Recent Comments

Prev  1956  1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  Next

Comments 98151 to 98200:

98151. jhudsy at 04:15 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       NETDR @41 The CO2 analysis Tamino and I did doesn't support the supposed rapid increase in the rate of CO2 emission which gloomy predictions are based. Take a look at the graph in the original article. Most "gloomy predictions" are based (in the worst case) on the A1FT emission scenario. It's obvious (again, just by eyeballing that graph) that CO2 emissions are growing even faster than that. Therefore, the "gloomy predictions" are (unfortunately) more than justified. Or am I missing something?
98152. Camburn at 04:06 AM on 20 January 2011
       OK global warming, this time it's personal!
       Ken@31: I agree. There are many holes in the AGW theory. One of the main things that a lot of people tend to forget is that GCM's are not ready for prime time, but are useful as a tool to eventually show more of what we don't know about climate.
98153. dana1981 at 03:57 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       KL #5 and skywatcher #7 - Monckton actually did get one point right in his response to Stekelee - his #8. It's a minor point about how much atmospheric CO2 has increased over the past few years. He also made some correct (and some incorrect) statements in his point #23, but his correct statements were based on a strawman. Since the point of this series is to correct Monckton's Myths, and point #8 is trivial, we'll probably skip that one. When I do point #23, I'll point out Monckton's correct statements. As a few other commenters have noted, the fact that Monckton makes such an incredibly high percentage of mistakes should perhaps make people question relying on him as an accurate source of climate-related information. funglestrumpet #8 - Lindzen has admitted that LC09 contains a number of errors. He has also claimed that addressing these errors doesn't change the results, which frankly is simply untrue. I don't think his correction of the errors has been published yet, as Rob #13 notes.
98154. Phila at 03:57 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Arkadiusz Semczyszak #11: Feedback - response to a doubling of CO2 - but this is still subject to great debate. For those who can't be bothered to click yet another of Arkadiusz Semczyszak's bizarre links, let the record show that his first link goes to a science blogger's account of Jeffrey Kiehl's recent Science paper. The second link goes to Marc Morano's interpretation of an anonymous blogger's interpretation of Lubos Motl's interpretation of Lewis Page's interpretation of Lahouari Bounoua et al (2010). (Page's approach is deconstructed at length here.) "Subject to great debate," indeed.
98155. LandyJim at 03:55 AM on 20 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       @ Response...surely you have a name :) I am unsure why you feel I was arguing about Milankovic cycles, and I wonder if you read my post correctly? I am not arguing against Milankovic cycles in the slightest, on the contrary, I am a firm believer that these cycles can and have played a part in the varying climate here on Earth, but I think this is only when they coincide with other effects that are "home grown" on Earth and simply add to it. My comments are self explanatory, the axis of the planet does not shift beyond the natural variance I noted and firmly believe that many get this mixed up with magnetic pole displacement, which is a proven scientific event in Earth history. Many seem to misunderstand the motion of the planet in space, and seem to think these changes have a greater impact on Earth than they do. Combined they may well have a big effect, but as far as I am aware, no-one has created a model of the solar system accurate enough to models our planet's motion in space over the last 4 billion years to see whether, at any time, the disparate cycles have ever coincided enough to have anything more than an arbitrary effect. That is why the last paragraph of my post was worded the way it was. I am not convinced by AGW, but if one is to argue against something, then one must do it with credible arguments that at least are worth research time, and polar shift of the planet is not one of them
       Moderator Response: You just now did argue against the dominant role of Milankovich cycles in triggering ice ages. Make up your mind.
98156. NETDR at 03:45 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Dana The CO2 analysis Tamino and I did doesn't support the supposed rapid increase in the rate of CO2 emission which gloomy predictions are based. As I showed above the rate is just a little faster than linear. In 90 years it is just a few percent and the (Ln) effect is even less.
98157. skywatcher at 03:39 AM on 20 January 2011
       Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
       WHATDOWEKNOW: Why would you bother with trend analysis when you can understand the physical processes that drive global temperature (namely the forcings of GHGs, ENSO, volcanic and solar)? If I understand the range of these parameters and their trends (or lack of), then I can make a very good assessment of future climate. There will always be an uncertainty driven by the trendless factors (crucially ENSO), but we can have a very clear understanding of the boundaries within which our climate system operates based on these uncertainties, and rates of the known trends (dominantly GHG forcing). No need for blind trend analysis tools, which are only useful if you do not know the key underlying physical processes. For example, I can say that this year will probably be a little bit cooler than last year - I say so because the dominant controller of uncertainty, ENSO, is starting at a strong La Nina, has an inbuilt lag of 6 months or so, and is unlikely to be inducing relative warming or ENSO conditions until at least late in the year. Solar activity is likely to be low-moderate and increasing, and unless we have a large volcanic eruption, there will be no volcanic cooling. The GHG forcing has of course increased a bit from last year. So with that information, global mean temperature is likely to be a little bit lower than 2010 due to La Nina, but with CO2 and solar offsetting the strength of La Nina. The uncertainty in this forecast is actually quite small, and the UK Met Office do a similar forecast every year with considerable success. Projecting with this level of accuracy (~0.1C) more than a year ahead is near-impossible because you have no clue as to what ENSO will do, but your upper and lower boundaries will progressively rise, such that each decade is on average warmer than the last, and we can be confident that by the middle of the century (without mitigation) we will dream of years that are globally as cool as 1998 or 2010... All based on processes, not blind trends, and much more reliable than the stock market!
98158. Phila at 03:38 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       lord_sidcup: You are assuming Monckton’s errors are random. The Monckton Myths series demonstrates that his errors aren’t random at all, but are part of a deliberate effort to deceive. Lambert's comment underscores the point that even if the science were far more uncertain than it is, the average "skeptic" is not someone from whom you'd want to take lessons on logic or statistics. Even if they turned out to be right, it would be much more like a lucky guess than the result of a coherent intellectual approach to the evidence.
98159. dana1981 at 03:30 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Also, about 80% of the warming over the past century is anthropogenic. Again, that doesn't account for the warming yet to come from the CO2 we've already emitted.
98160. dana1981 at 03:28 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       NETDR, I suggest you actually read the article I wrote. The IPCC models various emissions scenarios, and in the 'business as usual' scenario which I presume you advocate, the planet warms approximately 4°C between 2000 and 2100. You also repeat Monckton's error of ignoring the 'warming in the pipeline'. Basically you're just repeating all the mistakes Monckton made, which makes me think you either didn't read the article, or didn't process anything it said.
98161. Phila at 03:26 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Ken Lambert: For AGW climateers with a statistical bent - could you calculate the odds of Monckton getting it wrong four times in a row, nay - make it five times in a row for I am sure that there will be a fifth Myth from the pen of John Cook tomorrow. I suspect that you or another "skeptic" will sneer reflexively at the next finding that reinforces the consensus on AGW. What are the odds that most of the world's climate scientists have it wrong, and that the data keep supporting them? A lot lower, I'd say, than the odds that false premises like Monckton's would lead him consistently to false conclusions. Which is a long-winded way of saying that your comment is extremely silly.
98162. Rob Honeycutt at 03:23 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Sphaerica @ 10... I can't locate where I read this but I believe the case with Lindzen and Choi's response is that, it's turned into a bit of an embarrassment on the part of the journal (GRL) that published LC09 in the first place. As such, since the responses to LC09 have been so strong the journal is unlikely to publish LC10. Also, likely this is an indicator that Lindzen's response does not adequately address the critiques. Again, I can't locate where I read this so I may have it wrong.
98163. Bob Lacatena at 02:47 AM on 20 January 2011
       Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
       WHATDOWEKNOW, You entire approach is flawed, because it is based 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. But this is not the case in climate science. There are known physical mechanisms that can be studied, understood, and incorporated into the model ("model" meaning the contemporary human understanding of the climate system, not "computer model," which is a specific, complex simulation based on that understanding). It will probably never be possible to predict exactly what the temperature is going to be on any day or even month in any particular location, but the interconnections and reasoning are even now far more developed and mature than they can ever be for stocks. Short term, accurate predictions may never be possible, but long term trends are very predictable. Your difficulty with the various periods of temperature changes are a perfect example. It is not fair, or accurate, to look at past periods (1900-1940, 1940-1980) and say that these have any bearing on the current situation. We know that CO₂, based on physics and chemistry, will induce warming. We know that levels of CO₂ did not start to reach a point to cause noticeable warming until the latter half of the 20^th century. We know that aerosol pollution in the period from 1940-1980 suppressed temperatures when some warming should have occurred. To ignore this knowledge and to look solely at trends (because in stocks there is no such knowledge to consider, at least, not in so cohesive and definitive a fashion) is simply flawed.
98164. NETDR at 02:30 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Moderator Apparently CO2 has very little effect. The huge amount your graph shows has at most caused .7 ° C and even that amount is overstated since the records began during a little Ice age when the sun was dormant. About half of the .7 was caused by solar increase and positive feedbacks. Or do positive feedbacks only work with CO2 warming ?
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] "Apparently CO2 has very little effect. Incorrect; see here. To address the rest of your misconceptions, use the search function in the upper left corner to find many posts addressing those issues.
98165. lord_sidcup at 02:02 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       "could you calculate the odds of Monckton getting it wrong four times in a row" (Chimpanzees, typewriters and Shakespeare come to mind). You are assuming Monckton’s errors are random. The Monckton Myths series demonstrates that his errors aren’t random at all, but are part of a deliberate effort to deceive.
98166. Rovinpiper at 01:58 AM on 20 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       Our skeptics have been called out, and rightly so, for making ad hominem attacks against scientists. Something needs to be said about the mean-spirited criticism of other people posting on this forum. It seems to be committed mostly by...what do we call people who agree with AGW theory? In any event comments like, "You have nothing to contribute to the discussion and never have," do nothing to strengthen one's own argument. They just make the writer look like a jerk. Let's elevate the dialogue by arguing the science with copious reference to the published scientific literature and the data. "The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not be victory but progress." (Joseph Joubert)
98167. Rovinpiper at 01:46 AM on 20 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       The prize to FOX News raises and interesting point. How do we determine who is a large enough "side" of a story to warrant media attention? How do we measure this? Something like 3% of climate scientists are AGW skeptics. Among meteorologists only about 64% believe in AGW. What's the metric to determine who gets a megaphone? #88 muoncounter got most of the problems with this posting but, there's a few more. Billhunter made reference to the infamous climategate episode. This site and others have thoroughly debunked the idea that this non-event proved a criminal conspiracy to foist global warming onto an unsuspecting public. Here are some of the pages on this topic from skeptical science: Climategate CRU Emails Suggest Conspiracy CRU tampered with temperature data Peer review process was corrupted Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC? Climategate: Hiding the Decline? There are a lot of other pages for this, just type "climategate" without the quotes into the search field at the top left. Outside websites that pride themselves on their political neutrality and objectivity also found that climategate did not damage the evidence of AGW. So read: Factcheck Climategate Factcheck Climategate conclusions Politifact climategate debunks AGW Is global warming dangerous? That's a very multi-disciplinary question. Projections of changes in climate need to be provided to civil engineers, epidemiologists, and agronomists so they can analyze the effects on flooding, geographic ranges of diseases and crop yields. Then the economists need to say their piece about how that will affect society as a whole. From what I've read it seems like the economists regard AGW as dangerous. @96 mars, Straw actually has no nutritional value, except fiber I guess. So, the strawmen could provide comfy bedding for your herd of elephants, but to feed them you would need haymen.
98168. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 01:41 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
       Ken Lambert Yes, but until you publish your own findings in the peer-reviewed literature, and those findings are replicated by scientists, I have no way of knowing whether the points you make are valid. Well I could try and become an expert in the field but I don't really have the time. You said the pre-2003 data is probably highly unreliable - where in the scientific literature can I find an analysis that supports this assertion?
98169. Ken Lambert at 01:33 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
       Anne-Marie Blackburn #57 All the literature critiqued in my 'random postings' is peer reviewed. Think of me as a particularly hard marker.
98170. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:27 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Feedback - response to a doubling of CO2 - but this is still subject to great debate. here is the claim that the IPCC report feedbacks are too little valued ... ... and here that more than twice as overestimated.
98171. Bob Lacatena at 01:16 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       8, funglestrumpet, Lindzen would never, ever retract his work -- and there's no reason for him to do so. Although some responsible, respectable scientists might be inclined to do so, he's not required to, and I don't think doing so is in his nature. But people who work in the field know what has been discredited (or reinforced) by subsequent papers, and proceed accordingly. In this case, Lindzen and Choi came out with another paper in May 2010 (although I'm unsure if it was ever published), "correcting" (i.e. sidestepping/obfuscating) some of the flaws. I have not yet seen an official response to that paper yet (maybe because it was never officially published).
98172. NETDR at 01:02 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       I think it is a matter of semantics Something can be technically increasing at a geometric rate and the effect not be serious. [if the exponential term is small] Sounds scary though doesn’t it ? When all is said and done the effect of CO2 is Logarithmic. [Natural log] So if LN (CO2) is increasing at a serious rate there is a problem. If the rate of LN(CO2) is increasing but at a slow rate there is no problem. The next problem is the rate of increase of increase which I will discuss in detail below. Tamino’s paper says it is increasing too but he is coy about how much. The information is there if you dig for it. Increase of effect: I Googled the Mauna Loa data and put it into an Excel spreadsheet. And plotted the Natural log of the data. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt The equation it [Excel] came up with was: y = 21.453Ln(x) + 282.77 Which plots as almost an asymptote. [Plot the above equation if you don’t believe me.] It increases but very slowly and each year the increase appears to be slower. You can also pull the raw data into Excel and check me. Increase of rate of increase: I read the Tamino paper and he is correct that the rate is increasing but so slowly that there is no problem. The effect [LN] of the change is going up slightly but only slightly. The amount looks scary but the actual effect isn’t. IF you take Tamino’s non peer reviewed posting and look at the rate of the increase he shows it is very slow. I redid the method he wrote about. [10 year periods, 1 year delay in start dates] I got very similar looking chart with CO2 increasing about 2 PPM/year in 2010. At a liner rate of increase that would mean it increased by 1 PPM in 50 years [because it started at about 1 ppm] or 2/100 PPM per year or 1.8 PPM in 90 years. That is pretty slow. I will discuss the rate of change of the rate of change below. The Ln of his chart is pretty flat meaning little increase in effect. He does take the LN of the delta and he blows up the scale to make it look scary but the actual effect is not scary at all. If you read the chart carefully the rate of growth of the Ln [the effect] is ..0055 per year in 2010 which is very slow. Since the Ln at that time is 5.965582 then .0055 increase is tiny. Technically the rate of increase [2 nd derivative] is increasing but so what ? In 300 years or so the increase in increase might become significant in 90 it isn’t ! Just saying it is increasing isn’t enough. Tamino’s whole paper just says certain things happen and doesn’t evaluate the effect of those things. If you believe in CAGW and don’t read it carefully it might be convincing [and scary] but under close analysis it isn’t scary at all. I know the intent of the article is to mock Lord Monckton but essentially he is right. The fact that the rate of increase went from 1 PPM to 2 PPM in 50 years has almost no real world implications. (It is a debating game gotcha though. ) Computing the 90 year effect of CO2 using a linear function results in a tiny error. Since the effect is logarithmic the real effect change between 1958 and 2010 is Ln(CO2 2010) – Ln (CO2-1958)/Ln(CO2-1958) = 4 % change in 52 years. Big deal ! So unless the nations of the world start emitting more CO2 and the rate of increase s increasing faster than it has so far there is no problem.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Sure looks like a Thelma & Louise to me: Yup, no problem.
98173. funglestrumpet at 23:09 PM on 19 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       PPS, the BBC has something called 'iPlayer' which I believe lets one access BBC programmes from anywhere. (I get BBC radio with no problem here in Poland.)
98174. funglestrumpet at 23:06 PM on 19 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Seeing that Lindzen's work has been shown to be fatally flawed, has he retracted it? If he hasn't, is there an obligation within the etiquette of the science community that he does so? If there isn't an obligation, is there any way of devising one? Until then, I rather suspect that his Lordship will continue peddling his sceptical wares despite the hard work of sites like this. In truth he would probably continue even if Linzen's work were retracted, but he would be very susceptible being exposed from his audience, and thus having all of his presentation called into question. P.S. BBC 2 has an Horizon Programme on raising the public profile of science next Monday evening (U.K. time). The trailer specifically mentions Climate Change, so it might be worth looking at for clues as to how we can raise the profile of the topic and thus lower the profile of the Moncktons of this world.
98175. JMurphy at 23:05 PM on 19 January 2011
       OK global warming, this time it's personal!
       If you are even half as good at this as you think you are, Ken, why don't you submit an article here rather than constantly sniping from the side-lines ?
98176. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:50 PM on 19 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
       Ken Lambert Daniel has already pointed out that I'd like evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, not random postings on blogs. If you are making statements that are contrary to what is found in the scientific literature, I need a bit more than your word that you are right. I don't know you and I don't see any reason to think that you are more likely to be correct than climate scientists, especially as you have failed to substantiate your assertions with solid scientific evidence, i.e. from literature that has been peer-reviewed and has withstood the scrutiny of experts. This is what I was taught in the first year of my undergraduate degree.
98177. skywatcher at 22:50 PM on 19 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       For once I agree with you KL - Monckton does tend to get everything wrong. Sadly he holds so many contradictory positions in his head it is staggering that it does not explode! For example - 'it's not warming' (scientists fidge the data), but the warming we see (observed by scientists) 'is natural anyway'... 'The MWP was warmer than present', yet somehow, 'climate sensitivity is low'... the list goes on. Monckton desperately pushes every single meme that is contrary to what the science says, which means of course by definition, his lordship is wrong pretty much every time, and tends to contradict not only the science but regularly himself.
98178. michael sweet at 22:49 PM on 19 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Ken, This is another myth that deniers promote: that everyone should be correct half the time by chance. If you supoport a position that is incorrect, like Monckton does, then you are necessarily wrong most or all of the time. What is the big mystery about that? Also, when data is carefully reviewed, it is often revised to show warming and not cooling. That is because warming is what is happening. You would not expect the data to indicate cooling half the time because cooling is not happening. Deniers suggest that scientists are biased because the data always supports AGW. A better explaination is that AGW is what is occuring so that is what the data shows.
98179. skywatcher at 22:41 PM on 19 January 2011
       OK global warming, this time it's personal!
       #21 KL: The difference is that Gore got most of the science right; Monckton regularly gets all the science wrong. But don't get the climate science position from a film, from a lunatic, or from wingnut denier sites, go get it from the people who have been studying it for their whole professional careers, ie the climate scientists. They are almost universally of one mind on the basics of the subject. And no, you have not succeeded in identifying real inconsistencies in climate science, you just think you have...
98180. Ken Lambert at 22:15 PM on 19 January 2011
       OK global warming, this time it's personal!
       sout #30 Indeed sout, there are many things to be learned not only from the owner of this site - but from the better informed contributors. I spent about 12 months reading many papers and engaging in heavy duty discussions on climte change and the science behind it before feeling competent enough to make comments in these threads. There are some very valuable technical discussions with many references to recent research made by others expert in their specialties. The last few months have seen these really top quality discussions degenerate somewhat into repetitive postings by the owner and more politicized and personalized themes which started with Climategate revisited and has continued with stalking horses such as Monckton. I will suggest this though - when an amateur with a HP calculator and reasonable grasp of thermodynamics such as myself, can find real inconsistenies and holes in the climate science information presented on this site - and not be effectively refuted by the resident experts and publishers - there is a serious question as to the quality of the climate science on offer.
98181. LandyJim at 21:53 PM on 19 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       There seems to have been several comments in this thread regarding the shifting of the axis of the planet. I don't know whether those who propose such things simply do not understand how the planet moves in space and interacts with it's environment, or are simply misunderstanding some real events and relationships. For the record. The axial tilt of the planet moves. Over a period of about 41,000 years it gradually "wobbles" from 21.2° to 24.1°. On it's own the effect on climate will not be that great as it accounts for something in the region of a variance of about 0.021 W/m² of solar radiance, hardly enough to have a drastic input on it's own. This wobble has a wobble imposed upon, that also has a wobble..you could say that the wobble has a wobbling wobble!! However, joking aside, these are minor and do not have any real effect. There is no evidence that I am aware of showing the axis of the planet has ever exceeded the extremes of the wobble I mention in the last 4Gy, thus I think it unlikely too now. Where I feel many laymen get confused is between the axial pole and the magnetic pole, which are wholly separate. The Magnetic pole wanders about like a drunk, all over the place and up to 40km per year, currently it holds a Canadian Passport! Further, it is a proven fact that the magnetic pole does "flip" and also disappears for short periods, perhaps up to 10,000 years, and this process is not understood really, although theories abound as to the cause. Whether there is an interaction between these magnetic reversals and the climate I do not know, I don't think any research has been done in this respect, but I stand to be corrected on this. Any sceptic who claims that the axis of the planet changes drastically and this causes Ice Ages, Warm periods, sea level changes or even the death of species is talking out of their hat and they do not do the debate any favours at all as they simply make those who question the climate research conclusions seem like crack pots. Now perhaps we can avoid discussion of the planets axis moving and stay on track?
       Moderator Response: I'm unsure whether you are arguing against the existence of Milankovitch cycles, but if you are, you are wrong. You can see Richard Alley explain it in 30 seconds. Doing an internet search for "Milankovitch cycles" will get you a bunch of diagrams, animations, and explanations. That will help you understand when you reread the original post at the top of this page.
98182. Ken Lambert at 21:51 PM on 19 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Original Post Poor Monckton - he just gets everything wrong doesn't he? Four Myths - four topics - and he is wrong wrong wrong each time. For AGW climateers with a statistical bent - could you calculate the odds of Monckton getting it wrong four times in a row, nay - make it five times in a row for I am sure that there will be a fifth Myth from the pen of John Cook tomorrow. Surely on pure chance - m'Lord gets something right occasionally.
98183. Dikran Marsupial at 21:06 PM on 19 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       chemware@33 You are missing the point, fitting polynomials tells you next to nothing about the underlying process. Unless you properly account at the uncertainty in the model fit, it doesn't even tell you that the rise definitely isn't exponential (hint: compute the Bayes factor for the exponential model against the polynomial - d.o.f. is only a very coarse measure of the complexity of a model). The reason I wouldn't fit a polynomial is that it wouldn't tell me anything interesting about the data, qualitatively or quantitatively that I didn't already know from the exponential model fit. The key point is that emissions are rising faster than exponential, so assuming radiative forcing is a logarithmic function of atmospheric concentration then radiative forcing will be rising super-linearly (and hence Monckton's argument is clearly incorrect). It doesn't matter that the rise in CO2 is not exactly exponential, it depends on economic activity, so it is never going to be as simple as that, but is there any point in modelling the deviations from exponential caused by economic cycles etc.? I'd say "no", because (a) they have very little to do with climate and (b) the can't reliably be predicted.
98184. 05smithl at 20:23 PM on 19 January 2011
       Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
       Hi, I'm a student doing a Cambridge Pre-U essay and I need to find out the names of some of the scientists who have found that temperatures have risen by "over 0.5 degrees Celcius in under 100 years" and I also need to find the names of some prominent scepticswho have pointed out the Medieval Warm Period as evidence of a continual natural cycle of warming and cooling. If anyone could help me find some names of such scientists/sceptics it would be much appreciated, Thanks
98185. LandyJim at 20:23 PM on 19 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       @ Muoncounter...Thanks for fixing the link. @archiesteel: Clouds, are 90% water vapour and thus block/absorb a far higher proportion of CO², however as their upper surface is usually highly reflective to most IR/V/UV due to their nature, clouds certainly help to regulate atmospheric absorption of solar irradience. Noctilucent clouds occur higher than any other cloud layer and exist across Polar latitudes from 50° North or South of the Equator. The exact cause of the clouds on the very edge of space in the mesosphere is unknown at this time, but recent investigations (will try to find some papers) indicate they play a major part in keeping the polar regions cool by reflecting solar radiation...such that it is over the poles anyway.
98186. archiesteel at 17:36 PM on 19 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       @RW1: okay, but CO2 concentration is global, and low cloud cover isn't. Even if it was, more CO2 *still* means the IR radiation is spending additional time in the atmosphere, raising the temperature. As clouds do not block all IR, raising CO2 will still have an impact where there is cloud cover. Remember: water vapor, like CO2, radiates in all direction, so some of the IR captured by clouds will end up being radiated upwards, where it may be captured by CO2. Really, the idea that CO2's effect will be dampened by clouds doesn't seem very logical to me.
98187. gallopingcamel at 16:19 PM on 19 January 2011
       Global Warming and Cold Winters
       Phila (#88), Climate change can be very sudden as you can see in Richard Alley's study of the "Younger Dryas": http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html You may have a point when you say that the climate could warm "too much". How much warming would be too much? I won't try to answer the question as it would only attract another "Yellow Card" for being "Off Topic". Dragging myself "On Topic" again, on average there is at least one cold winter in the UK every 13 years. These cold winters are just "Weather" in the sense that they do not disprove what all the instrumental data is telling us. The climate is growing warmer.
98188. Daniel Bailey at 15:12 PM on 19 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       @ 221 You mean...they had their own waste heat thread? One is enough to do in any civilization, apparently.
98189. muoncounter at 15:03 PM on 19 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       #220: Ha! Even the Puppeteers were done in by what could only be called PGW The Puppeteers had to make some drastic alterations to their home system, during their history, as waste heat due to overindustrialisation was rapidly making their planet uninhabitable. They moved their planet further from their sun, to lessen the effects of global warming ...
98190. Daniel Bailey at 14:42 PM on 19 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       @ 219 I hear General Products was founded by Koch Industries... The "Louis Wu" Yooper
98191. muoncounter at 14:38 PM on 19 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
       #55: KL, These guys have lots of gold just waiting to support some enterprising climate science; you could always apply for a grant.
98192. muoncounter at 14:25 PM on 19 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       #218: Biblio, Maybe we could build a Ringworld. It would be cooler (from a scifi point of view).
98193. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 14:08 PM on 19 January 2011
       OK global warming, this time it's personal!
       Very good article, John. I can relate, feeling a bit punch drunk myself after our area has been hit by drought bringing heat extreme records, more major fires than ever burning vast areas (I don't think there's a patch of forest within 300k of here that hasn't been burnt by bushfire since 2003 and we're on the edge of the heavily forested Great Divide). Now two floods in as many months with some major highways damaged and not fully open since September (nothing like Qld or north and west Vic). @ Ken Lambert, this site is brilliant and provides an excellent service in explaining the complexity of climate. It's mainly for people who want to learn about climate and related matters, how and why the climate is changing and what effect it's having more broadly. However, even someone having similar attitudes to yours would be able to learn about climate from exploring this site, if they wished.
98194. Bibliovermis at 13:59 PM on 19 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       Even if there was eminent danger of mile-high sheets of ice sitting on Minnesota, such as in 'Fallen Angels' by Larry Niven, we have already drastically overshot the mark.
98195. Daniel Bailey at 13:43 PM on 19 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       Re: Mr_Pants (215) Welcome to Skeptical Science!

       "Please excuse my ignorance, but are you saying that the increased CO2 levels responsible for global warming have kept us from entering into an Ice Age?"

       I'm not saying it is or isn't in the definitive sense, but the emerging evidence would seem to indicate that.

       "Shouldn't we be glad of that?"

       Dunno. Personally, I'm glad to have a job and a family that loves me.

       "Or is it the case that this global cooling period/Ice Age wouldn't have affected us in our lifetime, or the lifetimes of future generations and as such wouldn't have been of concern anyway?"

       Absent the warming effects of the CO2 bolus we've injected into the air, then the understanding is that the Earth would've continued its gradual cooling trend from the Holocene Optimum for at least the next several thousand years before any onset of an ice age would've become worrysome. But that's neither here nor there. Of bigger and more immediate concern is what damage the warming still in the pipeline will do to our climate and crop production:

       "I'm just a little confused now."

       Been there, done that. The Search function in the upper left corner of every page is your friend here. If you have questions, type in a few keywords & search away. Odds are there's a thread or three here covering that topic. For some good background on Skeptical Science and climate science in general, go here and here. Enjoy! The Yooper
98196. Bibliovermis at 13:39 PM on 19 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       The current interglacial would have ended in about 10 thousand years based on the natural cycles. Hence, not really a concern for humanity.
98197. Mr_Pants at 13:18 PM on 19 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       Please excuse my ignorance, but are you saying that the increased CO2 levels responsible for global warming have kept us from entering into an Ice Age? Shouldn't we be glad of that? Or is it the case that this global cooling period/Ice Age wouldn't have affected us in our lifetime, or the lifetimes of future generations and as such wouldn't have been of concern anyway? I'm just a little confused now.
98198. muoncounter at 13:17 PM on 19 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       #159: "the temperature drop over the last decade?" It's been clearly established on numerous threads that a decade is an insignificant time period. This is climate, which most of us understand to encompass a 30 year time frame. Expand the link under 'Climate definitions' to see "Normals are generally averages of climate elements such as temperature or precipitation over a 30–year period". But let's look at the last decade: --from Science Daily 2000-2009, aka the warmest decade on record. As for your 0.12F 'trend', every credible temperature reconstruction finds 0.13-0.3C/decade, as illustrated here. -- Assessing surface temperature reconstructions Once again, you really would benefit from doing some reading here at SkS as well as reading some actual research. If nothing else, your arguments would improve. I mean that sincerely, because at the current level, they haven't been very interesting.
98199. Ken Lambert at 13:04 PM on 19 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
       Moderator #54 Thanks Daniel Bailey. If you read the many threads on this blog concerning OHC - you will find ample workings from me(calculations in layman's terms) and detailed explanations. In fact I have been accused (probably by you too) of flogging a dead horse more than once. A good understanding of Dr Trenberth's Aug09 paper and his subsequent variations on its theme is needed by those who want to engage in a discussion on warming imbalances and OHC. I have referred to it countless times. I run two businesses and try to design and make things during the day - so time is limited for doing more voluntary work. If some intelligent SS contributor could access me to a river of climate science gold - I would be happy to engage as a professional paper writer.
98200. Marcus at 12:55 PM on 19 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Ah yes but the Iris Effect, specifically, is about a reduction of the cloud canopy in the tropics which-in turn-was supposed to have a net *negative* forcing effect-by releasing heat out to space. What Ceres showed was that (a) the amount of heat released had been overstated & (b) it was outdone by the amount of radiation being let in (which, of course, means more heat trying to get out)-thus Ceres shows the Iris effect will *not* protect us from increased warming-because it's a net *positive* forcing. Hence Lindzen has made a fatal error!

Prev  1956  1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  Next