Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Next
Comments 98001 to 98050:
-
Dikran Marsupial at 23:51 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
@chemware - looking to see what simple equations fit a finite sample of data best tells you next to nothing about the process that generates the data. For example, as you point out, a quadratic is a Taylor series expansion of a more complex (or simpler) function, so if a quadratic fits well, it may simply be because it is approximating an exponential. If a more flexible quadratic fits better than an exponential, it may simply be that the quadratic is better able to model the random variability in the data, than the less flexible exponential, and hence the difference in fit is meaningless as it is down to random chance (this is known as "over-fitting" in statistics). You don't need economic modelling to make inferences about emissions, as good records of emissions are kept (by e.g. the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center). The fact that the airborne fraction (the proporion of anthropognic emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere) is approximately constant, gives support from physical modelleling that emissions are rising approximately exponentially (I have done the differential equations myself to check that this is the case). The test Tamino uses to establish that the rise is faster than exponetial is unequivocal. If it were merely exponential, then taking logs should give a straight line; the fact that the resulting line curves upwards is definitive proof that the rise is faster than exponential. This remains true regardless of whether a quadratic or any other function provides a better least-squares fit. -
MarkR at 23:38 PM on 18 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
re 25: Keith, I tried to explain in my post that he hasn't 'eliminated' CO2 caused warming, he's simply suppressed it. You can still spot it: a constant rate of warming from CO2 becomes a constant offset in his graph. An-above-linear rate of CO2 warming would appear as some function with a positive gradient. But Soares manipulates the data to minimises this effect whilst maximising noise. If you want to look at the noise then that's useful, if you're trying to find whether CO2 caused warming exists then choosing to minimise it and then acting all surprised when it's too noisy to see if it's there (actually, to IGNORE that it's too noisy and simply claim that it isn't) is ridiculous. The conclusions of the paper are utter dross. -
johnkg at 23:38 PM on 18 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
#168. lol Eric! I thought I'd found a Roman Vineyard at Hadrian's Wall, but it would appear to be a new one, from here Since the publication of the first edition in 2004 the northern limit of English vineyards has advanced from Mount Pleasant, Lancashire, to Accomb, Yorkshire, within 5km of Hadrian's Wall. The book also states the following: The latest predictions of global warming show that the average summer temperature in southern England may rise by 4.5-5.0 degrees C. by 2080 and by 6.0 degrees by 2100. The new edition describes how these data can be used to predict the areas where different grape varieties may be planted across the UK. Some parts of southern England may be too hot for viticulture by 2080. Sobering stuff! -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:22 PM on 18 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Since I have never posted a graphic, hopefully the moderators will allow me this one
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Graphics are permitted when they pertain to the topic of the thread. Give us the context of how this is on-topic or we'll have to delete it. Thanks! -
johnkg at 23:16 PM on 18 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
#165. LandyJim It is a fact that Romans in Britain (AD73-AD490~) grew wine grapes as far north as Hadrian Wall..currently anywhere further north than Bristol and you need a straight jacket as your barking mad. I can't find any evidence that the Romans grew grapes any farther north than Lincolnshire, looks like it was almost all imported. Can you point us to some? The most northerly vineyard currently in the UK is in Camforth, Lancs which is a bit farther north than Bristol (about 200 miles). The English Wine Producers have over 30 barking mad vineyards located in the Midlands and the North alone. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:15 PM on 18 January 2011It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Re: Strength of current La Nina (from other thread). There seem to be conflicting measurements. The one I and others posted was this table: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml But the chart on this page http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ shows it historically strong. Apparantly the table is ONI, measured by SST differences only whereas the latter graph is MEI (M for Multivariate) taking into account more variables. IMO the MEI would be a better indication of La Nina effects, so I would call it strong (strongest since the mid 70's). We also will have to wait and see about the duration, it hasn't been around long. -
LandyJim at 22:50 PM on 18 January 2011Hockey stick is broken
Here is another reputable reference for the GISP2 Ice Core Data sets from Richard Alley ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt And here is the abstract from the top of at work. ABSTRACT: Greenland ice-core records provide an exceptionally clear picture of many aspects of abrupt climate changes, and particularly of those associated with the Younger Dryas event, as reviewed here. Well-preserved annual layers can be counted confidently, with only 1% errors for the age of the end of the Younger Dryas 11,500 years before present. Ice-flow corrections allow reconstruction of snow accumulation rates over tens of thousands of years with little additional uncertainty. Glaciochemical and particulate data record atmospheric-loading changes with little uncertainty introduced by changes in snow accumulation. Confident paleothermometry is provided by site-specific calibrations using ice-isotopic ratios, borehole temperatures, and gas-isotopic ratios. Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local, regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these paleoclimatic changes. -
LandyJim at 22:34 PM on 18 January 2011Hockey stick is broken
@JMurphy #62 I will concede that the graph could have a better quality about it, however it was used for illustrative purposes. Graph 3 of the Vostok Ice cores comes from a Climate campaigner in New Zealand http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm who is a member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition http://www.nzclimatescience.org/ This information originates in a very reputable and peer reviewed article: Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Benders, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436. If you would like to read more information about the Vostok cores, you can here.. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html The last graph is a reproduction of one that appeared in a Science Online and Journal Peer reviewed article which is actually pro AGW. There is credit for the article in the image if you look. R. B. Alley1, J. Marotzke2, W. D. Nordhaus3, J. T. Overpeck4, D. M. Peteet5, R. A. Pielke Jr.6, R. T. Pierrehumbert7, P. B. Rhines8,9, T. F. Stocker10, L. D. Talley11 and J. M. Wallace8 And an online link is here http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5615/2005.abstract If you wish to see other articles written by Richard Alley.. http://www.sciencemag.org/search?author1=R.+B.+Alley&sortspec=date&submit=Submit What I am am saying is that we should not dismiss natural variations in the climate, we must not dismiss influences on those variations, only then can the impact that we have be truly assessed and then action taken accordingly. To me that is common sense. -
LandyJim at 22:09 PM on 18 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
@Muoncounter. None of my posts are meant to be or taken as ideological rant. The comments I have made are not specifically off topic they are simply explaining a truth which is connected to and related to the response I gave. Whether we like it or not, most things in science are interconnected, and treating them is isolation creates confusion and misleading statements. -
JMurphy at 22:03 PM on 18 January 2011Hockey stick is broken
There's a quick discussion of LandyJim's first 'graph' here. There's much more wrong with it than just a dodgy y-axis. -
Chemware at 21:32 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
@15 Ian Love: Actually, a quadratic can have physical meaning as a second order Taylor expansion of a more complex function. In this instance, the rising atmospheric [CO2] is a function of economic activity and CO2 sequestration mechanisms. Economic + physical chemistry modeling, anyone ? I'm not at work right right now, but I'll have another play tomorrow with TC2D - I'm intrigued to see which simple equations best describe the data. -
Alexandre at 21:26 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
I agree with Phillippe #7. Deniers deny for emotional reasons, and ethereal stuff like data do not reach them. The sad part is that their shortsight is caused by an attachment to stuff that is threatened by the very AGW they don't want to see. A new world of changing climate will be a major enemy of free market, business-as-usual or individual freedoms -
LandyJim at 21:22 PM on 18 January 2011Hockey stick is broken
@Muoncounter: Please explain to me where in my post I have made a personal attack and to whom did I direct it? Regarding information about the graphs...fair point, but if you look at the links, they are hardly dim store blogs (surely is that not a personal attack on the blogger?) One is actually on this site. Bleating is something we all do...the western world is bleating about Climate change and ignoring the bigger picture which is far more important in my opinion. I thought my post made it clear what my position is, I do not agree with AGW, but I do agree with not polluting the environment, so I am not opposed to cleaning things up, just for the right reasons. I have kept the post on topic, it is about the hockey stick is it not? Well to counter one argument you need to justify that stance, I think I did that rather well. -
Mila at 21:01 PM on 18 January 2011Zvon.org guide to Skeptic Arguments at Skeptical Science
The guide is intended as a search interface to SkS and contains direct links to primary literature (and Web of Science) which are often not present in the original rebuttals - and as the links are via doi they should work even after a few years. And obviously you do not have to use it. I know about one user who will use it regularly - myself. :) -
barry1487 at 20:20 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
The Mona Loa data shows the increase in CO2 to be approximately linear so far.
A very short section of a curve is also 'approximately linear', but it isn't, 'actually'. As pointed out above, the non-linearity of CO2 increase is evident from the linear trend superimposed in your own graph. Do you agree, NEDT, that the exponent is 2, rather than 0.122? -
MattJ at 20:18 PM on 18 January 2011Zvon.org guide to Skeptic Arguments at Skeptical Science
There is a very basic question not answered here: what is the point of using the Zvon Guide to SkS instead of SkS itself? -
Ian Love at 19:46 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Maybe NETDR & Chemware are talking at past Dana1981? A quadratic fit to the CO2 data is just that - no particular physical meaning. NETDR didn't calculate an appropriate logarithmic effect - his/her calculations do not assess exponential behaviour. Exponential behaviour is equivalent to log(CO2) being a linear function, for which Tamino in Monckey Business illustrates is slower than the actual growth of CO2 - which dana1981 links to and quotes above. The facts do not back up NETDR! -
barry1487 at 19:05 PM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
"if the skeptic arguments are so transparently weak, why is a whole website such as this 'so far' excellent example needed to debunk them." Because, unfortunately, so many people are taken in by these, and more sophisticated arguments from skeptics. Gullibility or unskeptically accepting whatever reinforces a preferred of view is hardly limited to climate science, of course. -
KeenOn350 at 18:50 PM on 18 January 2011A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
A very nice post, caerbannog. Thanks -
jmsglr at 18:24 PM on 18 January 2011Renewables can't provide baseload power
What about nuclear?Moderator Response: Off topic for this thread -
gallopingcamel at 17:56 PM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
John Cook, You have my sympathy for the distress that you are suffering. However I am encouraged to know that you are still out there blogging away. I wish I could offer you some comfort but science says "a warmer world is a wetter world". -
sailrick at 17:39 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
typo? In the text just below Fig. 1, shouldn't it read ...."1998 in a close third buoyed by the anomalous lack of warmth (or less warmth) demonstrated in the 3 records " rather than - "anomalous warmth demonstrated" ? Great post. Table 1 really puts to rest all the talk about "no warming" since whenever. "It is true that in 1 of the 6 major indices there is in fact a negative slope," I thought this might be a good place to remind readers, again, that this is HadCRUT, known to have a cool bias, due to lack of Arctic coverage. -
gallopingcamel at 17:21 PM on 18 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Phila (#81), you said: "This sort of braying certainty really isn't compatible with your attempts to present yourself as a humble amateur truthseeker." That one stung a bit; you accurately described my self assessment. While I respect the opinion of "Climate Scientists", I respect the opinion of historians much more. Historians tell us that warm periods are associated with growth and prosperity while cold periods are associated with hardship and misery.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] I, too, love history. The problem with your statement, GC, is that you assume warming periods documented in the historical record will approximate that yet to come in this century (2 degrees C or more), when there's no evidence to suggest any such thing. -
Chemware at 17:08 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Actually, I think NETDR has stumbled onto something, despite his lack of understanding of fitting and statistics. I suggest people go and grab the 30 day demo of TableCurve2D. A simple quadratic is a remarkably good fit to the data, with an adjusted Rsq of 0.9991. Other more complex equations fit the data better, but at the expense of any physical meaning. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Lindzen is now posting a few opinion pieces, including this one on GWPF ("The GWPF's primary purpose is to help restore balance and trust in the climate debate that is frequently distorted by prejudice and exaggeration"). It's been reposted on WUWT, not surprisingly. In this piece he states that "the climate's changed before", "it's not bad", "no warming since 1995", "environmental groups gathering power", etc. The 2010 version of L&C is available here, if you wish to read it. No changes were made in terms of extra-tropical heat exchange - they're apparently still using the 2001 model. They have stated that Pinatubo has an effect on forcings, though, which does address one of the Trenberth 2009 objections. -
dana1981 at 15:35 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
NETDR, in your formula 0.122 is a constant, not the exponent. The exponent is 2. And the logarithmic effect, as discussed in my article, is between forcing/temperature and CO2. The logarithmic effect has nothing to do with the (exponential) rate of growth of atmospheric CO2. You seem to be in way over your head here. To quote from tamino, who did a much, much more thorough analysis than you (emphasis added):"Over time, the growth of CO2 has NOT been linear, but it also has NOT been exponential. It’s been faster than exponential (as the logarithm has grown faster-than-linear, i.e., it has accelerated). And yes, the acceleration of log(CO2) (the faster-than-exponential growth of CO2) is statistically significant. That settles it."
-
WHATDOWEKNOW at 15:12 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#142, the current la nina is absolutely NOT the strongest on record, but instead so far ties with 2008 (the weakest in a series of decreasing la ninas since 1975, see my previous posts). The OND and SON seasons for the current la nina are -1.4 each. The record so far is for 1973: -2.1. FYI: the '09/'10 el nino was 1.8 (currently 22% stronger than the current la nina) and the record el nino of 1998 was 2.5. Similar to el ninos, la ninas tend to peak around the December time frame. Given the current development (of the last two seasons: -1.4) it is highly unlikely the current la nina will become much colder; if any. However, compared to el ninos, la ninas tend to linger a little longer whereas el ninos show a more "spiky" character. I recently read an interesting NOAA statement on ClimateWire (paid subscription, can't link) regarding 2010 being a tie with 2005, which was -according to the statement- "due to the la nina that developed (which started officially in July 2010), cooling things down. And if it wasn't for the la nina we would have THE warmest year on record." OK... how about the fact that we had the 4th strongest el nino winter '09/'10 on record and that global temperatures always lack 3-6 months in response to ENSO events; the atmosphere is just starting to respond to the la nina in other terms, and 2010 temperatures are therefore at the earliest affected Nov/Dec 2010 by the current la nina. (this is a well-known fact, hence why for example the NASA data point for Dec 2010 is .40 compared to .74 in Nov). Hence, it is more correct to say that due to the past el nino we have a temperature tie with 2005. Or in other terms, if we hadn't had that el nino -or neither the la nina- where would 2010 then rank? -
NETDR at 15:02 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Moderator "Read the Tamino post located at the link dana1981 provided you with. You'll find your answer there." I read the link but believe my analysis is better. I did a 2 nd order curve fit and he didn't. Also he didn't calculate the logarithmic effect which is vital to understand the effect. Tamano is welcome to his opinion but I disagree and the facts back me up.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] If you want us to take you seriously you'll have to do better than that. Tamino is a professional time-series analyst who has proven his worth in the climate blogging wars over the years. Dismissive handwaving of his work costs you dearly in the credibility department here. A proper way forward would be for you to publish your work in a peer-reviewed body, as Tamino has done in the past. And in the spirit of teaching the teacher, you could post your claims at Tamino's place, Open Mind. -
muoncounter at 15:01 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#148: Yooper, A classic! But this is more like the Battle of New OrleansModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Nice! Caught me listening to this one. The good old days, before the CO2... -
NETDR at 14:49 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Actually thoughtful You just made up the part about "The current La Nina is the strongest on record" The data doesn't support you. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml The last several months have shown cooling, and that is the time frame of the La Nina. http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Sept .477 Oct .306 Nov .273 Dec .182 Does that look like warming ? Over long or short time periods the temperature follows the ratio of El Nino/s to la Nina's. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:2010/scale/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1940/to:2010/mean:60/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:2010/scale:5/mean:60 [The When the PDO is positive there are more El Nino's than La Nina's and it always warms unless there is a volcano or some other natural event. When the PDO is negative it cools. Funny how that works.] The whole 1978 to 1998 warming happened when the PDO was positive. The cooling from 1940 to 1978 was when the PDO was negative. CO2 isn't needed to explain the temperature from 1940 to present.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please take all future comments on the PDO to the http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-intermediate.htm thread. If it also pertains to your discussion here, post the relevant bit on the PDO at the linked thread and then provide a link back here to the comment you posted over there. Future off-topic comments here will be deleted. Thanks for helping us keep a clean house! -
Daniel Bailey at 14:47 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
@ muoncounter (146) I thought you sank the battleship with that "bankruptcy" bit. The Yooper -
apiratelooksat50 at 14:44 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
AT @ 140 "(they have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt the climate is warming, correlated with CO2)" I agree with this part of your statement, especially since you said correlated and not caused by. Certainly the climate is warming as I stated in my original post. Because the AGW theory is pinning current "excessive warming" (what a vague term that is) on human emissions, and that is a change from at least 400,000 years of climate data (see #105), then the H0 remains as I stated it. For instance, with these horrific floods in Brisbane, using your rationale, it would be put upon me to prove that humans are NOT the cause of the flooding. The usual null hypothesis is what is normally observed in nature. By saying that GHG's cause the warming, then that negates all the other inputs that we know whether forcings or feedbacks. I really do appreciate your civil conversation on this matter. Thanks.Moderator Response: "Excessive warming" is not vague; there are very specific predictions, and some already consequences. Take your comments on that to "It’s not bad." You are wrong that "By saying that GHG's cause the warming, then that negates all the other inputs that we know whether forcings or feedbacks"; see "CO2 is not the only driver of climate." -
muoncounter at 14:36 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#136, 138: Like I said, not interesting. Obviously, you missed the fact that 2010 ties for hottest year ever. In a decade that set more high temperature records than the prior decade, which set more high temperature records than the prior decade, which set more high temperature records than the prior decade. There are no natural cycles that do that. But you haven't proposed any; it seems that you will just go on saying 'no its not.' There are places on the web where you can get away with that, but not here. And that '0.12F/decade you're quoting is flat incorrect: do you not know the difference between C and F? See Northern hemisphere warming rates and half a dozen other threads on temperatures. BTW, we 'came out of the LIA' decades ago, so you can stop repeating that. Besides, its a topic for another thread.Moderator Response: Specifically, see "We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age." -
NETDR at 14:23 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Dana Did you understand my post ? The 2nd order equation is : y = 0.0122x2 + 0.8138x + 311.64 The supposed exponential growth is unimportant if the exponent is very very small as it is. [.0122] The difference in effect from a linear trend is trivial. 1.4 % in 90 years. Read the post again and tell me exactly where my "error" is.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Read the Tamino post located at the link dana1981 provided you with. You'll find your answer there. -
dana1981 at 14:20 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
By the way, tamino addressed this question long ago. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/monckey-business/ -
dana1981 at 14:16 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
NETDR - are you joking? The trend is so obviously exponential in your own plot! -
apiratelooksat50 at 14:07 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Moderator @ 135: How is this off topic when the topic is "Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?" and I am supporting my stance on the subject?Moderator Response: You really, really, need to spend some time reading the Arguments you can see listed by clicking one of the Arguments links. A strength of this Skeptical Science site is the ease of finding information about each specific topic. When you have a claim about a topic that is the focus of a narrow Argument or Post, you should comment there. Short mentions are okay on more general threads, but with pointers to the more relevant threads for continued discussion. -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:02 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Re: strongest La Nina on record, where does that claim come from? Doesn't look that way here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml -
Ken Lambert at 13:54 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Anne-Marie Blackburn #28 The references are in these threads here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Robust-warming-of-the-global-upper-ocean.html Have a look at BP and KL comments - particularly BP. You will need a spare hour and a passing knowledge of thermodynamics, probably the surface area of the Earth and a calculator which runs to E22.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] FYI, "primary literature" means a peer-reviewed publication, like PNAS, NATURE, GRL, etc., or the studies published therein directly. Blogs, even Skeptical Science, don't count. This is part of doing the work and showing your work to support your position. -
LandyJim at 13:50 PM on 18 January 2011Hockey stick is broken
Sadly this debate is the classic example of some people ignoring reality. The Hockey Stick is a misleading graph that has no place anymore in the argument. It was created with some wrong assertions and a lack of accurate data that led to the now infamous graph. I find it incredulous that a so called respected researcher could be fooled by his error so painfully. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are well documented and reported periods of the last 1000 years. To adjust data sets to start just as the climate was cold and then warmed is misleading. There are graphs out there that paint a different picture:
This next graph shows the temperature records take from the Vostok Ice Cores and have appeared in numerous publications, including Science, over the last couple of years. The current temperature is 0 on the graph with the variation above and below this as either a positive or negative value. It is for 10,000 years and clearly shows a high degree of variation in average temperature
Then we have Ice core data from Greenland's GISP2 Ice Core which clearly shows that our current understanding of how the climate naturally varies over time leaves a lot to be desired. This graph was produced by Climate Change researchers and clearly does not support the anthropogenic argument.
When it comes to discussing climate, we should not be looking at trends in data for 10, 30 or even hundred year block of time, but we must study the data for thousands of years worth. The planet does not work on human timescales so our observations must reflect this fact.
Bleating about the impact man has or is not having is pointless, we must simply stop polluting our environment and let nature sort the rest out. We need to make significant changes to how we deal with environmental matters, quick fixes are not intelligent or likely to work, only long term, thought out and sustainable changes will achieve any measure of success.
Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Since you didn't bother to read the rules of this road, here's a summary: Stick to the topic. No accusations of deception. No personal attacks (bleating? really?) Cite the sources you use for information (and those should be reputable sources, not dime store blogs). Last warning before deletion. -
Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
apiratelooksat50 - "I've also never gotten a real answer from anyone on how the "normal" temperature or "normal" CO2 levels were derived." - I believe that's incorrect. The "normal" CO2 level would be under 285, as it has been for the last half million years. The "normal" temperature without the CO2 forcing would be ~0.8 C, lower than it is at the moment. I know I've told you this (among others), and pointed you to the appropriate topics. Please - don't ignore the input you receive. It does not portray your opinions in a good light.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed text. -
actually thoughtful at 13:46 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
The PDO bit has been debunked a number of ways. One thing your analysis misses is the current La Nina is the strongest on record (and don't forget - STILL in that solar minimum). Yet we are warming. -
actually thoughtful at 13:43 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Apirate, Thank you for responding. You have chosen "AGW fails because its defenders haven't passed the "null hypothesis test"". The very first thing you need to consider is - what is the null hypothesis? For example, in your drug example at the beginning of your post "H0: there is no difference between the two pain killing drugs (effect on people) on average." Now consider a more accurate HO "HO: there is no difference between the two drugs (effect on people (however we took the liberty of injecting morphine into the patients while testing drug b)) on average." I am perhaps being too cute in pointing out that you have chosen the wrong null hypothesis - and a very, very dangerous experiment. The correct null hypothesis is: The world will warm by .12C/decade WITHOUT any CO2 added my man. The null hypothesis is ALWAYS the one you futz with the least. This bizarre, crazy, DANGEROUS experiment of releasing CO2 into our atmosphere is not a null hypothesis; it is the height of folly. So your argument falls flat (as some poster pointed out in a rather colorful manner above). I am all in favor of using logic and facts to solve this problem. But you must use logic, and not fake logic or false logic. Now that fact that climate science has already proved even your twisted null hypothesis false (ie they have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt the climate is warming, correlated with CO2) is beside the point. So please consider revising your logical frame. You have defined things such that the truth is hard to see. There is no need to do so. Use logic and facts to find the truth. Now, looking at the data you provide - please do not use North American temperature as a stand in for global temperature. Again, confusion reigns. You list a column of data that purports to show that the earth has been warming by .12C/decade since 1880. This is simply not true. Please examine the data and respond with a more accurate statement (namely that warming without remission (as opposed to natural variation) is plainly visible from 1980 on, prior to that time it is not). If you state global temperatures, and look at them clearly (many, many graphs show this) you will see your data does not support your theory. If you can take the larger step of being willing to look at the problem a different (and fundamentally more correct) way you can break out of the confusion you have on this issue. Respectfully, Tom -
NETDR at 13:26 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
WHATDOWEKNOW I agree with what you posted Here is an interesting graph of PDO vs temperature smoothed 5 yr http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:2010/scale/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1940/to:2010/mean:60/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:2010/scale:5/mean:60 The PDO seems to act like the first derivative of the temperature IE: if the PDO is above the 0 line there is warming and if it is below the 0 line there is cooling. [Ignore trends] From 1940 to 1978 the PDO is negative and there is cooling. Since a negative PDO means there will be more La Nina's than El Nino's there should be cooling and there is. From 1978 to 1998 the PDO is almost continuously positive so there are more El Nino's than La Nina's and it should warm. It does exactly that. Since 1998 there has been both positive and negative PDO and the temperature has gone sideways. The raw data is here and you can pull it into Excel and graph it yourself. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml It takes 15 minutes tops. So why does it take CO2 & aerosols to explain the warming cooling and staying the same we have experienced since 1940 ? -
apiratelooksat50 at 13:05 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
WHATDOWEKNOW @ 137 Nice post. I hate to admit it, but I never though of the Y axis scale issue for CO2. I've also never gotten a real answer from anyone on how the "normal" temperature or "normal" CO2 levels were derived. -
LandyJim at 13:04 PM on 18 January 2011Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Do Volcanoes produce more CO² each year than man? Clearly no normally, but that is not to say they cannot. However we must not forget that Volcanoes emit more than just CO². Whilst I do not agree with AGW, I personally think that under normal circumstances Volcanoes are a Red herring. If you take into account the dust and other contaminants they inject into the air, then I would hazard a guess (and this is born out by human experience and scientific data), that Volcanoes have more of a cooling effect than a warming one. As with most things in science, it is not impossible for our rudimentary understanding of tectonic processes to proves us wrong with the odd eruption, but as a rule, we would need some very serious eruptive events to account for 30 Billion Tonnes of CO², assuming this figure too is correct. -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 13:01 PM on 18 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#54, sorry I was looking at my own seasonally-adjusted data when writing. However, even the annual data shows the same patterns, non-linearity overall, and the same years with resistance, support and breakthrough. -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:59 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Muon From NOAA.gov for the North American Continent, are the annual temperature averages. Pardon the formatting, but it should be clear. Do you need more? Where is the abnormality? Year Temperature Degrees Farenheit 1998 55.08 2006 55.04 1934 54.83 1999 54.67 1921 54.53 2001 54.41 2007 54.38 2005 54.36 1990 54.29 1931 54.29 1953 54.16 1987 54.11 1954 54.11 1986 54.09 2003 54.02 1939 54.01 2000 54 2002 53.94 1938 53.94 1991 53.9 1981 53.9 2004 53.84 2010 53.76 1933 53.74 1946 53.72 1994 53.64 1900 53.53 1941 53.47 1995 53.45 1988 53.36 1992 53.34 1977 53.33 1925 53.22 1910 53.19 1980 53.15 2009 53.11 1956 53.11 1952 53.1 1973 53.08 1974 53.05 2008 53.02 1997 53.02 1963 53.02 1959 52.9 1949 52.88 1957 52.86 1936 52.86 1943 52.85 1927 52.83 1908 52.83 1896 52.8 1911 52.78 1922 52.77 1984 52.76 1958 52.75 1930 52.71 1947 52.7 1926 52.68 1962 52.66 1901 52.66 1983 52.65 1944 52.65 1961 52.64 1928 52.63 1996 52.62 1940 52.62 1918 52.62 1942 52.61 1935 52.61 1914 52.6 1967 52.56 1906 52.53 1989 52.52 1945 52.5 1955 52.49 1932 52.48 1971 52.47 1964 52.46 1965 52.44 1902 52.43 1948 52.42 1923 52.41 1970 52.4 1913 52.33 1937 52.29 1975 52.28 1969 52.27 1919 52.27 1897 52.27 1976 52.26 1966 52.26 1907 52.26 1960 52.22 1950 52.21 1915 52.2 1909 52.17 1972 52.15 1898 52.12 1968 52.11 1982 52.08 1985 52.03 1993 52 1904 51.96 1951 51.91 1978 51.82 1905 51.8 1920 51.78 1899 51.73 1979 51.67 1929 51.58 1916 51.57 1903 51.49 1924 51.31 1895 51.21 1912 51.03 1917 50.82 -
NETDR at 12:58 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
The problem is the facts so far disagree with this article. The Mona Loa data shows the increase in CO2 to be approximately linear so far. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt Here is a graph of it with trend line. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:2010/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:2010/trend #Least squares trend line; slope = 1.43127 per year There is no hint of substantial exponential increase but just to be sure I did a 2nd order fit in Excel It got the following function: y = 0.0122x2 + 0.8138x + 311.64 If you substitute 90 years for X you get 483.702 This is more than the 128.79 + 313.26 = 442.05 of the linear trend but since the effect is logarithmic the effect is a very slow increase. Log[b10] of 442.05 = 2.645 Log[b10] of 483.70 = 2.684 That is an increase in effect of 1.4 % more. So far the geometric increase isn't happening. -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 12:54 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Interesting discussion, but I didn't see much discussion about the ENSO/NOI/SOI cycle, which is one of the most well-known natural oceanic cycles (is it a cycle?). There are, however, one or two posts stating that the ENSO cycle only causes short term effects and the net-energy balance is zero (e.g. comment #22). However, that would only be the case if el ninos and la ninas were of the exact same magnitude, same volume, and occur over the same length of time. If not, there will be an energy imbalance: more and stronger el ninos over time compared to la ninas will cause more heat to be released and vice versa. I have posted here how the PDO and ENSO cycle are linked, and how el ninos have increased in number and strength compared to simultaneously -and at the exact same rate- decreasing la ninas (both in nr an strength) over the last few decades. To be more specific: looking at the NOI data the last decade (2000-2011) has been dominated by el ninos: 37 el nino months vs. 26 la nina months (including the current la nina), whereas the years prior to the last decade (1950-2000) it was the other way around: 145 el nino months vs 175 la nina months. For the entire data-record (1950-2011), la ninas still dominate: 200 la nina months vs 182 el nino months. However, since 1975 (about the year that is often found since when global atmospheric temperatures started steadily increasing) el ninos have dominated both in number of months and peak-strength: 120 el nino months vs. 93 la nina months, with an average strength of +1.1 +/- 0.5 and -1.0 +/- 0.4, and a an absolute peak strength of 2.5 and -1.9, respectively. Hence, not only were there 12% more el nino months, these were also on average 10% stronger, compared to la ninas during the same time period. In addition, the peak el nino (1998), being 24% stronger than the peak la nina (1988). This trend-reversal from a la nina dominated to an el nino dominated cycle got even stronger in the last decade, which interestingly is also the warmest decade on record. Now I am NOT saying the ENSO cycle can explain all global warming since the 1970s/1980s, certainly NOT, but the ENSO cycle can -given its developments over the last few decades- not be dismissed as having no effect by the simple statement that "they -el ninos and la nina- cancel each other out", as they clearly haven't over the last decade and last 3 decades for that matter. ps: please don't plot CO2 levels using a y-axes from say 300pm to up to 400pm; that's scientifically dishonest. You need to have a true 0. Doing so, the increase all of a sudden looks less dramatic... is that maybe the reason why it's often plotted dishonestly? pps: I still have difficulties in understanding how a trace gas that comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere (compared to N2: 78% and O2 19%) can have such a large impact, especially since the change in atmospheric composition is a little over 0.01% over the last 100 yrs. Maybe there are some good posts on this?Moderator Response: You need to stop typing long enough to actually read through the extensive list of Arguments. Also use the Search function. Split your comments into chunks narrowly focused on each of those.
Prev 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Next
