Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Next
Comments 99001 to 99050:
-
gallopingcamel at 01:38 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
KR (@140), Many of the people who you refer to as "skeptics" are reacting to the nonsense that is being put out by our government and researchers funded by the government. A classic example would be the EPA's attempt to label CO2 as a "Pollutant". -
gallopingcamel at 01:29 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Ned (@114), Thanks for your explanation but here is my commemt from #136: "Will it make a difference to include more stations? Ned says "NO" but I need to check that claim for myself." I seldom disagree with what you on say on this blog but a great president once said "Trust but verify". Your data shows a prolonged decline in temperatures in arctic Canada starting around 1934. My Greenland plots show the same thing. I plan to make a similar plot for arctic Russia. I would be happy to send my analysis to you for review prior to posting it on the web. -
Ned at 01:11 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
GC writes: The problem with Ned's plot is that it uses GHCN data which includes a declining number of stations after 1975. There are several years with only two stations (Alert and Resolute). Actually, what that plot shows is that it makes no difference to the calculated trend for Arctic land temperatures if you use only GHCN stations, or if you also add in additional stations from Environment Canada. The red line in that plot is NH Arctic land temps, with the additional stations from Environment Canada. It's more or less indistinguishable from the black line (GHCN only). The decline in station numbers is pretty much irrelevant. It has no effect on the global or zonal mean trend. -
Zoltan at 00:58 AM on 9 January 2011Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Has there been a response to the issues raised by Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner? He does seem to be a very experienced expert on sea levels. Am interested in evaluating his comments on sea level inferred from earth's rotation rate and other approaches. He seems quite convinced that the claims of AGW vis a vis sea levels are spurious. Feedback welcome. The interview is at http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf. -
Mila at 00:56 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Internet Explorer is always causing problems to web developers; broken standards, some features not implemented, and painful to debug because of mediocre error messages - I will investigate and try to find out where the problems are -
OPatrick at 00:31 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Oh look - now I can use the 'Keywords' tab in that window, but not in another window I've just opened to chack. -
OPatrick at 00:29 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
I just had the same problem with the 'Names' tab, but that solved itself when I refreshed the page. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 00:28 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Mila, I've had a quick check and while the 'keywords' page opens with Chrome over Windows 7, I too cannot get it to work with Explorer 8 (version 8.0.7600.16385) and Windows 7. The link to 'keywords' from the menu bar at the top doesn't work, nor does the link to 'keywords' in the body of the page under 'Guide main features'. I also get an 'error on page' at the bottom of the IE window. Seeing I use Chrome mostly it's not a problem for me. However more people would use IE than use Chrome. BTW - this work of yours is brilliant and will be using it constantly. Many thanks. -
OPatrick at 00:01 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Ah, you're getting technical now Mila. I'm using Internet Explorer on Windows Vista. It is only the 'Keywords' tab that does nothing for me, the others ('contents', 'names' etc.) are working fine. I do get a little message in bottom left of the browser pane saying 'Error on page', but nothing else to indicate a problem. -
Mila at 23:21 PM on 8 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
#6 Can you be more specific please? I need to know your browser (with version if possible) and operating system. -
OPatrick at 22:31 PM on 8 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Mila, the 'Keywords' option doesn't seem to be working for me. -
OPatrick at 22:01 PM on 8 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Brilliant! Thank you, you've made a real difference. -
Richo at 21:06 PM on 8 January 2011We're heading into cooling
I can see how people like cruzn246 can't understand global warming/climate change, especially if you live in a place that seems contrary. I just googled the weather at Lunch and Sunset, Smithton Illinois, -4.8 C, that is cold. Talk about shrinkage.. -
scaddenp at 20:26 PM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
GC, you have been around here long enough to surely figure for yourself that the "paper" you point to is full of errors and misrepresentations. And yet you somehow believe despite this that it has some substance? What exactly do think is a good process for evaluating something like this when you come across it? And please dont say that a good evaluation technique is based on whether it supports what you would like to be true. -
Ron Crouch at 17:28 PM on 8 January 2011What's in a Name?
The main fault I find with Lovelock's conclusion Daniel is that the 600,000 people that survive will have to live in the polar regions where the food chain is full of toxins. And that's why his conclusion is optimistic (from a survivability viewpoint). Sorry about this now getting off topic. -
archiesteel at 16:11 PM on 8 January 2011We're heading into cooling
@cruzn246: "Well, we are going through our coldest winter in a heck of a long time in the Midwest. Why not pop up?" Winter has been exceptionally mild so far here in Montreal. It's a global thing - but you already know that, don't you? -
archiesteel at 16:09 PM on 8 January 2011We're heading into cooling
@cruzn246: " There are more than a few scientists who see this multi decadel cycle as real." "More than a few" means nothing. The reality is that proportionately very few climate scientists believe in this. In spite your unverifiable claims to be studying climatology, you have made several plainly false statements so far, such as the one where you claimed we were in a cooling phase. Daniel kindly showed you you were wrong. One of the first duties of the wise being admitting when they are wrong, will you recognize that you made an incorrect claim regarding the current temperature trend? -
dhogaza at 15:33 PM on 8 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
But for that to mean anything one has to ignore that just about every substance known to man at one time or another has been statistically linked to cancer
Also ... at the risk of being blunt ... this statement's simply false. -
dhogaza at 15:32 PM on 8 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Billhunter:Lindzen is perfectly aware that during a warming period you will have more warm records than cold records. That is not the question that needs to be answered.
Lindzen testified to Congress that it's not really warming, and that supposed warming is due to modern thermometers that magically records transient warmth more efficiently than older mercury-based thermometers, while at the same time not being more sensitive to transient colder events. So the question *you* need to answer is ... why did Lindzen testify to Congress that it's not really warming?People like to compare AGW statistics and people termed as deniers of it like smoking/cancer statistics and those who denied that. But for that to mean anything one has to ignore that just about every substance known to man at one time or another has been statistically linked to cancer and the smoking/cancer link just happens to be one eventually proven valid.
You really believe that the smoking/cancer link has been proven valid??? Lindzen doesn't. He's been very clear that he thinks that smoking is mostly harmless. Rather than waste our time here, why don't you go argue with him about the fact that smoking is a very significant cause of cancer and heart disease? Methinks you probably don't understand what a crank Lindzen is when it comes to mainstream science. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 14:39 PM on 8 January 2011What's in a Name?
@ Ron Crouch and Ville - Ron, like, Anne-Marie, I obviously misinterpreted your post. My apologies. Ville - yes, it was a probably poor attempt at sarcasm or maybe satire. IMO humans are as much a part of nature as any other part of nature. We are forcing extremely rapid climate change to the severe detriment of ourselves and all other plant and animal species on earth. Deniers often say that climate change is natural (true) and that therefore humans cannot change the climate (false) - it's like a red rag to a bull for me. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 14:31 PM on 8 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
How wonderful. Congratulations and many, many thanks. Your work on this and the IPCC reports is invaluable. -
Ron Crouch at 14:13 PM on 8 January 2011What's in a Name?
If I might be permitted. I just want to express to those of you who do not know me that if there is anyone on the face of this planet who has absolutely no doubt that humans are affecting the climate, it is me. In fact it is my own personal belief that James Lovelock's vision of the future is optimistic. That's how little faith I have in humanity waking up and smelling the roses in time to save their precious butts.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] I have gone over your comments posted since May and I believe you. The more I read on new studies coming out leads me to reluctantly conclude Lovelock may well be right. -
Marcus at 14:12 PM on 8 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Ken Lambert, between 1750 & 1950, there was only a 20ppm increase in CO2 concentrations. Since 1950, there has been an 80ppm increase in CO2 concentrations. So really, the important part is how much temperatures have risen since 1950, not 1750 (when the CO2 effect was being masked by the negative forcing of aerosols). Since 1950, we've seen a +0.6 degree increase in *global* temperatures-so what impact do you reckon *another* 80ppm rise in CO2 will do over the next 60 years alone? Of course, that's *before* we consider the reduced albedo effects from melting ice & glaciers-which is a positive feedback-or the impact of clouds, or the impacts of methane release from clathrates. Also remember that this represents an *average* warming only-some parts of the world will warm much more than others-enough to make them effectively uninhabitable. Are you going to tell refugees from these parts of the world (Asia, the Middle East & Sub-Saharan Africa come to mind) that a "mere" 0.8 degree warming is "nothing to be scared of"? Still, got to give kudos for squeezing so many Zombie memes into a single post. -
Ron Crouch at 13:38 PM on 8 January 2011What's in a Name?
#23 sout Don't understand how you get such inference from that. Don't read into things things that are not there. If your going to discuss these issues then spell it out in black and white so that readers who might be less informed than yourself can't possibly construe your comments to mean anything else other than that which is expressed. If terms are interchangeable in casual conversation that's all fine and dandy, but here science is being presented and therefore it is imperative that the correct terminology be used in order to properly educate the uninformed. -
Ron Crouch at 13:19 PM on 8 January 2011What's in a Name?
#24 Anne-Marie That's not what I'm saying. The term global warming on it's own does not infer the requirement that an anthropogenic component be present, global warming can occur totally independent of a human finger print. I'm not disputing that what we are experiencing is Anthropogenically Exacerbated Global Warming. So basically I'm saying that the proper useage of terms is relevant to a particular discussion in order to allay any perceived confusion for the uninformed. -
Phila at 10:55 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel, Please be warned that the above link uses many words that may offend you. Offensive? Not really. Irrelevant would be more like it. I grant that there's an intent to upset people, but honestly, that kind of rhetoric stopped being offensive after the first 500,000 instances, and is now mostly just a boring inevitability. Most of us have long since learned to tune this chatter out, and proceed directly to the substance (if any). Frankly, your avoidance of clearly stated, pertinent objections to your "method" (#135 being a recent example) is a lot more irksome than anything in Rutan's approach. For a different view of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere I recommend that you check out the following: Different? Seriously? Do you really imagine that Rutan's arguments are new to anyone who's been paying the slightest attention? Some of the "skeptics" here remind me of a film I once saw of a man with Korsakov's syndrome, who treated each daily visit from his wife as an unexpected miracle. Nevertheless, it is very naughty to suppress zeros on graphs so that weak trends are made to look really scary. Now that actually is offensive. I hope you can back up this accusation. If you can't, I hope you find it within yourself to apologize. If you don't, I hope you go away. If you won't, I hope you're banned. -
Alec Cowan at 09:40 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@gallopingcamel It looks like your are programmed to do it again and again. Again you hang an unacceptable comment, get it deleted and comment what you supposedly said there -the part you see fit, the way you see favours you-. This time you chose to continue to misrepresent the figure presented by Daniel Bailey and Daniel himself with a slightly tuned down version of the same attack, but, what happened with the argument? You just have nothing to say. That's the technique: things going wrong, verbal tantrum thrown, comment deleted, you citing the comment deleted, and the argument? Oh! where is it, yeah ... we were talking of what is beyond the stars. Even more, you are making it look like you were debating that with me!!! I hope moderators will understand that it is you who are choosing the comments to be deleted and the time, so they'll find OK to keep them and everybody will follow your real arguments -or lack thereof-. With me you have an issue about highly adjetivated correlations and conclusions you extract from variables you fail to define. I pass the last link you provided. About the previous one, again, what is in the Y-axis? -
Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel - What a curious presentation. Bad unlabeled graphs ending in 1950 on a page labeled "2001", CO2 is not a pollutant, CO2 is miniscule, CO2 is saturated, CO2 is not the only driver of climate, CO2 was higher in the past, preferring stomata measurements to ice cores, CO2 lags temperature.... I could go on, but that's just a selection of evident skeptical fallacies in the first 30 pages of a 100 page PowerPoint. I'm saddened that such a good engineer is putting out junk like this. Of course, I wouldn't go to an engineer for dentistry, or a climate scientist for airframe design. I think that presentation was either a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect or an ideology driven ax-grind. You do yourself no favors by presenting this as an alternative to actual science. -
muoncounter at 08:59 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
#138: "For a different view of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" To keep it fair and balanced, here's a point-by-point analysis of Rutan's paper. I don't know who the author of that blog is, but I like his style ("promoting democracy one pint at a time"). -
gallopingcamel at 08:32 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Alec Cowan (@135), Apparently the moderator agrees with you as #133 is now a comment by "les". Nevertheless, it is very naughty to suppress zeros on graphs so that weak trends are made to look really scary. For a different view of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere I recommend that you check out the following: http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm Please be warned that the above link uses many words that may offend you. -
Alec Cowan at 08:19 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@gallopingcamel #134 It's obvious you don't understand what's in the Y-axis [PLEASE everybody else: don't explain it to him!], therefore the implications of thatcorrelation: We will follow this but now I will let you explain the variables and implications. Take a while to think it carefully and be sure of not being saying something in the lines "the atmosphere of the planet is one therefore Greenland rules (or any other place that share the same atmosphere)". -
gallopingcamel at 08:12 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Daniel Bailey, Thanks for that link in your response to my #132. That plot for high latitudes in Canada looks remarkably similar to my Greenland plot with a long decline starting in 1934. The problem with Ned's plot is that it uses GHCN data which includes a declining number of stations after 1975. There are several years with only two stations (Alert and Resolute). I am working with Enviro Canada data which has at least 15 stations to WMO standards in most of the relevant years. Will it make a difference to include more stations? Ned says "NO" but I need to check that claim for myself.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] In all honesty, that was muoncounter's doing. -
Alec Cowan at 08:06 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@gallopingcamel #133 Your assertion of dishonesty ("Your chart showing the CO2 concentration with the suppressed zero is dishonest to say the least.") is the evidence of your lack of instruction in science and ill faith. At least make yourself sure that there's a complete lack of values on an axis next time you try to label as dishonest someone that uses fair graphics but doesn't play along with your prose. You simply are showing here that you understand little science (even little high-school math) and you only have your abilities as polemicist, as you "forgot" to check that the axis had clear values (to say in a civil way that you didn't care or know, and seeing the opportunity of aiming the jugular you took your chance). -
Bibliovermis at 07:57 AM on 8 January 2011It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Yes, to posit otherwise requires explaining why the current understanding coincidently adds up. Please read argument #2. -
gallopingcamel at 07:53 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Alec Cowan (@119), The correlations I was talking about are really striking. You seem to doubt me so take a look at this: http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/Bender.html I hope you will agree that a correlation between high latitudes in both hemispheres goes a long way to counter the argument that what goes on in Greenland can be dismissed as a local phenomenon. -
les at 07:40 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
oh! #125 apiratelooksat50 seemed about to back up his monkying about with this 15% as I asked him to do some posts back... ... imagine my disappointment ;( -
les at 07:37 AM on 8 January 2011Ice age predicted in the 70s
24 snowhare Volcanic triggering of glaciation says "AN instantaneous glaciation model for the formation of the large Pleistocene ice sheets..." so maybe the poodle has a case? The abstract then says... "I suggest here that such a survival could have resulted from one or several closely spaced massive volcanic ash eruptions." or maybe the poodle is being highly selective in his interpretation of the relevance of this. People really shouldn't go round destroying their own credibility that way, especially when they've spent that much time building it up. -
cruzn246 at 07:29 AM on 8 January 2011It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
PDO as an oscillation between positive and negative values shows no long term trend, while temperature shows a long term warming trend. When the PDO last switched to a cool phase, global temperatures were about 0.4C cooler than currently. The long term warming trend indicates the total energy in the Earth's climate system is increasing due to an energy imbalance. OK, so the global temp has been flopping around in a 2-3 C range for the last 10K years. Do we have all the reasons for these "energy imbalances"? -
gallopingcamel at 07:26 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Anne-Marie Blackburn (@113), It is a valid argument to point out that a particular region such as Greenland can be affected by ocean current oscillations, for example. Such factors could indeed explain the declining temperatures in Greenland over the sixty years following 1934. As mentioned in a response to Daniel Bailey earlier, I plan to continue looking at weather stations in high latitudes (e.g. Canada and Russia) in the belief that warming or cooling is magnified in the polar regions.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See Twice as much Canada, especially the recent warming rates approaching 0.5deg C/decade. -
Rob Painting at 07:18 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Pirate @ 125 & 130 - And, Albatross, the question was innocent and in the interest of learning. I find it hard to accept that you teach environmental science. You should at least have basic understanding of the geological and biological carbon cycles. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:07 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
KR, Thanks and I am reviewing the links you sent. My question started in response to sphaerica @118 (i.e. connecting the CO2 levels and the orbital forcing). I first saw the orbital forcings years ago on anti-AGW sites and was surprised to see it here. Very interesting are the different viewpoints on something we all agree is happening. And, Albatross, the question was innocent and in the interest of learning. KR's explanations and links are making me think. -
Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Albatross - A reasonable idea. apiratelooksat50 - please post further items on CO2 attribution on the How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions page; I will not reply further on this thread, as it's rather off-topic to the lead/lag discussion.Moderator Response: Concur. -
Albatross at 06:33 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
I strongly suspected that apiratelooksat50's question was a set up, made under the guise of curiosity and innocence of course. And subsequent dialogue has shown that to be the case. KR, you have the patience of a saint. Maybe it is time to take this (distracting) discussion to the appropriate thread? Maybe this one, or this one? -
Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50 - There's additional information on our responsibility for CO2 levels in Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels. -
Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50 - We put out 29-30B tons of CO2 per year. That would (if not absorbed elsewhere) cause a 4ppm/year increase. We're seeing 2ppm/year rates. And isotopic analysis indicates that it's coming from us. Now, if we weren't putting sufficient CO2 for 4ppm into the atmosphere, would CO2 concentration be increasing by 2ppm? No. It would instead be decreasing as the abnormally high (390 instead of 285) CO2 got absorbed by the oceans and biosphere. As I said before, basic math - we are 100% responsible for the 2ppm/year increase. We're putting up an excess that cannot be fully reabsorbed in the normal carbon cycle or carbon sinks, and we are responsible for that excess. In fact we are responsible for both the atmospheric increase and the changes in ocean acidification - we pump out twice as much as stays up in increased atmospheric CO2. -
apiratelooksat50 at 06:10 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
KR@123 But, we are not 100% responsible for the 2ppm rise per year. So, the calculations need to be adjusted. According to US DOE approximately 15% of annual emissions are anthropogenic. Regardless of how we monkey around with the numbers of what is staying in the atmosphere and not being sequestered in carbon sinks, we are not responsible for the full amount of the increase. Peace! -
Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50 - In regards to the 285ppm value Sphaerica mentioned, that's the CO2 value reached in the normal (and uninfluenced by industrial emissions) climate cycle, the slow glacial cycle of the last half million years. By all indications we should be on a slow decline in temperatures, with slowly decreasing CO2 values, heading into an ice age about 10,000 years from now. Of course, that's unlikely to happen now... -
Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50 - How did we pump it up? By burning lots of carbon based fuels, currently increasing atmospheric carbon by 2ppm/year, as shown by isotope analysis and basic math. The 2ppm represent 15B tons of emissions - we pump out 30B tons, so roughly half of what we put out is currently being sequestered (see Ocean acidification for where some of it is going). How do you arrive at the 285ppm figure? That's the pre-industrial value for CO2, roughly the peak value seen in the last 400K years (Figure 1). We're currently at 35% higher CO2 levels than seen in hundreds of thousands of years, while other forcings (orbital inclinations, solar levels) have not changed. It's getting warming, we did it, no great surprises here. -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:41 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Dhogaza@121 People like you are why it is difficult to have any civil discourse. Of course we burn fossil fuels that put CO2 into the atmosphere. Did I even imply otherwise? I'm intellectually interested in how sphaerica derived those numbers. -
dhogaza at 05:35 AM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
"Respectfully, how did we artificially "crank up" the CO2 level to 390 ppm from a 285 ppm normal?" You don't believe that burning carbon-based fuels results in CO2 being poured into the atmosphere? Or do you think some sort of magic wand is sweeping all of that CO2 out of the atmosphere?
Prev 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Next
