Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Next
Comments 98301 to 98350:
-
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." -
NewYorkJ at 11:10 AM on 18 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
"If we look at the Nasa Map above, it shows that the Arctic has been heating up" I have to nitpick here. A 1-month anomaly map is not a good indicator, as there's major weather noise in that. Hansen also notes the extreme negative configuration of the AO has had a lot to do with recent cold couple of winters in some mid-latitute areas. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/ Now is the AO changing as a result of Arctic warming? Seems like an interesting question, but I'm not convinced colder regional winters will be the norm going forward. -
Marcus at 11:10 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
Monckton here is displaying his usual talent for *cherry picking*! Why choose 2001 to 2010? Normal convention is to go from 1980-1989, then 1990-1999, then 2000-2009. Maybe its because, if he goes from 2000-2009, the warming trend jumps to +0.013 degrees per year (or +1.3 degrees per century)-almost triple the warming for 1980-1989 (+0.0054 per year), & only slightly lower than for 1990-1999 (+0.017 degrees per year). Given that the warming trend of 2000-2009 (or even 2001 to 2010) was against the backdrop of a deep solar minimum, I hardly think that's a result Monckton & his contrarian mates should be crowing about! -
Bob Lacatena at 11:08 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
6, Roughyed, It shouldn't be surprising that the nine additional months of record-setting or near-record-setting warmth from Feb 2010 to Nov 2010 pushed the statistical significance over the edge, especially when it was replacing nine months of dropping temperatures at the end of 1995. This is a case where the end points really affected things, although with an overall warming trend, it shouldn't be surprising that lower values are dropping off the left while higher values are appearing on the right. And as an aside, please avoid linking to Jo Nova nonsense here. It's bad enough when she covers politics, but her version of smoke-and-mirrors hand-waving snake-oil salesmanship "science" has no place on the planet, let alone with any sort of reference from here. If people do want to go there, just remember to take a serious draught of true-skeptic juice before you leave. You will be hit with every silly, underhanded statistics/graphing trick in the book for the duration of your stay, as well as enjoying the company of an extremely venomous, nasty, closed-minded and rather ill-informed collection of regulars in the comments. In fact, it can be fun and informative to identify all of the quite purposeful errors that she makes in either constructing or presenting her data -- such as the oh-so-subtle use of the Greenland ice core data, with the silent implication that it is a good Global indicator, and which ends prior to 1900, before any of the past 110 years of warming... although she then "generously" compensates for that early termination with the "generous" addition of 0.7˚C for 1900-2010 (although she doesn't add that to her graph, so people that like to just look at the pictures without reading and comprehending will get an extra helping of trickery)... even though actual warming in Greenland is anywhere from 3˚C to 8˚C, depending on where and when you look. -
skywatcher at 11:05 AM on 18 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#49: A stock analogy does not work here, as, much as muoncounter has already said, there are physical processes driving the temperature change - no amount of speculative 'trading' will alter the energy balance of the Earth until we substantially reduce carbon emissions. In a stock market, there are no such physical laws - money is made or lost essentially by gambling on share prices, and as such the share price is both highly volatile, and can go sharply down as well as up, driven by human decisions, as we have all discovered to our cost. If share prices were as predictable as long-term climate then everybody (or by definition nobody) would get rich... Of course our climate is being driven by human decisions - it's just that they are so far all pointed in a single overwhelming direction and cannot be reversed very quickly. -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 11:04 AM on 18 January 2011It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Muoncounter, see my comment #13 on what seems to cause PDO. So far, again, and unfortunately I have not seen one single other viable explanation on this blog. As I also mentioned, a sinus (or co-sinus) wave oscillates perfectly around 0 too, and the trend line through one complete wave length is of course 0. But that doesn't mean there are no "trends" in a sinus wave pattern, which there obviously are depending on where you (x) are in the wave. Bakes the question, where are we (temperature wise) on such a sinus wave, and is there a temperature sinus wave? History has shown time and again temperatures go up and down... Anyway, I have to say that the 2nd graph in this post is misleading. One can't simply draw a straight line through the temperature record and the PDO. That's BS (bad science). Why? Simply because there are seasonal cycles in the temperatures and those need to be adjusted for first. Likewise with the PDO, which oscillates (sinus wave like pattern); see prior paragraph and my comment under #25. After the seasonal adjustment is done, THEN a linear regression may be done through the entire data set. But, in this case we can't do that either as there are clearly years where trend-reversals occur (see comment #25). Hence, drawing a straight-line through the entire seasonally-adjusted data-set is also BS. Since regression lines are in fact models, we need to find the model that best fits the (temperature) data, expressed as r2. In excel, a simple linear regression line through the seasonally adjusted data from 1900 to 2010 would give an r2 of ~0.68. A polynomial to the sixth (excel's limit) order gives an r2 of .81. Hence the data is better explained with a 6th order regression line. (of course with an even higher order it would explain up to an r2 of 1, but that's not the issue here; it's the fact that the increase has not been linear) Back to the PDO and temperature; I don't think PDO can explain most/much of the observed temperature trend; only to a certain degree. But, instead, and as pointed out under comment #13, I think the PDO can explain the ENSO/NOI cycle much better. -
dana1981 at 10:57 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Monckton's problem was that Steketee said "in the last 40 years", forcing Monckton to start in 1970. This excludes UAH, which started in 1979, yet Monckton cited the UAH trend (roughly 1.3°C per century) anyway. It's bad enough to cherrypick UAH, but even worse to cherrypick it over a timeframe during 25% of which it didn't even exist! 2001 seems to be surpassing 1998 as the 'skeptics' preferred cherrypicked starting point. No doubt because the longer the timeframe, the clearer the warming signal. This creates a bit of a conflict though, because UAH has one of the largest warming trends since 2001 of any temperature data set. It's difficult to cherrypick when your preferred cherries keep changing. I picture Monckton hopping from one branch of the cherry tree to the next. -
WheelsOC at 10:41 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Notice how he switches time periods in mid-paragraph, going from "since 1970" to "since 2001." It's like he consciously knows that focusing on the last decade alone will give a skewed picture of the temperature trend. I suspect the same is true of those who claim, "no warming since 1998!" It's hard to be convinced they can make these mistakes honestly. It's especially frustrating since Monckton repeatedly accuses Steketee of cherry-picking time periods or extreme weather events. Unfortunately, Monckton is increasingly adroit when it comes to the Gish Gallop. Usually the only two ways to deal with this are not to dignify the low-flying bull with a debate, or to write a book-length rebuttal. Sadly the former option isn't available in this case, especially since Monckton is a favorite for legislative testimony. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:39 AM on 18 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
First, let me make it clear, I am all for wind power as a source of power. There are some issues including geographical footprint, dependability, etc... that need to be resolved. It is also not feasible for all areas. But, where applicable, it should be applied as a method to reduce usage of fossil fuels. There is a clear resistance to this from the environmentalists due to the bird killings and impact on scenic views. Also, the financial viability of this without government subsidies is suspect. Even T. Boone Pickens backed out of it. -
Kooiti Masuda at 10:36 AM on 18 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
According to scientific studies, variation of atmospheric CO2 in interannual time scale is correlated with ENSO. But it is not that the warmer eastern Pacific Ocean give up more CO2 during the El Nino phase. Rather it is the terrestrial biosphere around the western Pacific (and perhaps also Amazon river basin) that take less CO2 then. I think this connection has already been discussed somewhere at this web site. Otherwise I will look for references. -
Ron Crouch at 10:34 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Monckton must have learned his tricks from Fred Seitz, but then didn't they all (Seitz was considered the granddaddy of global warming skeptics). It's just the age old trick of casting doubt; usually with an ulterior motive/incentive. I don't know about you but I wouldn't walk a mile for a "Camel". And I wouldn't listen to anyone who casts doubt on an issue which is being put under the microscope by so many different scientific disciples that have provided substantial proof to the contrary. That's not to say that there isn't room for constructive criticism, and that's why blogs like this and RealClimate and others serve a very useful purpose in informing the public, which is refreshing in comparison to those blogs that more resemble the chaotic nature of a scrum. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:33 AM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
I’ve been asked to provide my scientific reasons for not supporting the AGW hypothesis. A short explanation follows. (Sorry for the delay, I’ve been working this past week on delineating a wetland to help minimize the effects of running a 4 mile wastewater effluent pipeline.). In statistics, a null hypothesis is a hypothesis that is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise. For example, in a clinical trial of a new drug, the null hypothesis might be that the new drug is no better, on average, than the current drug. We would write H0: there is no difference between the two drugs on average. Special consideration is given to the null hypothesis, due to the fact that the null hypothesis relates to the statement being tested, whereas the alternative hypothesis relates to the statement to be accepted if/when the null is rejected. H0 can be “not rejected”, or H0 can be “rejected in favor of H1”. It can never be concluded to "reject H1", or even "accept H1". “Not rejecting H0", does not necessarily mean that the null hypothesis is true, it only suggests that there is not sufficient evidence against H0 in favor of H1. Rejecting the null hypothesis then, suggests that the alternative hypothesis may be true.. Prior to discussion of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis it should be established that the Earth’s climate has gone through relatively extensive cyclical changes in temperature throughout its history. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns. If changes in the Earth’s orbit can initiate warming changes, then the opposite must be true: changes in the Earth’s orbit can initiate cooling changes, as the feedbacks listed above become negative. Also, as the world is coming out of the Little Ice Age it is only reasonable that the Earth is experiencing a gradual rise in temperature. The fundamental AGW hypothesis is based on the following scientifically verifiable facts: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing and emitting radiation within the thermal infrared range thus warming the Earth. 2) Through the use of fossil fuels over the past 150 years, humans have contributed to the current rise in atmospheric CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. The AGW hypothesis (H1) then basically states that: current human CO2 emissions significantly affect the climate outside of natural variations. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H0) is: human CO2 emissions do not significantly affect the climate and the variations are the result of natural processes. There are a number of rational and viable scientific objections that have been raised against various parts of the hypothesis, from the nature and sign of the forcings considered and unconsidered, to the existence of natural thermostatic mechanisms. It is the onus of the supporters of the H1 hypothesis to establish enough evidence to reject H0. That is, show where the climate has changed from any historically established norms. First, the climate must be acting significantly anomalously or abnormally. Second, the anomaly must be explained by human actions. And, third modeling (predicting) cannot be used as explanations or facts. At this point, for the sake of brevity, I will end this post. I have rebuttals prepared for examples you supporting AGW you will want to post. -
Bibliovermis at 10:11 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Marcus, Yes, although it's not that they are dumb. It's a combination of the Dunning-Kueger effect, provincialism, apathy, scientific illiteracy and occasionally willful, even prideful ignorance, fed by a well-saturated misinformation campaign. It's the reason why Monckton is even given any consideration. -
skywatcher at 10:06 AM on 18 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Both Esop #66 and John Brookes #72: Eyjafjallajokull had little impact on global climate for several reasons. 1: It was a relatively small eruption on the global scale - VEI 3-4 and ~0.25 cubic km of ejected material. Pinatubo was VEI 6 and ~10 cubic km of material. 2: It was at a high latitude - Eruptions that can significantly affect global climate through aerosols stand a much better chance of doing so if they are near the Equator. 3: The Eyja eruption column was not very high - ~8km, and so did not inject much material into the stratosphere. Large Plinian eruption columns such as Pinatubo (>20km high eruption column) inject material directly into the stratosphere, notably statospheric sulphuric acid, influencing climate. Part of the reason Eyjafjallajokull was even as explosive as it was is the presence of the glacier and consequent abundant water around the magma producing phreatomagmatic activity enhancing the explosivity of the andesitic eruption. But that explosivity still isn't very large. Eyja is not going to feature very high on a global list of 21st Century eruptions. So while it's tempting to relate the Eyjafjallajokull 2010 volcanic eruption to snowy weather, it's not relevant here, as Eyjafjallajokull was orders of magnitude too small to have much of a global or climatic impact. The fine ash, the wind direction, and subsequent entrainment of fine ash into higher altitudes of the troposphere course led to plenty of travel disruption and media attention... -
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:51 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Bern #1 Yes, disappointing that the first comment was a denier. But every comment since then has been positive. The denier 'John Mac' might be feeling a little punch-drunk. Excellent post John. -
Marcus at 09:34 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
What some people out there don't understand is this-its *not* just Queensland getting flooded. The whole of Eastern Australia has been hit, & now we hear about South America getting hit too-& just months after Pakistan suffered its worst floods in living memory. Yet still I hear people say "well its not as bad as the floods in 1974 or the 1800's" or "how can you blame this on global warming when you blamed the drought on global warming". I mean, seriously, are people *really* that dumb? -
barry1487 at 09:24 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Thanks, Mile. Data is from 1986, and the anomaly maps go as far back as 36 months, as far as I can make out. I'd like to find some longer term data. -
Roughyed at 09:20 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
@ Robert Way #5 Phil Jones has stated recently that with fuller data for 2010 the last 15 year trend comes up to the 95% level. See here - http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/12/08/impervious-to-learning/ I guess it semantics of Feb 1995 to Feb 2010 from when he made his interview to the BBC, or Nov 1995 to Nov 2010 when he made comments in the Monbiot piece. Also heres a link to the trends I think probably Monkton uses, they don't seem to match yours but state they are from Hadley data? Jo Nova Graph -
littlerobbergirl at 08:56 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
err yes - very thorough! that last paragraph is a bit of a brain twister. well it all is, but you cant give any wiggle room with these people. tamino has been examining 'noisy short-term temperature data', nice tidy up here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/sharper-focus/ -
littlerobbergirl at 08:45 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
i tried to post a reply to that comment, but abc threw a wobbly at a post from england lol someone else will have to do it. good night/morning john, glad yous and yr town mostly ok (this time around). -
dana1981 at 08:22 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
MattJ #1 - the problem is that it's very easy to make a false, unsubstantiated statement. It takes a lot more work to prove the statement is false. Monckton constantly takes advantage of this principle, which is why we have to have an entire series of Monckton Myths. -
MattJ at 08:16 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
I always knew there was something fishy about the figures Monckton tosses around. Now if only we could state the rebuttal as succinctly as Monckton stated the disinformation. -
dhogaza at 08:16 AM on 18 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
Marco: "I don't think SCIRP is Chinese government-backed. In fact, I think the Chinese involved in SCIRP would prefer to leave the Chinese government out..." Thank you for that reference, that's interesting. So SCIRP perhaps is just a symptom of the general shoddy nature of much of the Chinese academic press ... (for those of you who didn't chase Marco's link, the story is that essentially that rather than promote crappy Chinese science journals, the government is seriously looking into trying to weed them out.) -
Blueflash at 07:44 AM on 18 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
Daniel, 1) The graph I was referring to was a temperature graph. The one you have responded with is a CO2 graph. 2) "For 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 has never been above this line... until now" uses misleading grammar. The word "never" has strong implications. And 650,000 years is not a long time in the grand scheme of earth. The correct phrasing would be "CO2 has not been above this line in the past 650,000 years."Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Sigh. In reverse order (feeling contrarian myself today), 650K years is an immense time in the history of our species; the Earth will abide long after we are gone (unless we get too many handwaving comments). CO2's peak in the Vostok core was 298.3 PPM. The line was to represent 300 PPM. Grammar concerns notwithstanding, the point is unequivocal. And for those who refuse to acknowledge any relationship between CO2 and temps:
-
robert way at 07:35 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
On that topic also if we are to consider things only from the purely statistical perspective we could not conclude with 95% confidence that it has warmed significantly over the last 15 years using hadley but i don't think anyone would really make that argument. Statistics is important and we hate to be aware of these things when we publish and submit papers but we also have to remember that results are not useless because they're not 95% significant. -
robert way at 07:32 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
I used yearly data rather than monthly data. I understand this will alter the trends one would expect and that it is perhaps optimal to use monthly data instead but simply out of ease of usage I used yearly. Regarding the 95% significance trends and so on it was suggested previously to use error bars and so on but John suggested to me to leave them out. If we want to put our statistics hat on and evaluate this then of course the trends in many cases are too short to be statistically significant but that does not make the data useless. Certainly Monckton does not make his statements based upon statistical rigour. More or less this post was meant to use his assumptions that he is implicitly making. He is essentially not making any reference to error bars and is treating the values as the 100% confidence values. If we do the same using his own method we find that his argument is flawed regardless. -
SRJ at 07:21 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
Hi Robert Are you using annual or monthly data to calculate the trends in table 3 and 4? When I use monthly data from 2001 to November 2010 I get slightly different trends than you. Besides that I think you should also include significance levels or error estimates. None of the trends are significant at the 95% level. See this plot. The errorbars in the plot are 95% confidence limits. -
Alden Griffith at 07:18 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
Another way that I like to convey the effect of el Nino / la Nina: At most, a moderate el Nino by itself should make one year warmer than the previous year, but shouldn't make it record setter. The strength of the el Nino phases that we've had since 2000 have been unexceptional, yet temperatures have been quite exceptional.
Prev 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Next
