response to slightly warmer temperatures. Prof Lindzen who with respect knows far more about the atmosphere than I suspect you or I will ever do points out that it is what happens at a local level rather than a global level that really matters. His comments on carbon credits are worth a read if only to see what has been going on behind the scenes. Read his paper on my site http://billpeddie.wordpress.com and make up your own mind.Moderator Response: See "Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas," and "Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions." -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 04:18 AM on 21 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#56. I really don't know what you are babbling about. My suggestion to use so stock trend analyzes tools is not based at all "on the premise that climate variables are so numerous, complex and intricate that we can never understand them, as is the case with the thousands and thousands of stocks." It's just about using different tools to help us understand better (or are you suggesting that we've figured it all out already?). Honestly, we understand the stock market well; in part because there are many great data analyzes tools for that available. There is a lot of knowledge to consider in stocks, or do you think it's all random? If that be the case, nobody would ever buy a stock; way to risky. Most of the trend analyzes tools (I suggested) are good for increasing markets (on average stocks need to go up, or there is no reason to own them), and therefore these tools could be applicable to temperature data too since that's been going up since 70s'-80s as well. I appreciate the open-mind set to possible new ways... but why would you... you've got it all figured out. -
Albatross at 04:18 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Dikran, Interestingly Lindzen used the same "trick" of global SATs that you showed @75 in his debate with Andy Dessler. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:13 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Actually NETDR is right, I've just plotted the HADCRUT surface temperature dataset, in degrees Kelvin (starting at zero), and it definitely looks like an "horizontal asymptote" to me.I don't know about you chaps, but I'm off to buy a V8! ;o)
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:53 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
NETDR@73 Funnily enough, starting a graph at an unreasonably low level is a common practice for trying to make something look trivial when it isn't, so much so that the practice was lampooned by DenialDepot here. Starting at 0 is clearly absurd as it equates to a concentration of 1ppmv, which is essentially physically impossible. Whether a 3% rise in log(CO2) depends on climate sensitivity, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly. If the climate is sensitive to a change in radiative forcing, then even modest increases can be significant. As you are not connecting radiative forcing and climate sensitivity, you are in no position to know whether it is trivial or not, which is why your arguments are not getting a better reception. At least we have established that you *are* using your own personal definition of the word "asymptote"! For most of us it means a function that is converging to, rather than diverging from a constant value. -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 03:53 AM on 21 January 2011It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
#61. I agree, except with the "wipe out part". Anyway, back to PDO and ENSO and how they relate. Among other aspects of the ENSO and PDO cycle, I wrote this in one of my earlier comments (#13): "Adding PDO events (warm to cold reversals, vice versa, phase shifts, etc) to the NOI data we instantly see the following: The 2008 la nina coincides exactly with the PDO GPTC The 1998 el nino coincides exactly with the PDO phase shift from warm to cold The 1988 la nina coincides exactly with the highest PDO (LPTC) since 1934 The 1977/78 el nino coincides exactly with PDO phase shift cold to warm The 68/69 la nina coincides exactly with PDO's phase reversal The 55/56 la nina coincides exactly with the lowest PDO value since 1900 In addition, between 1950 and 1977 there were 126 la nina seasons (months) and 75 el nino seasons: PDO was cold Between 1977 and 1998 there were 53 el nino seasons and 27 la nina seasons: PDO was warm." Do we really need much more proof too see that ENSO and PDO are related? -
NETDR at 03:29 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Dikhran Re: My statement that the plot of the log of CO2 looks looks like a horizontal asymptote. Notice that your graph starts at 5.75 and ends at 5.95. If you start the plot at zero it does look like an asymptote with very slight slope. This is a common practice of trying to make a trivial amount of increase appear large. (5.95 - 5.75)/ 5.75 = 3 % in 52 years ! That is if you will excuse the expression "trivial"! In another 90 years it [the effect] will have increased 6 %. That is pretty close to an asymptote.Moderator Response: You're still dodging the crucial issue that several people have put to you: Do you claim that the effect of that CO2 increase on temperature will be trivial? -
MarkR at 03:02 AM on 21 January 2011Infographic on where global warming is going
RE: #22 Ken, thanks to Eric @ #24 who effectively answered it for me. :) The atmosphere isn't a single isothermal 'block' and nor are the oceans. What Eric says seems correct: heat can be transferred between the oceans and atmosphere. That explains why ocean heat content increased in a year when atmospheric temperatures fell, for example. But ENSO also affects the total radiative forcing through changing clouds. A good metric for global warming is total heat, including the oceans, ice etc. Thermodynamics should stop long term divergence in trend signs, but total heat content (being radiative alone) should be less noisy than atmospheric heat content (which is also coupled through latent & sensible heat transfers from the surface). -
Anthony G. Warming at 02:56 AM on 21 January 2011Infographic on where global warming is going
25 Sphaerica, I totally agree with your description of the interplay of heat and temperatures. If you read the rest of my comment (other than what you quoted), you will see that I described a long term change towards another equilibrium in the future, other than the one we have today, whereas you describe the day/night cycle with its flows back and forth. I still object to the top post's: "... it takes time for the ocean to release its heat into the atmosphere." In the long term perspective, the ocean will gradually adapt its temperatures to the climate. We don't have to fear a future shock when the ocean will "release its heat". It's just a creeping change of balance that we are facing, and it changes year by year, slowly and continuously. I think 22-Ken Lambert has similar objections: "What is all this about the oceans 'releasing' and 'dumping' heat to warm the atmosphere?" -
Chris G at 02:54 AM on 21 January 2011Infographic on where global warming is going
There are a lot of good comments above, even the ones that disagree with each other. My take on the discussion so far: The ocean provides enormous thermal buffering. This works in both directions, all the time. You can conceptualise this as the ocean acting as a heat sink at this point, and less of a heat sink as an approximate equilibrium is reached, or as an increased outflow of energy as it gains heat content. It makes little difference since both are true. Couple of points, that may be more or less obvious, apologies for stating the obvious: There will be no equilibrium until some time after the GHGs are stabilized. They won't stop increasing just because they have doubled. So, to talk of an equilibrium at any given level doesn't apply to the reality in which we live, until and unless that reality includes a stabilization of GHGs. Some people treat ENSO and other sloshing around of oceanic water as causes or forcings in and of themselves. They aren't; they are just instabilities in the system attempting to reach an internal thermal equilibrium. The cold water upwellings are driven by salinity and temperature differences, and wind (which is just the same process of entropy acting in the atmosphere). They are ultimately determined by relative energy distributions within the earth system; they don't add or remove energy from the system. -
Phila at 02:50 AM on 21 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
#70 You argument is a clear example of unintentional cherry picking, Having seen BP cherrypick periods like this more than once, and get called on it each time, "unintentional" is not the first word that springs to mind. -
apiratelooksat50 at 02:40 AM on 21 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Muon, What websites do you find acceptable for research that you would direct me toward? Pirate -
Bob Lacatena at 02:09 AM on 21 January 2011Infographic on where global warming is going
23, Anthony,The coffee-cup has a higher temperature than the air, and has already a lot of heat to release, thus lowering its temperature. This is not the case with the ocean.
This is not true. It may seem this way to people who go to the ocean for a swim, where the water seems cold and it is hot on the beach under the sun, but that limited, specific (and anecdotal) environment is very, very different (hot, sunny day, coastal water, etc.) from the global picture. The interplay of land/air/ocean temperatures is complex, but in general... sunlight passes straight through the air and does not heat it much at all. It strikes the ground and some is reflected, while the rest heats the very surface. It strikes the ocean, penetrates and heats it to some small but not inconsequential depth, reflecting very little. At night, the land cools quickly, the oceans not as fast (because of the properties of shallowly heated solid objects versus a great depth of H2O). The upshot of all of this is that the oceans absorb a lot more energy from the sun during the day (since very little is reflected), and also take much longer to transfer that heat ("release it") to the atmosphere. That's how the air gets heated, through heating from both the land and the ocean, day and night -- not from the sun itself, directly. But the ocean's contribution to that heating is dramatically more pronounced than that of the land, and that's the only way that the atmosphere gains heat (which it ultimately loses through radiation out into space). The air is not, on average, day and night, around the globe, warmer than the ocean. -
JMurphy at 01:49 AM on 21 January 2011It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
thepoodlebites wrote : "I’m expecting to see the UAH globally averaged satellite-based temperature anomaly for Jan. 2011 to be near or below zero, similar to the beginning of 2009. That would effectively wipe out 30+ years of warming in the satellite record. And the Sun is still unusually quiet." So, you're saying that the anomaly you are predicting for Jan 2011 ("near or below zero") will be similar to the "beginning of 2009" (is that Jan 2009 or some/a few/several months ?) - the year before 2010, which UAH list as the 2nd warmest in their records, i.e. warmer than 2009 - and that this will subsequently "wipe out" the UAH positive trend of roughly 0.4C seen over the last 30 years ?
Prev 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Next
