Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Next
Comments 98951 to 99000:
-
muoncounter at 06:36 AM on 10 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
#73: "the new E&E for contrarians" There was a link in another thread to the same journal a couple of weeks ago. They still haven't published anything in their much-anticipated Advances in the Internet of Things. Here's a link to a presentation by Kodra on Granger. Rapidly approaching my limit on statistical analysis. -
apiratelooksat50 at 06:30 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Sphaerica @172 Per your request: 5) During normal changes between glacial and interglacial periods, the change in CO2 lags the change in temperature, and yet is also itself an important factor in both raising and lowering temperature. CO2 is a factor, but the importance relative to other factors has yet to be determined. 6) During the current period, we are violating the usual pattern by artificially raising CO2 levels dramatically in a very short time frame, relative to the usual glacial/interglacial changes. I will agree with this, though I believe violate is too a strong word and has negative implications. 7) Because of our understanding of how CO2 affects temperature and climate, we should not expect such a dramatic change to be inconsequential. Agree, but the consequences have yet to be determined. Atmospheric CO2 rates are higher than in the recent past, but temperatures are still normal. 8) The only reasonable effect to expect would be a dramatic increase in global temperatures. Disagree. If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would rise indefinitely in a runaway greenhouse effect. It has never happened in 500 million years, so either a mystery factor stops the runaway greenhouse effect, or CO2 is a minor force. -
Albatross at 05:30 AM on 10 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Mucounter @72, Thanks-- interesting work by Wilson. A recent paper by Kodra et al. (published in a peer-reviewed journal) demonstrates that the radiative forcing from CO2 Granger causes global SAT. They also examine the role of ENSO. They conclude that: “The results from this modified test show evidence for Granger causality from a proxy of total radiative forcing (RC), which in this case is a transformation of atmospheric CO2, to GT [globally averaged land surface temperature]. Prior literature failed to extract these results via the standard Granger causality test. A forecasting test shows that a holdout set of GT can be better predicted with the addition of lagged RC as a predictor, lending further credibility to the Granger test results.” I would not place much weight on the Soares paper given that it appears in the same journal which just published yet another sub-par paper by Douglass. In fact, it is not even clear whether or not the paper was peer-reviewed. Is the "International Journal of Geosciences" becoming the new E&E for contrarians? Perhaps someone (e.g., DeepClimate) should do some digging around and about the journal's history..... PS: The link was working a while ago, but a quick test before posting now indicated that the Springerlink site may be down. -
Neven at 05:22 AM on 10 January 2011On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
It has been over a year now since Menne's paper came out. Any news yet from Watts? -
Tom Dayton at 04:45 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50, your question "If the human contributions of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels had never occurred, what would the climate be like now and what changes could we expect?" is answered by the first graph in the Advanced tabbed pane of the argument "It's Not Us." -
gallopingcamel at 04:37 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50 (#169), If the cycles you quote provide a better explanation for past climate change than CO2 over a wide variety of timescales, what is their predictive power? David Archer has made predictions for the next 500,000 years based on his CO2 driven models: http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/01/upcoming-ice-age-has-been-postponed.html Has anyone done anything similar with the drivers you mention?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] The link you provide is to a guest article by John Cook on Tenney Naumer's blog, 'Climate Change: The Next Generation'. The correct link to the Archer 2005 paper is here. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:12 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
171, apriatelooksat50, I'm not sure where you're going with the question, or the point of it. I'm also quite unsure how to answer, since I know of no studies that have addressed the question, so any answer on my part would be pure conjecture. But given the four points that we agree upon, do you also agree on the following: 5) During normal changes between glacial and interglacial periods, the change in CO2 lags the change in temperature, and yet is also itself an important factor in both raising and lowering temperature. 6) During the current period, we are violating the usual pattern by artificially raising CO2 levels dramatically in a very short time frame, relative to the usual glacial/interglacial changes. 7) Because of our understanding of how CO2 affects temperature and climate, we should not expect such a dramatic change to be inconsequential. 8) The only reasonable effect to expect would be a dramatic increase in global temperatures. Given this, the "temperature lags CO2" argument against CO2 induced climate change is an invalid one. Do you agree? -
apiratelooksat50 at 02:32 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Sphaerica @159 Unfortunately, my original comment that you responded to was deleted and I'm not sure why. We agree on the following: 1.) Changes in orbital cycles have historically initiated both warming and cooling periods. 2.) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to the warming of the Earth making the planet liveable. 3.) CO2 levels and temperature levels appear to be linked and have multiple feedback mechanisms. 4.) Climate is dynamic rather than static. If you've answered this question before, I apologize. "If the human contributions of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels had never occurred, what would the climate be like now and what changes could we expect?"Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] That comment you refer to was in violation of the Comments Policy due to All-Caps and ideological statements. -
muoncounter at 02:21 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
#169: From your linked Scafetta paper: Irregular cycles with an average period of about 20 years are clearly visible ... . These cycles are determined by the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn, ... A longer secular cycle of about 178 years, which is mostly determined by the synodic period of Uranus and Neptune (about 171.4 years), is also present ... This has nothing to do with Milankovitch cycles. Is it your contention that earth climate can be driven by anything but anthopogenic CO2? -
muoncounter at 02:12 AM on 10 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
#71: "If you calculate the year to year differences in temperatures and in CO2 concentrations ..." A very similar approach was taken by G.T. Wilson here, with apparently very good correlation. The most significant and best estimated effect is the dependence of temperature on the rate of increase of CO2, i.e. the change in the current value of CO2 from its value the previous year. This accounts for much of the variation of temperature about its trend. It also accounts partly for the trend in temperature, because the rate of increase of CO2 is itself increasing over the period. He also found a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and oil prices: Although the long term pattern of oil prices is positively correlated with (trend corrected) CO2, the spectral analysis correctly identifies the negative effect of the price increases, without which economic activity and CO2 emissions would have been even greater. What better means of establishing not just a contribution, but the anthropogenic control over atmospheric CO2? -
apiratelooksat50 at 02:10 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
On secular, millenarian and larger time scales astronomical oscillations and solar changes drive climate variations. Shaviv’s theory [2003] can explain the large 145 Myr climate oscillations during the last 600 million years. Milankovic’s theory [1941] can explain the multi-millennial climate oscillations observed during the last 1000 kyr. Climate oscillations with periods of 2500, 1500, and 1000 years during the last 10,000 year (the Holocene) are correlated to equivalent solar cycles that caused the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern warm periods [Bond et al., 2001; Kerr, 2001]. Finally, several other authors found that multisecular solar oscillations caused bisecular little ice ages (for example: the Sp¨orer, Maunder, Dalton minima) during the last 1000 years [for example: Eddy, 1976; Eichler et al., 2009; Scafetta and West, 2007; Scafetta, 2009, 2010]. Nicola Scafetta, Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications -
apiratelooksat50 at 01:52 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
"Why glaciation occurred in the distant Paleozoic and the recent Pleistocene is a matter of debate and conjecture. [ -edit- ] The idea that the Earth must be "saved" from warming, which would endanger life itself, is thus farcical."Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please refrain from just quoting some other source, especially without attributing that source or providing some kind of summation as to why that source is relevant to the topic of this discussion. Otherwise you are in violation of the Comments Policy. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. -
JMurphy at 00:42 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel wrote : "The world is warmer than it was three hundred years ago and we should all be thankful for that. While I have many patents and peer reviewed papers, my climate work is amateur so I will respect the opinions of other amateurs." Firstly, you should read more on Skeptical Science, especially Positives & Negatives of Global Warming, and Can Animals & Plants Adapt to Global Warming ?. You should also have a look at this WIKIPEDIA page, which has lots more links which go against your belief. Secondly, your last paragraph (the second one I have copied above) shows where you are going wrong : you would do best to respect the opinions of the experts, while treating the opinions of amateurs with healthy scepticism - especially if they go against the opinion of the majority of experts and if they claim that they have the right answer that everyone has missed (or which they will 'prove' at some unspecified time in the future). Such amateurs are rarely as well-informed or competent as they believe themselves to be. -
Klaus Flemløse at 22:49 PM on 9 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Dear Keithpickering I am very pleased with your opening statement of this blog post. I have been able to verify the graphs from the links you have given. The following remarks should be seen as a supplement and I would suggest that you make this analysis and add it to the blog post: If you have two independent time series with a linear trend, you will find graphs like those shown by keithpickering. If you calculate the year to year differences in temperatures and in CO2 concentrations and plot them, then you will find no correlation. This is no coincidence, but can be proven mathematically for all such series as well as by simulations. The trick of taking year to year differences is used to prove that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration is used by Paulo Cesar Soares in his publication: http://www.scirp.org/Journal/Home.aspx?IssueID=465#3447 Please refer to Figures 11 /12 on pages 107/108. It will be interesting to read the reactions from the skeptical blogs and from the peer reviewer’s when they have understood the methods used by Paulo Cesar Soares to prove that there is no correlation. -
JMurphy at 22:39 PM on 9 January 2011We're heading into cooling
cruzn246 wrote : "Well, we are going through our coldest winter in a heck of a long time in the Midwest. Why not pop up?" Is that Winter as in since 21 December ? So you're coming to a conclusion based on a couple of weeks ? Do you also pop up when the temperatures are record highs in your area ? If not, why not ? -
Paul D at 22:02 PM on 9 January 2011One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
And Twitter compatible! -
Rob Painting at 21:48 PM on 9 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
caerbannog @ 68 - Nice job. Fancy writing a rebuttal?. -
gallopingcamel at 18:39 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
archiesteel, (#163 & 164), The IPCC (AR4) says that there has been ~0.8 degrees Celsius of warming since 1850. The warming in Greenland has been about three times greater. The world is warmer than it was three hundred years ago and we should all be thankful for that. While I have many patents and peer reviewed papers, my climate work is amateur so I will respect the opinions of other amateurs. -
Alec Cowan at 18:24 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@gallopingcamel #160 I hope moderators won't delete your message. Reading your words I instantly recognized the breed, the kind that combine their practical ability working with trafos (local trade jargon for transformers) with the tongue of a Dale Carnegie to get to a position in the cabinet of ministers -or at least try to-. Let me guess: playing golf to meet the right people, aren't you? You tag the label science to your activities, apparently most combining technical abilities, improvisation, marketing, flexibility and the personal gusto for adventure; pretty much what you are trying to do here and in the whole subject of AGW, to no avail, I'd add. Back to what is needed in climate science you were ask to not invent your facts and to mind your P's and Q's. You clearly failed with what you tried to substantiate with the graphics in #134 because of what a scientist or a "scientist" wouldn't have failed: identify their variables, don't let themselves misguided by an eye getting apparent correlations that used horizontal and vertical displacements simultaneously, etc. When you decide to stop cherry picking your regions and extrapolating local tends into global trends we will be able to continue a debate. Meanwhile you'll only get comments regarding your methodology because you have had little to say until now and saying it loud didn't make more of it. -
archiesteel at 17:50 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@GC: Then again, it's good to see you accept Ned's plot, considering it clearly shows a strong warming trend in the polar region. I thought you were a skeptic, but it seems you're finally coming around to reason. -
archiesteel at 17:48 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@GC: "It will take some time for me to extend my analysis to all land stations in the northern hemisphere." ...not to mention getting your results peer-reviewed and published. I mean, we're not just going to take your word for it, you know? -
Tom_the_Bomb at 17:28 PM on 9 January 2011One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
Very impressive, except those hyperlinks are a bit of an eyesore. Is it possible to assign a single- or two-word subpage to each argument? This would make links much easier to remember and follow, and would make it easier to jump in to a discussion with the link. Like this: skepticalscience.com/sun skepticalscience.com/natural skepticalscience.com/consensus skepticalscience.com/cooling skepticalscience.com/models skepticalscience.com/uhi skepticalscience.com/1998 skepticalscience.com/lag skepticalscience.com/good skepticalscience.com/cosmic skepticalscience.com/1934 skepticalscience.com/sealevelrise skepticalscience.com/lia skepticalscience.com/1970s skepticalscience.com/empirical skepticalscience.com/mwp skepticalscience.com/settled skepticalscience.com/acidification etc. Other than that, very helpful, thanks. -
gallopingcamel at 16:55 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Anne-Marie Blackburn, (@155), Please be patient with me. It will take some time for me to extend my analysis to all land stations in the northern hemisphere. When the analysis includes Greenland, Canada and Russia it will no longer be a case of "regional phenomena". You say: "Your exercise is futile." You have been watching too much "Sci-fi" with the Vogons and the Borg. -
gallopingcamel at 16:37 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
KR (@157), Your objection to the coastal Greenland data makes sense but please remember that I am concentrating on stations at high latitudes for a good reason. Temperature changes in high latitudes are several times greater than those measured at the equator. My Greenland analysis is just a start. I am working on arctic Canada and Russia. Ned has already posted results for Canada: http://www.skepticalscience.com/twice-as-much-canada.html I plan to verify Ned's plot although I don't expect to find much fault with his work which correlates well with my Greenland analysis. My next objective is to plot the arctic stations in Russia. Once that is done, the coverage will include the instrumental data for at least five times more stations than are included in NOAA/GHCN, NASA/GISS, UEA/HADCRUT and NCAR. -
gallopingcamel at 16:10 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Alec Cowan (@159), you said: "What is an "us"? a scientist? Are you trying to say that you're a scientist?" I was a scientist for 12 years, living on US government research grants. What I did was not "rocket science" (it was way more complicated than that). If you really want to know more, my post on Greenland was done using my real name. The "gallopingcamel" moniker stems from my days playing wing three quarter at Cambridge University owing to my ungainly running style. George Bernard Shaw once said "“Those who can’t do, teach.” I have passed beyond the ability to do very much so I teach. Please feel free to sign up for one of my courses; I guarantee that you will learn something useful. I love abrasive students as they keep the others awake. Here is my course schedule: http://www.bdidatalynk.com/PeterMorcombe.html -
Bob Lacatena at 15:23 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50, You have steadfastly refused to look at the content of the original post, or the understand the mechanisms behind past and present warming and cooling beyond the most simplistic approach to the subject. This is why you continually fail to understand what is being discussed. Without repeating all of the details that I've now listed multiple times, and simply summarizing: 1) In the past, orbital changes have initiated a swing towards a glacial or interglacial period. Changes in albedo resulting from these orbital changes are the actual initial forcing. Further changes in albedo, as well as in CO2 and H2O, constitute strong, very slowly developing positive feedbacks which are absolutely necessary for turning the initial, weak, and insufficient forcing (from albedo changes, which in turn come from orbital changes) into the temperatures swings necessary to move either into or out of a glacial period. 2) The current, artificial injection of CO2 into the atmosphere is in no way comparable to the move into or out of a glacial period, and any attempt at a comparison is fallacious. One simply cannot draw conclusions from past events without taking the time to understand the several mechanisms involved, to recognize and consider the differences, and to think things through beyond the most childishly basic level of "gee, this never happened before, so it can't happen now." -
adelady at 14:11 PM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
You amaze me yet again. Thank you very much. -
MrAce at 10:18 AM on 9 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Hi Hugo, thanks for your response, maybe I should explain better where I got my numbers ;-) The 1.25 is the middle of 1.2 and 1.3 and is the estimate of the no-feedback climate sensitivity I got from the paper of Hansen in 1995: "For example, for doubled CO2 the no-feedback climate sensitivity of 1.2-1.3 °C is increased to about 2-5 °C in the GCM simulations" I don't think it changed much since then. According to the Keeling curve approximation, the concentration CO2 in 2110 will be 688, currently we have 390, this is a (688/390)-1 = 76% increase. (must have used different number above, since I wrote 78%) Because you arrived at 1.4 C for not even a doubling of CO2 I wondered why you got different results from what Hansen stated. Are you calculating the same thing? I calculated based on the 1.25 of Hansen what such an CO2 increase would do: 1.25*ln(1.76)/ln(2) = 1 degree C. (1.76 is for the 76% increase, 2 is for the doubling, and the ln's are because of the logarithmic relationship) If I calculate the climate sensitivity based on your numbers I get 1.4*ln(2)/ln(1.76) = 1.7 C and this is about 35% higher than the number Hansen stated. I agree that both 1.25 and 1.4 are serious, but the feedbacks are the ones to wreak havoc, and turning it into 2 - 4.5 C -
Rob Painting at 08:57 AM on 9 January 2011Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Zoltan @ 3 -"He does seem to be a very experienced expert on sea levels." And water divining too. Which doesn't really say much for his credibility either. In fact he wrote some garbled paper trying to scientifically provide evidence for water divining, thereby effectively ending all credibility. But why rely on the word of one rather confused man, when we have satellite altimetry data and tidal gauges?:
Moderator Response:[DB] Updated graphic from this url:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel3/sl_ns_global.png
-
Mila at 08:19 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
#15 nothing helps more than picking holes :) #16 I am afraid that automatic expand of everything would make the display too cluttered and I personally prefer more grannual expand for archives; but I was inspired by your comment and now automatically expand the last month of posts, which I find useful (page reload will be probably necessary to see it just now) -
ahaynes at 07:58 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Thank you Mila. Is there a way to make expanding the archives more generous? (e.g., if I expand "2010", I'd like to be able to see all the _posts_ from 2010, rather than all the _months_ of 2010) -
OPatrick at 07:43 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Thanks Mila (and The Yooper). I realise I've just spent an afternoon picking holes in your work, so worth saying again - it's brilliant! I found the Curry comments using your site anyway, via the contents section, which I really like (but should Tamino get his own keyword?) -
David Backes at 07:35 AM on 9 January 2011Newcomers, Start Here
I was so happy to discover this excellent website. I will be using it in class, and have just plugged it in this post on my blog: Climate Change--Ideology, Truth, and a Healthy Spirituality -
Alec Cowan at 07:02 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@gallopingcamel I must confess some confusion owing to the proliferation of moderators Nobody playing by the rules and acting in good faith should be confused by a "proliferation of moderators". You simply are saying that you have an strategy here and it must take into account what moderators allow. @gallopingcamel Some scientists have indeed concluded that CO2 is driving modern climate change but there are plenty of us who disagree. What is an "us"? a scientist? Are you trying to say that you're a scientist? Are you playing with words and your "plenty of us who disagree" means "pseudo-skeptics" but you're doing it in the hope somebody will think there's a majority of scientist thinking so? @gallopingcamel Do you understand the variables in the Y-axis of the figure you are linking? Could you explain what is it? -
Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel - Thank you for returning to a discussion of the data. Looking at your coastal stations plot (which is interesting), it is still just a tiny selection of regional data - global warming is just that, 'global'. I would have to say that regional data can only be used to discuss regional issues, which include the influence of changing weather patterns, jet streams, currents, PDO, etc. You received a moderator comment to that effect when you first posted the coastal station data. I have to say that I cannot tell what point(s) you are trying to advance, though. You first indicated that you disagreed with Blackburn and Severinghaus (in a fashion that should have gotten that post deleted). You then posted that you saw how CO2 acted as a feedback on glacial time scales, but stated that "the effect of CO2 is subtle, not dominant", overlooking the point of the thread, which is that CO2's role as a feedback in glacial climate changes does not invalidate it's role as a forcing in modern times. In fact, it provides more evidence demonstrating how CO2 has a forcing effect presently. Next, selecting a very small data subset of coastal Greenland stations, you argue here that you don't see a correlation between CO2 and temperature. As a side trip, when posting heats up, you throw up a link to someone's PowerPoint (unsourced, unreviewed, and basically an assemblage of well known skeptic fallacies). Again, cherry-picking tiny data subsets won't give you enough information to argue either against or for CO2 effects. And if you wish to argue that CO2 is weak, or that CO2 doesn't correlate with temperature, please take that discussion to one of those threads. -
Albatross at 06:17 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
RSS TLT trends from 1979 til present:
Says it all really....
Now moving on, please!?
-
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 06:12 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel And people have already explained to you that regional variations can usually be explained by regional phenomena, such as changes in ocean or atmospheric currents - it in no way invalidates the claim that higher levels of CO2 will in all likelihood lead to increased global temperatures, which is what we are observing. Your exercise is futile. -
gallopingcamel at 06:00 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
I must confess some confusion owing to the proliferation of moderators, it reminds me of the wrestler who was doing well until the referee clobbered him with a folding chair. I got used to Daniel Bailey but now there is "muoncounter". Whatever happened to John Cook? KR asks for evidence which I have been providing liberally on this thread. Let me try again with Daniel Bailey's comment (#117). My original response (#133) got deleted. DB's first point: "In order to drive acceptance, your Greenland CO2/temperature research will also have to explain the mass loss we can measure, as shown here:" My explanation is that the mass loss could be related to the >2 Kelvin temperature increase since 1850, clearly shown in my data. See: http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/coastal-average.png DB's 2nd point rests on the superficial correlation between HADCRUT3 and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere once the latter variable has been exaggerated by scaling tricks. Correlation in itself proves nothing and in this case the correlation is only good over a short timespan (~1975 to 2000). The data I presented for Greenland and Ned's data for arctic Canada shows a strong cooling trend starting around 1934 and ending more than 50 years later. Measurements taken at high latitudes should magnify temperature trends so one should take them seriously. During those decades when temperatures are falling at high northern latitudes, CO2 concentrations are rising monotonically. I call that an "anti-correlation".Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Your original comment contained an accusation of dishonesty, which is a violation of the Comments Policy. Keep your comments on the science, ideally supported by peer-reviewed sources and avoid personal attacks and all will be well. -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:22 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Variation in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice AgesModerator Response: [muoncounter] There is an ample discussion of whether or not we are heading for an ice age here. Most of the 'pacemaker' conversation has already occurred there. -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:15 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] It is those anthropogenic effects which are key. Evidence exists that future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 05:07 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel And herein lies our problem I think - for you, an unsubstantiated claim seems to have equal weighing to that of a scientific theory which is supported by multiple lines of independent evidence. This is not how it works in science. Those who don't accept the theory of anthropogenic climate change have systematically failed to show that the theory is deeply flawed or that some other mechanism can account for all the observations we have. You don't really have a case, in other words. When it comes to science, people are entitled to their opinion but not to their facts. -
Albatross at 05:04 AM on 9 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Caebrannog @68, Don't sell yourself short! I also found your interpretation of the numbers very interesting. Readers can find his/her summary here at Tamino's place. -
caerbannog at 04:55 AM on 9 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
A couple of weeks ago (when some uncharacteristically rainy weather kept me indoors here in San Diego), I decided to "roll up my sleeves" and write up my own simple global temperature-anomaly program. Nothing fancy -- all it does is compute NASA-style annual temperature anomalies for all of the GHCN stations and then perform simple "dumb averages" to come up with crude global annual temperature anomaly estimates. No fancy gridding/geospatial weighting or anything like that -- just simple plain-vanilla dumb averages of the anomalies. I crunched both the GHCN *raw* and *adjusted* monthly-mean temperature data sets. Since most of the GHCN temperature stations are located in the temperate regions of the NH, I snagged NASA's "Northern Latitudes" temperature anomaly data from the GISSTEMP repository to see how my own results compared with some official NASA results. Below is a plot of the results (5-year moving averages): My "dumb average" GHCN raw data results are plotted in green. My "dumb average" GHCN "adjusted" data results are plotted in red. And NASA's official "Northern Latitudes" temperature anomalies are plotted in blue.
The results pretty much speak for themselves.
This was not a difficult task at all. I'm an EE with so-so programming skills (my technical abilities would best be measured in either MicroSanters or MegaWatts), and this was a slam-dunk easy programming exercise. This is exactly the sort of project (broken up into digestible chunks) that would be good to assign bright college-bound high-school students (calibrated to USA academic standards here).
Now the question is -- why didn't any of the loud-mouthed Wattsian deniers who have been accusing NASA/CRU/etc. of "cooking the books" with temperature "adjustments" perform some simple sanity checks like this on the data *years* ago?
I mean, if you are going to proclaim loudly and publicly that NASA's global-warming results are artifacts of "temperature adjustments", wouldn't you want to verify that by crunching the raw vs. adjusted data yourself before shooting off your mouth? (rhetorical question here).
-
Mila at 04:51 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
#13 Keywords are based only on the texts themselves. I will put a note to the right column -
Phila at 04:44 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Albatross, IMHO, it is now time to ignore the obvious trolling which is going on here and wasting everyone's time. The person in question is free to engage in such musings on his own blog. Couldn't agree more. This has been an exercise in futility, and the main thing motivating GC seems to be ideological hostility (cf. #146). That may explain why he bothered linking to Rutan's largely non-substantive paper; maybe it's not the science that's the attraction, but the invective. Perhaps that's why GC went out of his way to call our attention to the "offense" the paper might cause, rather than to its actual arguments. "Trolling" seems like exactly the right word for this pattern of insulting, evasive behavior.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] What was said, was said. Let us move on to discuss the science of the post and be more vigilant to the behaviors already displayed and discussed. -
OPatrick at 04:00 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Mila - back again. Refreshing the page seems to work for me at least some of the time, so it might be worth adding a note to this effect on the front page as a temporary measure at least. Am I right in saying that the keyword links are only from the posts themselves and not from comments? I was just looking for the Judith Curry comments, but of course she only comes up in the comments, not in the original posts.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Joe Romm covers them in detail over at Climate Progress here. -
Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel - This site is called "Skeptical Science" for a reason. Statements such as "Some scientists have indeed concluded that CO2 is driving modern climate change but there are plenty of us who disagree" are empty and vacuous arguments unless you present some evidence. Without data, measurements, and in this case papers capable of convincing others in the field (which is a reasonable definition of how to present good science), it's just rhetoric. -
Albatross at 02:34 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Moderator, I call foul with this nonsensical unsubstantiated statement by GC @147 (I could easily elaborate, but won't for reasons given below): "Some scientists have indeed concluded that CO2 is driving modern climate change but there are plenty of us who disagree." This is a classic bait statement designed to fabricate debate (as was @146), and as such adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion or the science. IMHO, it is now time to ignore the obvious trolling which is going on here and wasting everyone's time. The person in question is free to engage in such musings on his own blog. -
muoncounter at 02:16 AM on 9 January 2011Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
#3: "evaluating his comments ... " An interview that starts off with "there's no one who's beaten me" didn't do much for his credibility. When I got to "if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down", I lost interest. Assuming the earth to be a uniform sphere (its not) one meter of additional radius would increase the earth's rotational inertia by a factor of 1.00000031, slowing the rotation rate in proportion. But the mass of water that moves outwards is much much less than the mass of rock that stays put, so the effect would be far less. His use of the familiar ice skater analogy is hardly appropriate in this context: rather than extending her arms changing her rotation rate, this is more like a drop of water on the tip of her nose. Then there's Wikipedia: Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing...". As I said, I lost interest. -
gallopingcamel at 02:01 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Having just received a "yellow card" from the moderator, I will ignore some comments (e.g. muoncounter and Alec Cowan) to avoid getting a "red card". However in the spirit of trying to find some common ground I agree with the following statement by Ms. Blackburn: "The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials." However, her next statement is less satisfactory: "To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change." Some scientists have indeed concluded that CO2 is driving modern climate change but there are plenty of us who disagree.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] You are free to ignore whatever you want, except the Comments Policy. If you raise an issue that is off-topic, you'll get a yellow card. If you keep at it, you have no one to blame but yourself when you get 'sent off'.
Prev 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Next
