Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Next
Comments 98201 to 98250:
-
LandyJim at 21:53 PM on 19 January 2011We'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. -
Ken Lambert at 21:51 PM on 19 January 2011Monckton 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. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:06 PM on 19 January 2011Monckton 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. -
05smithl at 20:23 PM on 19 January 2011Assessing 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 -
LandyJim at 20:23 PM on 19 January 2011The 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. -
archiesteel at 17:36 PM on 19 January 2011The 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. -
gallopingcamel at 16:19 PM on 19 January 2011Global 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. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:12 PM on 19 January 2011We'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. -
muoncounter at 15:03 PM on 19 January 2011We'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 ... -
Daniel Bailey at 14:42 PM on 19 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
@ 219 I hear General Products was founded by Koch Industries... The "Louis Wu" Yooper -
muoncounter at 14:38 PM on 19 January 2011Monckton 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. -
muoncounter at 14:25 PM on 19 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
#218: Biblio, Maybe we could build a Ringworld. It would be cooler (from a scifi point of view). -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 14:08 PM on 19 January 2011OK 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. -
Bibliovermis at 13:59 PM on 19 January 2011We'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. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:43 PM on 19 January 2011We'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 -
Bibliovermis at 13:39 PM on 19 January 2011We'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. -
Mr_Pants at 13:18 PM on 19 January 2011We'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. -
muoncounter at 13:17 PM on 19 January 2011Could 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.
-
Ken Lambert at 13:04 PM on 19 January 2011Monckton 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. -
Marcus at 12:55 PM on 19 January 2011Monckton 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! -
muoncounter at 12:45 PM on 19 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
#34: "the rate of warming increases linearly, which is equivalent to a quadratic function of temperature in time." Exactly. Linear forcing equates to an increasing rate of temperature increase, which matches observation: see the graph attached to the comment here. -
Matthew at 12:41 PM on 19 January 2011Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
The deniers believe that clouds refection energy to space and the more clouds=more energy going to space. Marcus the research from Ceres satellites shows that not to be so... -
LandyJim at 11:58 AM on 19 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
HFranzen. I have read your article, thank you. I have a question though, Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers. Which means that only a small amount of available IR is actually absorbed by the atmospheric CO² as I understand this. Have you taken this into account with your figures, and have you accounted for the fact that increases in Noctilucent Clouds may impact these figures as they increase the Albedo of the planet. I know these clouds are poorly understood at this time.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Fixed open link -
LandyJim at 11:38 AM on 19 January 2011CO2 was higher in the past
I think everyone needs to be careful about inferred data based on models that are unproven, even if peer reviewed. Discussing the possible increase in Solar output is fraught with problems. Solar models are not complete, our understandings of the inner workings of stars is far from ideal and certainly not complete. There are problems with the SSM (Standard Solar Model) and this may or may not impact our model of the evolution of Stars in general, but especially those with similar properties to our sun. Many papers have been written on this subject in recent years. I would direct anyone interested to this article, Problems for the standard solar model arising from the new solar mixture. by J.A.Guzik 2008 http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2008MmSAI..79..481G Whilst I think it is important and helpful to look at climate data in the past, 400My is taking it to extremes as anything we say about that time is largely guesswork based on assumptions and statistical modelling. Anything more than about 5 million years old, in which we have lots of inter-related indicators of climate in the real world is largely pointless, and I would aim that at both sides of this debate. Wasting time on what may or may not have happened 400My ago is not helpful to anyone IMHO.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Before you issue a general, unsupported 'be careful' about models, see the debunked argument Models are unreliable; read and digest the content, further comments go there. -
MarkR at 11:24 AM on 19 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
RE: 29 Dikran We need to keep an eye on Monckton's sleight of hand as well. If CO2 did grow exponentially (which it isn't, it's growing faster than exponentially, Monckton simply went for the biggest lie he could - 'linear', to try and distract people from actual analysis), such that C = A exp (Bt) Then radiative forcing would be F = 5.35 ln (C) = 5.35 ln (A exp(Bt) ) = 5.35 ( ln(A) + Bt ) So the radiative forcing increases linearly with time, but that does not have to mean that temperature increases linearly with time... Consider the case of a very quick change in temperature to illustrate. Change in temperature rate = dT/dt = (1/C) dQ/dt where C is the heat capacity. Let's say you raise dQ/dt linearly very quickly (over a period of weeks, say) such that the system doesn't have time to warm up fully. If the system doesn't warm, it can't dump the heat, so dT/dt increases linearly. i.e. the rate of warming increases linearly, which is equivalent to a quadratic function of temperature in time. This should help illustrate how easy it is to pack in sleights of hand to lie to people. -
David Horton at 11:19 AM on 19 January 2011Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
Yes - it is one of those bizarre pieces of denier logic to simultaneously believe that (a) clouds will roll in to save us all and (b) there is nothing to worry about because the current climate change is less than the great changes of the past, without understanding that those two propositions are totally contradictory. -
Marcus at 11:18 AM on 19 January 2011Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
According to direct observation of tropical clouds, by the CERES satellite, the Iris effect has a net *positive* effect on the energy balance of the tropics. i.e., though it does release a *small* amount of thermal energy, it lets in *more* energy from the sun. So there is a definite, fatal flaw right there. At least, that is how I read it. -
LandyJim at 10:57 AM on 19 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
@e #15 You said in your post. In fact, the key to the greenhouse effect is that CO2 doesn't readily absorb solar radiation, but does absorb infrared. You should read up on the greenhouse effect and thermal radiation. Whilst I understand what you mean, your statement is incorrect due to the terminology you used. Solar Radiation combines all types of radiated energy from the Sun, from Gamma Rays, through the visible range, into Infra-Red, into Microwaves and radio. Of course your comment about CO²'s interaction with IR is correct, but I would urge caution in how it is worded as it could be misleading, and some may jump on your comment and twist it in an attempt to suggest your saying something your not. -
Chemware at 10:50 AM on 19 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
@19 Dikran Marsupial: OK, have had time to have a play, and here are the results with "simple" equations:
I have ignored monster equations like 10th order Chebyshev's and Fourier polynomials. Both 3 and 4-parameter exponentials: y = A0 + A1*Exp(A2*(X+A3)) ) are a poor fit, both visually and statistically. Monckton's beloved straight line is very poor. Using the calibrated eyeball™, it is impossible to tell the difference between the three polynomials. Tamino's log plot simply tells us that it's not an exponential rise in [CO2] - which this comparison confirms. I would suggest you have a play with TC2D: it is quite surprising how well a quadratic fits the data, especially given the limited degrees of freedom of a quadratic.Rank Rsq DOF Adj Rsq Std Error F-statistic Equation 1 0.9995838 0.9995385 0.4730805 2.822e+04 Quartic(a,b,c,d,e) 2 0.9993902 0.9993383 0.5666307 2.622e+04 Cubic(a,b,c,d) 3 0.9993750 0.9993359 0.5677784 3.917e+04 Quadratic(a,b,c) 4 0.9921075 0.9914358 2.0385048 2011.2298 Exponent4(a,b,c,d) 5 0.9890498 0.9883654 2.3764981 2212.8954 Exponent3(a,b,c) 6 0.9874094 0.9868955 2.5226808 3921.2121 Line(a,b) -
Kooiti Masuda at 10:43 AM on 19 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
(Re: my comment #31) Excuse me. The last link should be this. The intermediate rebuttals of No. 28 "Oceans are cooling". -
Kooiti Masuda at 10:40 AM on 19 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
(Re: my comment #27) Here are some references about interannual variability of CO2 flux and its relationship with El Nino. (Excuse me I cannot provide more up-to-date ones.) C.D. Keeling et al. 1995 R.A. Feely et al. 1999 (Re: Leland Palmer's comment #29) The results of Knox and Douglass paper is essentially Willis's analysis of Argo data, which has already been discussed in The intermediate rebuttals of No. 28 "Oceans are cooling". -
RW1 at 10:02 AM on 19 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
archiesteel (RE: 104), The evidence is that the cloudy sky has smaller transparent window than the clear sky, and the cloudy sky covers about 2/3rds of the earth's surface. Beyond averages though, I think areas completely covered by low clouds have almost no transparent window - meaning virtually all the emitted surface power is absorbed by the clouds. If the clouds are absorbing most or nearly all of the surface power already, more CO2 will have little effect. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:47 AM on 19 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
WHATDOWEKNOW, I forgot... see here for clear and indisputable evidence of the two month lag between temps and MEI. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:43 AM on 19 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
WHATDOWEKNOW, Close, but no cigar. Please provide a cite for your "strength" numbers. Everything I have seen (and a quick glance at this confirms it) says that the El Nino was moderate, while the La Nina is very, very strong. In fact, the multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) peaked at 1.502 in Feb for the El Nino, but hit -1.99 in Oct for the La Nina. In contrast (because the two values, positive and negative, do not directly compare) the 1998 El Nino hit a value of 2.677 for two consecutive months (and was 2.4/2.5 for the preceding and following months), while the previous comparably sized La Nina was -1.906 way, way back in Jan 1973, and there is no value (not one!) back to 1950 that beats the strength of the current La Nina. 1.5 for one month in 2010, versus 2.4-2.7 for four consecutive months in 1998. -1.99 for one month in 2010, versus -1.9 all the way back in 1973, and nothing else all the way back to 1950. Another indicator, the SOI, is now the highest (positive correlates to La Nina conditions) it's been since 1973, and you have to go all the way back to 1917 and 1904 to find values that are more pronounced (see here). So, again... a citation for your claims about relative El Nino/La Nina strength, please. The statements about the temperature lag are almost accurate, except that the lag relative to the MEI is only two months, not four. You can apply a four month lag to the SOI, but that flips two months sooner than the MEI. So by your logic the year was influenced by 5-6 months of the tail end of a moderate and relatively brief El Nino, and 6-7 months of the start and heart of a very powerful La Nina. -
The Oz Man at 09:37 AM on 19 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
Unless I am missing something, and I am not an expert in any field relating to climate science or statistics, even if it is correct, isn't Soares paper essentially irrelevant to the AGW hypothesis? Saores finds that there is no short term correlation between CO2 and temperature. The AGW hypothesis never claims that there will be such a correlation, in fact it expects this by using a measurement methodolgy (moving averages) to account for such short term variability. -
archiesteel at 08:44 AM on 19 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
@RW1: "This is mainly because CO2 has little effect in between the surface and the clouds, because the clouds would absorb virtually all the infrared surface power anyway." Please provide evidence that would support this assertion. Thanks. -
archiesteel at 08:41 AM on 19 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
@pirate: "I did not reference the LIA in that post. I referenced only the ice age, and it stands to reason the Earth warms coming out of a cold period." We are way past the Holocene Optimum. Temperatures should be cooling now, according to the paleoclimatic record. They aren't. -
RW1 at 08:34 AM on 19 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
MrAce (RE: 101), "I've got the feeling that clouds are of some importance here. Since they absorb a wide spectrum of IR and radiate a blackbody spectrum depending on the temperature of the cloud. If more CO2 does not change the temperature/height/amount of the clouds, we expect the surface to warm even more, because it can only lose extra energy where there are no clouds. Is this reasoning correct?" No, I don't think so. This is mainly because CO2 has little effect in between the surface and the clouds, because the clouds would absorb virtually all the infrared surface power anyway. Where more CO2 has the highest potential to increase the surface power is also where heat most easily and quickly escapes out to space (i.e. in dry, cloudless areas). -
archiesteel at 08:34 AM on 19 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
@NETDR: it would have been simpler if you were capable of admitting when you're wrong. Here is another version of the graph you linked to. The long-term and short-term trends have been offset to be more visible.It is clear, looking at the short-term trends, that the rate is accelerating.
-
Albatross at 08:25 AM on 19 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
WDWK @162, To be honest I really do not know what you are trying to suggest with your posts. It seems that you agree with the main thrust of the OP, so why then reiterate your straw man argument? You are raising a moot point. Tsonis et al. (2005) purport that: "Thus, in a warming climate El Nino events will be more frequent than La Nina events. That transition, if it comes to be, would act to further enhance the long-term underlying warming from the escalating radiative forcing from anthro GHGs. -
muoncounter at 08:18 AM on 19 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#162: "I show how the ENSO pattern has changed the last 35 years and even more so the last 10 years, shifting from la nina dominated to el nino dominated events" And why do you think that is? What has happened that could shift a fairly regular oscillation so dramatically? From Yeh et al 2009, el Nino in a changing climate: Recent studies show that the canonical El Niño has become less frequent and that a different kind of El Niño has become more common during the late twentieth century ... the central Pacific El Niño (CP-El Niño; ... ), differs from the canonical eastern Pacific El Niño (EP-El Niño) in both the location of maximum SST anomalies and tropical–midlatitude teleconnections. ... we find that projections of anthropogenic climate change are associated with an increased frequency of the CP-El Niño compared to the EP-El Niño. ... the occurrence ratio of CP-El Niño/EP-El Niño is projected to increase as much as five times under global warming. -- emphasis added So given that you agree that AGW exists (ref #158); what was once a 'natural cycle' may no longer be so natural. -
Klaus Flemløse at 07:57 AM on 19 January 2011A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
I will be pleased if someone could tell me how to the read the GHCN-data using the R-program. Could not find it on the internet ! -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 07:42 AM on 19 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#161. Why did they use MEI? That's a ranked-value, based on 6 variables many of which not related or only indirectly related to temperature. MEI is not an actual measurement. MEI is not a temperature anomaly, such as NOI or SOI. hence, I don't see how subtracting a rank from a temperature anomaly produces anything meaningful. Please explain if it does. -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 07:36 AM on 19 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#160, thanks but I am not saying climate scientists are ignoring or denying these cycles. I am referring to this original post that claims: "As we can see, "it's just a natural cycle" isn't just a cop-out argument - it's something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what global warming was." which I find to be a strong argument and therefore I am saying "Just because there may be AGW doesn't mean global natural cycles have no influence on global temperatures anymore. They always have and always will." I am saying nothing more, nothing less with that statement. I am not accusing anybody with that statement either, it's simply open and true. I am sorry you misinterpreted it and perceived it the way you did. Of course does an el nino alone or all el ninos combined for that matter not explain the current temp anomalies. I never stated that either. But we agree that el ninos and la ninas significantly affect global temperatures. That said, please look again and my comment #137 where I show how the ENSO pattern has changed the last 35 years and even more so the last 10 years, shifting from la nina dominated to el nino dominated events. How does that fit in is my question. -
johnd at 07:29 AM on 19 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
muoncounter at 03:22 AM on 18 January, 2011 re "after the flood, first come the home repair scam artists, then the cheesy lawyer commercials" The changes AGW have wrought! In earlier times it was astute stockmen that came after the flood, bringing large cattle herds to fatten on their way to market, grazing the prolific grasses that grew as the flood waters receded from the natural flood plains, leaving newly moistened and nutrient rich soil that early fortunes were made upon. -
Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
WDWK @ 158 - You should read this Tamino piece, which Daniel Bailey noted here. Accounting for and correcting the various known cycles, the underlying trend is very clear. -
BKsea at 07:18 AM on 19 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
NETDR: "I am only looking at 90 years because we will have transferred to renewable fuel by then" If there is no problem with continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at the current, accelertaing rate, why would we switch to renewables? -
johnd at 07:18 AM on 19 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
barry at 23:39 PM on 17 January, 2011, perhaps the best of all handy references that enables rainfall Australia wide to be put into perspective at a glance, is a wall chart published by Queensland Natural Resources and Mines. Pictorially it displays annual rainfall Australia wide relative to historical records 1890 - 2004 with updates available for each succeeding year to present. Unfortunately it is no longer available as a wall chart as it would be of great assistance to those trying to interpret recent events in relation to historical records using graphs or statistics which don't convey the full picture and can easily be misinterpreted.
-
Albatross at 07:05 AM on 19 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
WWDK @158, "Just because there may be AGW doesn't mean global natural cycles have no influence on global temperatures anymore. They always have and always will." You are making a classic strawman argument there. Nobody int he know here is denying that the climate system has internal modes (e.g., ENSO, AMO), nor are they denying that they do modulate global SAT record to some extent. What these transient internal climate modes (which are cyclical by nature) do not explain is the sustained, long-term warming that is observed in the SAT record. An El Nino alone does not explain the current global SAT anomaly of +0.63 K (GISTEMP) relative to the 1951-1980 baseline, nor does it explain the +0.85 K warming observed since circa 1880. ENSO perturbs global annual SATs by about +/- 0.1 K, and at most about +/- 0.2 K for a strong event (Trenberth et al. 2002). From Tsonis et al. (2005): "Note that the contribution of ENSO to the long-term temperature trend in the last 50 years is about 0.06 C or 10% of the overall trend [Trenberth et al.,2002].However, as Figure 2a indicates, after a time scale of the order of 16 (5 + 11) months, El Nino’s role is to reverse that tendency." So much for the (false) claim made here and elsewhere that natural cycles are being "ignored" by climate scientists. To suggest so is incredibly patronizing to climate scientists. -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 07:00 AM on 19 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
The response lag-time between atmosphere and ENSO events is well-known to be 3-4 months (e.g. here). Hence, one has to look 3-4 months ahead in time to see how global temperatures start and end to respond and not compare month to month values. That said, the previous el nino started officially June 2009 (month 6 of 2009) and lasted until April 2010 (month 4 of 2010). The current la nina started officially July 2010 (month 7 of 2010). Let's take a look when the global atmosphere started to respond to both events using first the lower bound response: 3 months and then the upper bound response: 4 months. 3 months lag El Nino: atmosphere started to respond September 2009 (month 6+3=9) 2009 and ended to respond July (month 4+3=7) 2010. La Nina: atmosphere started to respond October (month 7+3) 2010. 4 months lag El Nino: atmosphere started to respond October 2009 (month 6+4=10) 2009 and ended to respond August 2010 (month 4+4=8). La Nina: atmosphere started to respond November 2011 (month 7+4=11). Now these are lower and upper bound assumptions, but it shows that 2010 was influenced between 7-8 months out of 12 by the previous el nino and between 2-3 months out of 12 by the current la nina. Hence, it is safe to say that 2010 was mainly influenced by the previous el nino and not the current la nina. Taking also into account that the past el nino had a peak strength of 1.8, whereas the current la nina's peak is -1.4, it is even more save to say that the el nino had both a longer and stronger effect on 2010 than the current la nina.
Prev 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Next
