Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 Next
Comments 98101 to 98150:
-
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. -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:50 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Muoncounter, Following are the decadal trends (in degrees F) from NOAA from the North American continent. The trend is 0.12 degrees F rise per decade for the lifespan of this record source. The website is www.noaa.gov Bankrupt? I think, not. Your job, according to accepted scientific doctrine, is to explain how 0.12 degrees F per decade for a planet coming out of an ice age is abnormal. Also, what do you think about that drop in temp for the last decade? decade trend average 1900 - 1909 -0.54 52.36 1910 - 1919 -0.8 52.14 1920 - 1929 -0.73 52.57 1930 - 1939 0.21 53.37 1940 - 1949 0.13 52.84 1950 - 1959 0.37 52.96 1960 - 1969 -0.37 52.46 1970 - 1979 -0.51 52.45 1980 - 1989 0.26 53.07 1990 - 1999 0.71 53.6 2000 - 2009 -0.72 54.01 -
LandyJim at 12:39 PM on 18 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
@stefaan #164 Be careful when speaking about the Solar Cycle. The data you linked to is of course correct, but it runs out in 2005. If you want more detailed information that Wikipeadia gives, could I please direct you to credible sources. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml http://www.spaceweather.com/ http://www.solarstorms.org/ http://www.nswp.gov/ Over the last couple of years the Sun was at the minimal phase of the 11yr solar sunspot cycle, and it has been the most inactive since the 1850's according to some researchers, other imply the turn of the 20th century (records back then are sketchy). Regardless of that, the average minima usually lasts about 450 Earth Days, this one has lasted more than 800 Earth Days. Whether this will continue or not is uncertain. There are certainly more sunspots now than for sometime, but how this impacts the climate of our planet is unsure, making direct links is dangerous, however it does not seem to be a coincidence that the Northern Hemisphere has been experiencing some of the coldest winters for a number of decades. This could be a weird coincidence, but I think there is more going on here than many accept. Many have bashed what they call "sceptics" (why put this is speech marks is beyond me and childish personally) because they complain that highlighting 10 years of data out of 30 years is wrong and 30 years of data shows AGW...but this is always based on statements like "Since records begun". What a silly statement that is, records go back a lot longer, but often get ignored, I agree they are patchy and have error, but they do exist. We have records of summers and winters going back thousands of years in literature, they may not be accurate and calibrated temperature records, but they do tell us what the weather was doing, and it surprising how many of these stories and records coincide with what we now know from scientific evidence of the climate in the past, and this record clearly demonstrates that the climate over the last 10,000 years has been variable over periods of hundreds of years. This cannot be dismissed out of hand, the medieval warm period was real, as was the Little Ice Age. 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. It is right we monitor and study the climate, it is right that we stop polluting our world, but many claims for AGW are not based on real evidence, they are based on evidence to fit the argument, although I concede that most anti AGW claims are often no more than pseudo science or snake oil as many reputable scientists stay away from the campaign for fear of harming their career...and that is not good for science.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please review the Newcomers Guide and the Comments Policy. Your posts drift off-topic into what could quickly become ideological rants. This is a science discussion site; if you have arguments to make about the topic of various threads, do so with the supporting evidence in hand. -
dhogaza at 12:38 PM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Ken Lambert says ... "if the skeptic arguments are so transparently weak, why is a whole website such as this 'so far' excellent example needed to debunk them." For the same reason this site exists, even though rational people know the world's not 6,000 years old and the T Rex was not vegetarian nor played with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden: http://www.talkorigins.org/ -
muoncounter at 12:28 PM on 18 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#52: "Something to consider I guess." The graphs in this post are annual averages, so your seasonal concern does not apply. Monthly temperature anomaly data are publicly available in .txt format; have at it. -
Albatross at 12:25 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
I agree with Robert. While the global SATs are know to lag the MEI/ONI by about 7 months (peak correlation). What Monckton said is incorrect. -
muoncounter at 12:23 PM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#134: "I’ve been asked to provide my scientific reasons " And you produced ... absolutely nothing, nada, ne rien, nichts, nichevo ... except a lecture on the null hypothesis. Thanks for that. And thanks for brilliantly demonstrating the utter bankruptcy of the denialist position. The remainder is regurgitation of the points you've tried to make for the past week or so. No new science, no new data, no new published research, no new insights. Example: "There are a number of rational and viable scientific objections that have been raised ..." What objections, raised by whom? Supported in what way? But those are purely rhetorical questions, I doubt if there's any interest in your repeats of the same-old same-old any longer. People here are interested in issues of substance.Moderator Response: Also pretty much off topic. -
robert way at 12:04 PM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
Oh I certainly understand there is a lag that has to be considered but I don't think it is fair to say that the first 9 months were dominated. In fact by September (the 9th month) Roy Spencer was noting how the temperatures were stubbornly refusing to dip like they should have. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/10/september-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-60-deg-c/ -
LandyJim at 11:59 AM on 18 January 2011Climate's changed before
I'll set my stall out with my first post. I am not a believer in anthropogenic climate change, the arguments put forward are weak in my opinion and I think much of the real science may have been left behind or fudged to fit, however I have an open mind and am up for any scientific proof that my stance is wrong... ghornerhb: Regardless of the comments on this site about the other planets, please don't be fooled into the "other planets are getting hotter" argument, it has no merit. Jupiter emits ~2.5X the heat it receives from the Sun due to gravitational contraction and Saturn is in a similar position, we know so little about what is going on in these planets that making statements about their weather is like claiming Jesus would have liked Take That. Uranus and Neptune are even less understood, however both planets are fast approaching their closest approaches to the Sun in their respective orbits, so again, the argument has no validity. Mars, we know too little about Mars to make any realistic assessment of what it's climate is doing, just when modellers think they have it, up pops some variation from their model and they are back to square 1. Venus...OMG..I get really peeved when both sides of the climate fence try to use Venus to either scaremonger or cite evidence that the planet is getting warmer. Venus and Earth are very similar in physical size...there it ends. Earth and Venus NEVER had similar atmospheres, regardless of what some people imply. Earth is 78% N² and always has been within a few % of that figure, the H²O, CO² and other gases have varied over time and the O² content is a major pollutant put into the atmosphere by life about 2.5-3 billion years ago, without it the CO² content would likely be several% to 10% with water vapour and Methane (CH4) filling the rest of the gap. Venus has an atmosphere that is composed of 98% CO². Even if Venus had large bodies of water at one time, they are long gone and the atmosphere, being 93X the mass of Earth's is what helps to keep Venus so warm, not just the fact that CO² is a greenhouse gas. Comparing Earth and Venus is like comparing Gandhi and a T-Rex. Earlier in this thread there was talk of the impact of water vapour in the atmosphere and the fact that it is potentially a major greenhouse gas, but this is actually ignoring it's major influence on the atmosphere..it results in clouds...and clouds reflect solar radiation back into space increasing the albedo of Earth and thus cooling the surface. It's not as simple as that sentence makes it sound, they also can act like a blanket locally too, but then it is not as simple as the IPCC have made it sound either. There is no doubt that changes in solar output will impact Earth and thus the global mean temperature (GMT). There is correlation between sunspot activity and the climate, although this is very poorly understood at this time. Another factor many modellers fail to account for is the motion of the Earth in space. The Earth has an odd orbit, caused by the fact that it is not a true single planet, but then it is not a true double planet either. The relationship of the Moon and the Earth is complicated and that the Moon is a major influence on our planet is poorly understood, but it does impact the axial rotation of the planet, it impacts the tilt of the axial rotation over time, and it impacts the way in which the Earth-Moon system orbit the Sun. Earth's orbit in space suffers from precession, meaning that the point of closest approach (perihelion) actually moves around the orbit over time, it takes about 30,000 years to complete one "orbit" of the Sun. The Earth's orbital plane also suffers from precession, it drifts up and down in a period of about 70,000 years. The tilt of the planet (known as obliquity) varies over a roughly 41,000 year period from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees. There is a theory (Milankovic) that was proposed back in the 1920's that these cycles impact the climate of Earth and may be responsible for Ice Ages. The theory was unprovable back then, but in the 1960's and the 1970's deep Ocean cores were studied and a seminal paper by Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton, "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages", appeared in the distinguished journal Science in 1976. Anyone interested in reading this can do so. http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf This paper provided crucial evidence to the theory and leant it considerable weight which has not yet been refuted. What I am saying is this, I do not see evidence for anthropogenic climate change simply because we live on a planet with the some of the most complicated weather we know of and we know too little about the influences and interactions on it to make any definitive judgements on it and out impact. This is not to say I am against cleaning up the "rubbish" we dump into the air, I am all for that, regardless of reason, I just want to ensure that any decisions made are based on solid common sense and science, not mumbo jumbo, pseudo science, snake oil or scaremongering.Moderator Response: There are other threads that are more appropriate for most of your points. I don't have time now to point you to them, but everyone who responds, please do so on those other threads, with a simple sentence with a link here. -
Michael Hauber at 11:45 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
I do not think we should be asking 'does climate change have any affects on rainfall' The answer should be very obviouisly 'of course'. Weather such as winds and rain happen for one reason, and one reason only - because different parts of the planet are heating up at different rates. Co2 changes the rates at which different parts of the planet heat up, and I think it is absurd to think that such changes can happen without changing our weather patterns. Note that one of the popular skeptic positions is that Co2 really is a greenhouse gas, but due to negative feedbacks the amount of warming will be much lower than the IPCC predicts. I have never seen a mechanism for a negative feedback proposed that does not involve clouds or water vaour changes, and I've never heard, and cannot begin to imagine how such changes could occur without changing our rainfall patterns. The only question that makes any sense is 'how will our rainfall patterns change as the world warms'. -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 11:44 AM on 18 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#51. True, but my point was not the analogy/comparison between stock prices and temperatures (i am sorry if I conveyed my message not clearly enough), but I was suggesting using some of the trend analysis tools used in trading to better understand trends in global temperatures, providing new insights and a better understanding of what has happened and will happen in the future. Since obviously the ultimate question is: will temperatures keep on increasing yes or no and what will the effects be. Some of the trade analyzes tools might aid in providing such insights (they're based on data calculations), it's not until certain nr's come out of these calculation that humans/traders then make a decision (see the difference!?). Given the nature of the temperature trend the last 100yrs, a linear trend may not be applied: their are trend reversals for example (just like stocks, and that's where the analogy kinda ends; namely if all stocks were to respond linear no trend analyzes tools were needed) Ps: often stock prices go up or down for no apparent reason simply because they "have to" follow certain well-defined patterns, human-logic has nothing to do with that. Pps: if stock prices on general weren't going up there would be no point in having a stock market what so ever (unless everybody was doing shorts and we'd then have a stock market that always trended down and thus the end result would be the same... temperature seems to follow the last 100 yrs the same trend: UP, hence suggesting using some stock-trend-analysis tools) -
Camburn at 11:35 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Marcus@18: Some reference to data supporting Pakistan flooding in living memory. I have read numerous reports that this is the 3rd wettest La Nina in Aussie historical records. One example here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_australia_floods -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 11:32 AM on 18 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#50: Good point! I agree; temperatures don't react the same way as stock prices do; rendering several stock-trend-analysis useless indeed. However, I think applying a momentum calculation to the data would give valuable insight on where temperatures are heading. Also, I would suggest using Exponential Moving Averages instead of Simple Moving Averages (to better assess the last 5-10yrs of temperature data in order to get a feel for where temperatures might be going in the near future). Why? MA's are used to reduce the noise in any data set. However, the SMA is slower to respond to changes than the EMA, making the EMA more sensitive: EMA's have a higher weighting on recent data than on older data, they are more reactive to the latest changes than SMAs are, which makes the results from EMAs more timely. Something to consider I guess. Anyway, back to resistance and support levels. Prior to the temperature increase mentioned in the original post since 1970, seasonal-adjusted temperatures (one must adjust for season since annual temperatures are cyclical and that annual cycle needs to be reduced in order to make valid comparisons between years) peaked mid 1944 (0.255), and had their low mid-1907 (-.51). Hence, not until the previous high was breached: mid-1981, did we start to experience actual warming (that be your BUY signal so to say) since prior to that the increase was still within the previously established band (if you'd buy it stock prior it would mean it would trade within that band and not reach new highs...). Why? One can't simply and arbitrarily pick a year out of an entire data-set, but one has to look at the entire data set as a whole. Hence, not since the early 80s did global temperatures show true global warming. This is a different way of looking at the data, and in fact more correct. -
Michael Hauber at 11:28 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
On 'Is 2010 a strong El Nino year' - although El Nino did not dominate the year, there is a lag between ENSO and temperature response, and I think its quite fair to say that for the first 9 months of 2010 the temperature reponse was dominated by El Nino influence, and that the last few months of the year have shown the beginnings of a La Nina influence on temperatures. However note that in a typical ENSO cycle the response grows very rapidly late in the year and peak warming/cooling is usually reached in January. Assuming a Co2 warming rate the same as IPCC projections, and an ENSO response similar to previous strong La Nina events I'm confident that the first few months of 2012 will be significantly cooler than December 2010, but not quite as cool as the first few months of 2008, which was the last significant La Nina. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:24 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
The sad thing is that virtually nobody in Monckton's "audience" has the attention span or the desire to check if what he says has any kernel of truth in it. They wouldn't read half way through a paragraph of this post without bursting with foam at the mouth. They like what he says. They enjoy hearing him talk. It speaks deeply to the emotional attachement they have for whatever ideology makes it unacceptable to them to take any action against CO2 emissions. No facts, graphs, references, observations can counter that. They're humans, they will go in the direction their emotions push them. Everything else is just rationalization. Very low quality rationalization with Monckton for sure, but only from the factual point of view. From the emotional point of view it is quite good, and that's all it takes for his audience. Nonetheless, the work done in this post is great for that part of the population that would actually check on his ramblings. -
Marcus at 11:16 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
The difference, KL, is that AGW is supported by *all* the physical evidence, whereas Monckton's position is pure unadulterated Propaganda. Yet funny how the contrarians ignore the *many* *glaring* errors made by Monckton, yet rant & rave about even the most minor errors made by the other side. Of course, its not just Monckton who is engaging in blatant falsehoods-just look at the dodgy claims made by Ian Plimer & William Kinninmonth. Yet guess who gets all the air-time here in the mainstream media? Yep, people such as Monckton, Plimer & Kinninmonth. That is why we need an entire website to debunk them & their Zombie Memes! -
Ken Lambert at 11:10 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
David Horton #15 "Reluctant as I am to link to the appalling Gerard Henderson" I thought that personal invective was banned on this site. This thread is indicative of the tendency to attack the person and not the argument. Monckton is an easy target. Tthe 'Skeptics' version of Al Gore - he is a skilled propagandist who uses every contrary indicator to support his line. Just like Al Gore used every pro-AGW argument and image to promote his piece of propaganda. I have one simple proposition for all the AGW climateers; "if the skeptic arguments are so transparently weak, why is a whole website such as this 'so far' excellent example needed to debunk them."
Prev 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 Next
