Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Next
Comments 99201 to 99250:
-
lurgee at 12:43 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Albatross, I can assure you I have nothing to do with WUWT? I opccasionally look at it, to see what the monkeys are being fed this week, but I'm not affiliated with it, nor a follower or adherent of it. My "potpourri of complaints" is reasonable doubt, backed up by comments made by an acknowledged expert (and not one who changes his tune as it suits, unlike John Christie). It seems a resonable enough position, given the various discrepancies apparent between the different ice cores. When hey're going in different ways, they can't all be records of global trends. I do not invest the ice core record with any more authority than I think expert scientists do - it is a record of general trends, albeit one that is complicated, telescoped and tainted. With millions of man hours of expert effort expended, we've still got uncertainties and discrepancies which can't be accounted for. It's amazing they've got thus far, and only deniers and (it seems) their equally fanatical counterparts on the other side of the debate invest them with such massive significance. As I remarked to S., above, my comments about the hot spot (or apparent lack there of) was intended to show the limitations of our ability to get data that accurately reflects the real world. If we can't detect (for a period of more than a few months) the hot spot we know is there, then how can we be so outrageously confident in the accuracy of the ice cores? Especially when they conflict?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Once again, it is difficult to put too much credibility in 'reasonable doubt, backed up by comments' from an uncited 'expert'. You provided one source (Steig 2008), which, upon review, is not exactly a ringing condemnation of ice core data. More specific sourcing makes for more credibility. -
lurgee at 12:30 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
I'll take it, "So Anne-Marie didn't bother to cite every proxy ever constructed" is a concession that I wasn't shifting ground as you implied? Of course, I never suggested that she should, thanks for the straw, I'm sure I'll find some use for it. I can't believe you offer up a google blast as evidence. That's hardly scientific, is it? Though, amusingly, it is a tactic I've seen deployed by hard core sceptics. Do extremes ever meet, I wonder? My position seems to be backed up by Steig (2008), in the handily titled "Sources of Uncertainty in Ice Core Data," which listed numerous issues surrounding ice cores and said we need more ice cores and better cross referencing to reduce the errors. If you'd bothered to read #93 properly, you'd have noticed I wasn't disputing the existence of the tropospherical hotspot - just our ability to detect it over the long term. But carry on trying to paint me as some denier WUWT stodge, it makes a pleasant - though unlikely - change. There are some batshit crazy deniers out there who'd be wetting themselve to see me traduced thus. -
caerbannog at 12:15 PM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
40 million years ago, when the Sun was a bit dimmer than it is now and the latitudinal distribution of the continents was almost exactly the same as it is now (i.e. same land-albedo forcing as present), the Earth was too warm to cycle in and out of glacial periods. In fact, the Earth's poles were essentially ice-free at that time. For those who think that the CO2-lags-temperature argument is a valid argument against global-warming theory, here's a question: Why was the Earth so warm then? (Now remember that solar + land-albedo forcing was the same or a bit less then than it is now). -
EliRabett at 11:38 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
You have to plot the forcing 5.35 Ln (C/Co) where C is the CO2 concentration in ppm to get anything sensible. The favorite trick of the denial ducks is to squeeze one axis or the other. -
Bob Lacatena at 11:06 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
93, lurgee,The graph originally posted was based on data from a single ice core (Vostok).
So Anne-Marie didn't bother to cite every proxy ever constructed. Big deal. It doesn't alter the argument one bit. No one on the planet (except you and the Wattsers) is contesting the ice cores, or the way they are being interpreted. Skeptics even cite the ice cores and the silly CO2-lags-temperature meme as a crowd pleasing favorite.So feel free to provide evidence that the experts regard the ice core record as 'clean' and relaibale
This search through Google scholar identifies 3,630 papers and articles since 2005 which reference the Vostok ice cores alone. Is that enough evidence that the experts regard the ice cores as a reliable proxy? Now where's your evidence that even a handful of reputable scientists think otherwise -- that your position is anything other than your own personal opinion (albeit one shared by the whole neuron-starved Watts fan club — when it suits them).FWIW, I'm no sceptic on climate change. I accept it is happening, it is largely our fault and it is going to have devastating consequences if we don't act.
That's really funny, because you say this, and yet you're a walking Poe's Law of denial (ice cores are suspect, there's no hotspot, etc., etc.). You're the second person on this thread (apiratelooksat50-I'm-a-HS-environmental-science-teacher being the other) who's come in, representing themselves one way ("who, me? Oh, I'm just an innocent bystander, but I just had this one little innocent question...") only to follow it up with a ridiculous litany of denialist tripe. Sorry, it's not flying with anyone. I haven't been to WUWT lately... has he put out a post tasking his faithful minions with visiting real science sites, and feigning helpless ignorance as a new way to ply his nonsense? -
Ron Crouch at 10:51 AM on 7 January 2011What's in a Name?
While climate change might be the result of global warming (or cooling), on it's own it does not infer an anthropogenically forced "long-term trend of a rising average global temperature" which is something that can occur due solely to natural forcing. No wonder Joe Public has such a hard time trying to keep abreast of the issue. -
villabolo at 10:40 AM on 7 January 2011What's in a Name?
BlueRock #17: The constant chatter over semantics and definitions is a distraction that the deniers want to encourage - because it's another ploy to avoid talking about what it all means. Don't keep falling for it. I believe that we'll see how deniers will want to discourage the issue when we turn the table on them. By repeating, over and over again, the fact that it was a Republican "wordsmith", with the distinction of being the first known person to have actually used the phrase 'Orwellian' in a positive sense, we'll reveal how morally and intellectually bankrupt they are. -
Rob Painting at 10:07 AM on 7 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
BillHunter @ 88 - Think about it! Indeed the planet is warming and it is likely to at least be in part due to AGW, or at least it was warming, not sure that still is the case. Bill, so many canards in one post!. I'll just reply to the one above:
Given that 2010 is likely to be the warmest in NASA GISTEMP and perhaps the NCDC, and is in a statistical tie for 1st in UAH satellite data, no need to be unsure.
-
keithpickering at 09:48 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Interesting, in that you "prove" that the correlation is coincidental, only by using an example that assumes that is it causal in the first place. Perhaps you would like to try again? Also, when you say that the temperature changed for a different reason than CO2 forcing, what other forcing are you assuming has caused the current warmth? Because pretty much every other idea out there has already been falsified. Finally, while it's true that correlation does not prove causation, in this case the causal mechanism is well known basic physical chemistry. Can we assume that the laws of science have not been suspended, and therefore that CO2 does indeed make the planet warmer? -
Albatross at 09:41 AM on 7 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Thanks mucounter @89, I was going to reply to @88, but then decided that given the swaths of unsubstantiated claims and rhetoric (not to mention the litany of stereotypical denialist speaking points), that I'd be wasting my time. Is it me, or is SS being bombarded more frequently with zombie attacks of late? If so, perhaps that is a sign that John et al. are doing an excellent job, which they are of course.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Must be the proximity to the Zombie thread... -
Ron Crouch at 09:37 AM on 7 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Thanks for your response to comment #39 Daniel. I wasn't really referring to fairy tales in the press but rather to not having seen any peer-reviewed papers. Sorry for the confusion in my wording. -
muoncounter at 08:56 AM on 7 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
#88: A lot of the usual unsubstantiated denialist rhetoric, all in one easy-to-debunk package. "rule out natural variation as the cause of statistical warming." Whatever 'statistical warming' means: See Climate's changed before or It's a 1500 year cycle. "give up their life styles" See Solving global warming "no solid scientific argument that such warming is purely unnatural or dangerous." Unnatural? See It's not us or The human fingerprint. Not dangerous? See It's not bad or Extreme weather for starters. "as opposed to relying upon facts." Facts? Was there a single fact in your rant? In a world where facts don't apply, you can go right along living happily ever after. -
villabolo at 08:40 AM on 7 January 2011What's in a Name?
John Chapman, #9: Personally I prefer to use global warming because the term identifies the source of the problem and is closer to the CO2 culprit. Global Warming may be the cause but climate change is the result. It is better, in communicating with the layman, to speak of the results first and then mention the cause. -
Billhunter at 08:32 AM on 7 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Albatross, 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. That would only be the question to be answered if you were ignorant enough to believe there were zero natural variation in temperatures. Santer's "fingerprint for AGW" is purely statistical and based upon the assumption we know everything necessary to know about sources of climate forcing so as to rule out natural variation as the cause of statistical 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. The general population is aware of this (why aren't you?). Thus the statistical argument alone does not sway public opinion unless clearly linked to other evidence. People are not going to give up their life styles over a suspicion or irrational fear based upon a pure statistical correlation of warming to anthropogenic activities. People will follow trusted leaders but Climategate ended any chance that route will work. So those fools can go to bed at night knowing they are responsible for eliminating that method of alerting people without first having to experience actual negative effects from warming, if such effects ever occur. In fact the desperation of being unable to advance a carefully drawn and solid scientific argument must have been what led to using tricks to hide the decline and politically influence peer review processes as opposed to relying upon facts. Warmists would love to paint the other side with such behavior but for it to have the same impact you would have to first put them in charge of the IPCC so they look like the establishment and not just an ordinary Joe. Think about it! Indeed the planet is warming and it is likely to at least be in part due to AGW, or at least it was warming, not sure that still is the case. But there is no solid scientific argument that such warming is purely unnatural or dangerous. -
mdenison at 08:31 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
That CO2 and temperature appear highly correlated is a coincidence although there is an underlying explanation. There is no need for CO2 and temperature to be correlated for there to be cause and effect. Emphasising a coincidence at the expense of cause and effect is a mistake and does not clarify AGW arguments. Consider what would happen if a large pulse of CO2 had been added to the atmosphere. The effect would be one of increasing temperatures, rising quickly at first and then more slowly to a new stable value. The CO2 concentration would be constant with time however. ie there would be no correlation but there would be cause and effect. What would happen if CO2 then fell? There would be rising temperatures while CO2 was falling and eventually falling temperatures when CO2 was constant again. The correlation you see is in fact a coincidence due to the historical pattern of anthropogenic and natural forcing. That is temperature and CO2 concentration have changed in a similar way but for different reasons. This point does of course mean that those who see the apparent correlation and assume temperature must be driving CO2 are equally misguided. That the coincidence happens is because a steadily increasing forcing results in an accelerating temperature rise. CO2 additions to the atmosphere have increased exponentially but this can be well approximated by a 2nd order polynomial, as can the temperature rise. Since these are similar curves they appear correlated. That they can appear similar at all is because all the long term forcings are changing slowly and smoothly. When forcing changes abruptly correlation is lost. Had our CO2 emissions been more erratic we could still have seen a similar temperature curve and have the same total CO2 emitted but there would be poor correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. To demonstrate that the temperature rise is related to the CO2 change requires a more sophisticated analysis accounting for the many different variables and consideration of some simple physics. This correlation is coincidental. It is neither necessary nor sufficient as the basis of an argument in support of CO2 induced warming. Conversely a lack of correlation does not disprove CO2 induced warming either. -
Rob Painting at 08:02 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50 - "I perfectly understand the relationship between biodiversity and biomass." Hmm, maybe not. The authors of that graph that I previously linked to, compared the data to carbon 13 isotopes because in their words "it's a proxy for global biomass". In other words comparing the relative proportions of the organic and non-organic carbon pools we have a crude proxy for biomass. Here's what they mean:
Genera = dots. Squares = the inorganic/organic carbon ratio. Note how the two correlate?. See how during the time of the dinosaur both genera & biomass were much less than today?.
Fraught with uncertainty of course, but preferable to to the location whence Shimkus extracted his assertion from.
-
Mal Adapted at 07:59 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
keithpickering: "Yeah, well I'm still using Excel 2000 cause I'm too cheap to get anything newer in the open-source age." Are you aquainted with R? -
Albatross at 07:48 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Lurgee, Do you perhaps regularly follow WUWT? Reason that I ask is that your potpourri of complaints seem to bear remarkable resemblance to "attacks" made on the ice cores etc. at WUWT. It strikes me as very odd that many skeptics cite the ice core data as evidence that climate has changed before, or that previous inter-glacials were warmer than this one, or that temperature leads CO2 et cetera, all in an attempt to refute the theory of AGW, or to try and play down the role of CO2. Yet, at other times when the ice cores are cited in the post under discussion here, then the 'skeptics' suddenly jump ship and feel obliged to try and demonstrate (with much arm waving) that the ice cores are hopelessly unreliable. You cannot have it both ways. This is just another example of the "skeptics" contradictory arguments. As for your reference to the alleged missing tropospheric hot spot, please take that "argument" to the appropriate thread, where you will see that your concerns and misunderstanding of the science have been addressed. -
apsmith at 07:44 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Keith - I once received a very similar graph from a highly scientifically trained "skeptic" (I think he really was, just a novice on climate) who had plotted the same CO2 vs Temperature graph for a 100,000+ year paleo record, I think the Antarctic one, covering the ice ages. Again it's nice and close to linear - but the slope in that case suggests a sensitivity more like 10 C per doubling than 2. My skeptic friend then plotted the much flatter modern-day curve on the same scale, where there appears to be only a relatively small warming, and declared "see, human emissions aren't causing warming". In fact they are - there are several problems with the comparison: (1) The paleo temperature curve is regional, not global, and the temperature changes with warming or cooling likely larger (so sensitivity to CO2 would be bigger) (2) CO2 wasn't the real forcing, so part of the temperature change is not due to CO2 (3) The modern change is much faster, and hasn't had the time to equilibrate - transient sensitivity (CO2 1%/year change) is expected to be 1 C or more less than the equilibrium (CO2 flat-for-a-century) number (4) The real problem with human CO2 is the expected continued growth - to 500 ppm, 1000 ppm, which even with the relatively much flatter curve still shows a large change. Anyway, it's an interesting point of view. -
Paul D at 07:22 AM on 7 January 2011What's in a Name?
BlueRock@17 'Global Cooling' would also cause 'Climate Change'. -
lurgee at 07:16 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@ Sphaerica << No, actually, they don't. They detail all of the considerations, how they should be handled, and what the margins of error are. You're simply choosing to interpret and portray it as such for your own purposes. >> The source you (rather patronisingly) referred me to - Wikipedia - describes te sort of issues I've referred to. << Clearly I can't, because you say you've already read the papers, and you're willfully choosing to misinterpret and misrepresent what you've read. If I give you a paper, you'll just come back and say you've read it, and that black is white. >> Again, ferocious personal attack. Are you, perhaps, confusing me with someone else? Was there another lurgee in the past, who merited such scorn? I'm new here, long time reader, first time poster, and I'm bemused at the reception my timid suggestions have received. I've not claimed to have read ALL papers. I posted, "I have taken time to read comments and papers published by the experts you refer to." I'm not pretending to have complete knowledge as you claim I am. So feel free to provide evidence that the experts regard the ice core record as 'clean' and relaibale, rather than a confused, torturous mess which, unfortunately, happens to the best we've got, and ever will get. << Um... which is it? I thought you said there was only one? Obviously you know enough to know that there are different cores from different sites, in both the Antarctic and Greenland -- even though you seem to like implying otherwise (to fool the casual reader?). But that getting such cores is a very expensive operation, so there still aren't many. What makes you think people look at one to the exclusion of others? >> You're not covering yourself in glory, I must say. The graph originally posted was based on data from a single ice core (Vostok). It says it right there, in italics, under the graph: "Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change." << But that's not the issue. It makes sense that CO2 would lag temperature in that situation. It should. The problem with that argument against AGW isn't that CO2 doesn't or wouldn't or shouldn't lag temperature. The problem is that the mechanisms and interplay of events means it's comparing apples to oranges. It's like saying that you've always seen bullfighters kill bulls, so there's no way that a bull could ever kill a bullfighter. >> It's currently fashionable in denier circles to point to instances where CO2 has continued to rise or remained high for thousands of years after temperature has dropped - the most obvious example in Vostok being about 130K ago. They point to oddities like that, and use it to claim there is no link between temperatures and CO2. << Sorry, but the ice cores are exactly what they are. They aren't perfect, but their imperfections are well understood and recognized, and they are perfectly acceptable and accurate proxies for CO2 levels and temperatures on the timescales in question. >> Sounds like hand waving and smoke blowing to me. The ice cores are the only record we have for those time scales, and while they show general trends very well, there are contradictions around what they show. Even if their imperfections are "well understood and recognized," it doesn't mean they are resolved. It's like the satellite data that annoyingly doesn't show the tropospheric hotspot over the long term. Experts have dedicated their careers to reconciling this data, and still won't call it a reliable record of the long term trend.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Your credibility would be enhanced if you provided some links to valid research supporting your position on the quality of the ice core data. There is no need for extensive quoting from prior comments. Just add a link to the comment you wish to quote -- right click on the comment date/time stamp and 'copy link location', then paste into your comment. -
dana1981 at 07:01 AM on 7 January 2011What's in a Name?
BlueRock #17 - you're talking about how the terms are commonly used by the general public. I'm talking about what they actually are. Physically they are different phenomena. -
BlueRock at 06:06 AM on 7 January 2011What's in a Name?
> ...they refer to two different physical phenomena. This simply is not true. 'Global warming' is the common name for 'anthropogenic climate change'. The two can and are used interchangeably because they refer to the same phenomenon: rising global temperature - and associated effects - due to human-produced CO2e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming The constant chatter over semantics and definitions is a distraction that the deniers want to encourage - because it's another ploy to avoid talking about what it all means. Don't keep falling for it. -
Phila at 05:45 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
...adding, that if you decide to go this route, the logical starting-point would be to cite peer-reviewed papers that support your claims in this thread about "orbital changes," as suggested by Anne-Marie Blackburn @ #89. Being as there are "thousands of anti-AGW climate scientists who can present their own hard data," this shouldn't be too difficult for you. -
dhogaza at 05:37 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50: Do you give the same respect to the thousands of anti-AGW climate scientists who can present their own hard data and interpretations?
If there are thousands of anti-AGW climate scientists who can present their own hard data and interpretations, then you'll have no problem listing the names of 50 of them, right? Climate scientists, mind you. Not high-school graduates like Watts, but climate scientists. -
muoncounter at 05:33 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
#31: KL, This graph calls your bluff. The CO2 forcing function deltaF=5.35 ln(CO2/270), (where CO2 is a function of time) is integrated with respect to time. This produces energy density (Joule/m^2) rather than power (W/m^2), which is then input to deltaT = k Int[deltaF]. The three curves represent values of k (proportionality constants) that correspond to 0.6, 1.2 and 1.8 degC/doubling of CO2. The temperature anomaly is shifted to 0 in 1880.
The sensitivity obtained via your 'Lambert's Law' integral is thus higher than the oft-quoted 1.2 degC/doubling. You simply cannot obtain the observed rate of warming, especially over the last 60 years, using lower sensitivity. I guess that makes you quite the warmist.
-
Phila at 05:24 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50: Do you give the same respect to the thousands of anti-AGW climate scientists who can present their own hard data and interpretations? That's a skillful way to phrase the question, because it allows you to presuppose the existence of an "anti-AGW" movement comprising "thousands" of climate scientists, without the need to bother with messy, confusing details like names, alternative theories and links to their groundbreaking papers. Unfortunately, the same approach that makes the question rhetorically useful to you makes it difficult for me to answer. The simplest response would be "No," but that would imply that I accept your premise, which I don't. In that regard, it's a bit like asking me when I stopped beating my wife. If you're actually serious, you could provide a list of recent, peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists that seriously call AGW into question, and we can assess their credibility on a case-by-case basis. However, the proper place for that discussion would probably be There is no consensus. You may want to read that page before picking that fight. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 05:15 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50 @ 79 You made the claim that orbital changes are to blame for current warming - it's up to you to substantiate it with data and analysis, from the peer-reviewed literature of course. Since you have a degree and a MSc, I'm sure you're aware of this basic requirement. As for the timescales issue, orbital changes operate on relatively long timescales, whereas recent warming has taken place in a relatively short period of time. How do you reconcile this discrepancy, and do you have data to support this position? You logic is faulty. If I were to adopt it, I could claim that as all forest fires were caused by natural factors in the past, humans simply cannot be responsible for any recent forest fires. That's simply not how it works in science. You have to look at the evidence you have to draw your conclusions, not at what has happened in the past. Warming from different sources will leave different 'fingerprints'. We have quite a lot of observations now which are consistent with a warming caused by increased greenhouse gas levels. Now how would orbital changes explain the observed changes in Earth's radiation balance? Would such warming have a cooling effect on the stratosphere? Are there any predictions you can make based on the mechanism(s) through which orbital changes cause warming, and have these been verified? How would orbital changes fit in with the fact that nights are warming faster than days? All these questions, and more have been answered by the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Where is the theory on which you base your assertions? -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 05:00 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
re #86 - What or who do you refer to when you write of 'the thousands of anti-AGW climate scientists'? My guess is that you are referring to climate scientists in general, all of whom are presumably anti-AGW because they understand better than anyone the harm AGW is doing to our earth. -
les at 04:52 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
DSL@82 & Philia: Thanks. I'm glad it's not just me who sees that argument as having more holes in it than a swiss cheese makers favorite cow herding socks... (or something equally stinky) -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:43 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Phila @ 81: "Apparently, the principles of "skepticism" oblige us to mistrust thousands of climate scientists from all over the world, along with any hard data they've collected that upset us" Do you give the same respect to the thousands of anti-AGW climate scientists who can present their own hard data and interpretations?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Once again, unsubstantiated general statements like this limit any credibility you might seek to establish. The appropriate threads are There's no consensus, The science isn't settled and (presumably) The Oregon petition. -
Phila at 04:39 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50: The earth has experienced many periods of cooling and warming without the help of mankind. You don't say. What is it with "skeptics" and strawmen? Would it kill you people to make an effort to understand what the theory actually says before you attack it? For that matter, would it kill you to read the article you're commenting on, which begins with the statement that "Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history"? Who do you imagine you're educating with comments like this one? I've never been very impressed with the resident "skeptics" on SkS, but the point-missing and strawman-building on this thread seems to be approaching a new low. Man-made contributions to atmospheric CO2 concentration total 15 percent and natural sources the remaining 85 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Upthread, I asked you to read Human CO2 is a tiny % of human emissions. Apparently, you didn't. In addressing man-made global warming, it is far more prudent and cost-effective to adopt a wait-and-see approach than to spend trillions now on what may or may not be a problem. Obviously, if you feel compelled to reject the basic science on AGW before you've managed to understand it, you're also going to reject the consensus on risk assessment. No surprise there. The fact that you go on to make an overheated, unsourced claim about how mitigation would "shut down the entire global economy for a decade" (whatever that means) is a good example of the contradictions inherent in this brand of "skeptical" thinking. But again, it's no surprise. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 04:28 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@ apiratelooksat50 - I refer you to the articles on this page: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php In particular, items 1 and 2, 11, 28, 41, 46, 48, 65 etc etc - or better yet, read them all, or as much as you can. Maybe spend a bit of time on greenhouse gases as this seems to be an initial stumbling block for you. For costs and practicality of sustainable energy, try climateprogress.org for starters - it has lots of good articles about what is happening around the world. Better to spend a penny today to save many pounds later. -
Utahn at 04:25 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Miekol, try this topic as well.... "CO2 is coming from the ocean" -
muoncounter at 04:20 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
#79: "evidence that suggests orbital changes are NOT responsible for recent warming?" We know the orbital variations very accurately; you can look up the parameters on NASA webpages. Using those numbers, we can calculate what the solar insolation is at any point on the surface as functions of latitude and day of year. Point is, we are not in an anomalous warming period based on orbit. See Ice data made cooler for a nice graphic illustration of how this works and how it ties to the Vostok core record. That is a more appropriate thread for orbital questions. -
DSL at 04:19 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Actually, Pirate, your comment in 77 is not true. The climate of the last 5000 years or so has been, relative to the time span of homo sapiens, fairly stable. And humans have taken advantage of that stability, swelling to 6.5 billion and creating complex socio-economic relationships with the environment. We can't migrate as easily as we used to. I second Anne's question to you: are current global temperature changes consistent with "natural" causes such as insolation and Milankovich cycles? Yes, Les -- a bit of odd math. If we add 15% to the full bathtub and cause spilling, we're only responsible for 15% of that spillage? Ethicists may now grimace. The tub, one may argue, has a variable lip height, but it doesn't for humans. Humans have had a nice, stable lip height for several thousand years, and we've built a massive and delicate socio-economic system on that stability. We don't migrate as easily as we used to. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:18 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Yvan Dutil makes a good point. There is, among deniers, an ideological component that is overwhelming. Of course it can also be found among zealots of the opposite side, who don't even really know what it is they believe in, even though it is not even a matter of belief. In their case, they happen to be on the side of reality due to coincidence. The ideological component is deeply emotional in nature and does not lend itself to rational analysis. Some time ago, somebody who certainly meant well and was a good person susbcribed me to the 7th day adventist church publication, which I then received regularly for quite a long time. It was an enlightening read on many occasions. I remember especially their interviews of adventist geologists, whose profession and livelihood could not be reconciled with the adventist belief that the Earth is quite young. These people were living on a day to day basis with cognitive dissonance, knowing on a rational plane that their belief was wrong and knowing on an emotional plane that their academic, evidence-based knowledge was wrong. An interesting human experience, to be sure. Of course, the interview was always presenting this with a conclusion that could be summarized by "God wins", regardless of the reality experienced by these individuals. The same cognitive dissonance can be seen with AGW. The emotional tie to the ideology (whatever that is) is just too strong. In the case of BP it is understandable, considering the trauma endured from a centralized autoritarian government. With the more typically American Libertarian type it is a little more difficult to understand. It's not like libertarianism has any significant history of being applied at the scale of a major country. It is mostly a theoretical construct, rather abstract, but perhaps satisfying for a number of people who do not like their activities to be scrutinized or regulated. Yet some are so fanatical about it that, if they ever got their way, we would have to watch for the same kind of abusive behaviors that they attribute exclusively to centralized governments. It would take a somewhat different form but would be similar in essence. Humans have an infinity of individual behaviors, but a fairly limited range of social ones. As for myself, I am skeptical of any and all ideology, as it is always an abstraction, concocted by a person or a group with a perception of reality that is necessarily incomplete. Funnily enough though, ideologies can almost be defined as "a source of definitive answers" (!). I also try to keep in mind the limitations of anyone who shows an emotional attachment to an ideology. It does affect judgment in ways that rational thought is often unable to overcome. -
Phila at 04:02 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel: Yes, my comment about the "New Lysenkoism" was off topic, so I will keep that argument for another day. I suggest you keep that "argument" under wraps forever, because it adds nothing intelligent or interesting to the discussion, and will only do further damage to your already minimal credibility. If you have a coherent scientific argument, you don't need insults. If you don't have one, insults will do nothing but underscore the weakness of your position. The same goes for your endless situational ad hominems about scientists having to "sing for their supper." Apparently, the principles of "skepticism" oblige us to mistrust thousands of climate scientists from all over the world, along with any hard data they've collected that upset us; instead, we should place our trust in an anonymous online commenter who's offering a tiny amount of anecdotal evidence in support of an argument that wouldn't be logically compelling even if the anecdote turned out to be true. If you can't recognize the absurdity of your basic assumptions, and the utter poverty of the argument you've built on them, I'm certainly not going to trust you to interpret the far more complex issue of AGW. I'll stick with actual science, thanks. -
les at 03:53 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@77... Sorry, you haven't actually answered the question, you've changed the subject - in doing so, you seem to have negated your original point, as well as indulged in some classic "delilast" (hate that word) rhetoric. Be that as it may; I'm still holding out for an answer... I'm sure someone will help me. -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:51 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Anne-Marie Blackburn @78 Where is the evidence that suggests orbital changes are NOT responsible for recent warming? They always have been in the past. I have to ask you, "Why is the current warming any different than the past." Please clarify what you are asking about timescales, and define the metrics on "observations consistent with a warming caused by orbital changes". While you are at it, please give a short list of the phenomena so we are talking apples to apples. -
angliss at 03:47 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Oh, and my no-ocean delay number was pretty close to what fydijkstra found in #13 and my ocean delay was about 3.2 C nominal (I don't immediately recall the range, however. And all done on a white board and with a calculator. I love math. :) -
angliss at 03:44 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
#19, bverheggen - Actually, it was Tobis and I who did the math, not Fuller, and we did it initially at Kloor's site. Tobis did his calculations with the simplifying assumption that, in the region of interest, the effect was approximately linear. I did my calculations including the logarithmic effects and did it two different ways - with and without a simple oceanic delay, producing a range of values that included the IPCC climate sensitivity range. -
dana1981 at 03:37 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Nice post. A couple of comments: 1) Todd F beat me to it in comment #36, but climate sensitivity is an equilibrium value. The planet is currently not in equilibrium - there is roughly 0.6°C warming still "in the pipeline" from the CO2 we've already emitted. So any extrapolation of climate sensitivity based on the warming thus far will underestimate the value. 2) The sensitivity value of 6°C for 2xCO2 is a long-term sensitivity, which accounts for slow processes over centuries, mainly melting of ice. Hansen would agree that the short-term senstivity is close to 3°C, but has concluded that the long-term sensitivity is 6°C. The article glosses over the short-term vs. long-term factor. -
Phila at 03:36 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Yvan Dutil: He hates government and has an absolute belief in free market. It's odd that the people who seem most devoted to the free market tend to be the least interested in gaining access to the accurate information that optimal market-based decisions require. I'm no libertarian, because I stopped being 14 years old several decades ago. But if I were, I'd like to think that I'd allow physical reality to impinge upon my consciousness, now and then, for the sake of the freedoms I supposedly love. A "free market" in which the extraction industries can drown out the world's scientists isn't free. Quite the opposite. -
F. Murdoch at 03:22 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
I'm not sure this is a great method of making the point to the denier. Although it would force them to admit that both atmospheric CO2 is increasing and the temperature is increasing, if he or she was sharp enough they would point out that since CO2 is increasing steadily, it is very highly correlated with time, and therefore what you are really seeing may not be anything more than the temperature increasing over time. Which of course is caused by some mysterious and elusive natural cycle. And so we are back at square one, trying to explain the underlying physics to the denier, who will claim it violates the second law of thermodynamics, and probably make a reference to nazi's and communists while doing so. -
Albatross at 03:20 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Keith Pickering, Nice post, and in terms that it speaks to most people (except the zombies of course). To appease the zombies further, perhaps you could add a 95% CI to the fit. Won't make a hill of beans difference to the conclusion, but anyways, anything to appease the zombies. Another matter to consider is that of autocorrelation. Barton Paul Levenson has addressed that though, here, and the correlation after accounting for autocorrelation is still statistically significant. The zombies though will remain unconvinced. Sigh. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 03:19 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50 @76 Where is the evidence that suggests orbital changes are responsible for recent warming? How do timescales fit with this? Are all observations consistent with a warming caused by orbital changes? If you can provide a coherent theory that explains all phenomena, then you may have a point. Otherwise all we have is your opinion. -
burningMan at 03:16 AM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Hi there, Long time follower of this site, first time posting... The person skeptical of your second graph, the one you made in GMT with two different Y-axis values, did the skeptic mention what they where skeptical of exactly? Where they saying that there is no such thing as a non-linear correlation? -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:04 AM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Les @76, Changes in orbital cycles make much better sense in initiating cooling/warming phases than changes in CO2 levels. With the exception of leftover thermal energy from the formation of the Earth, the sun is our energy source. The CO2 cycle is never "in balance" (refer to the chart). It fluctuates and the fluctuation is normal. A tipping point does not exist because it can't be quantified. There is no "normal" for temperature or CO2. We can refer to the climate we live in now as normal, but the fact is that humans have lived through many different climates and climate changes and adapted quite well to it. In fact, climate change has been linked to technological development, and evolution. -
D Kelly O at 03:01 AM on 7 January 2011Comparing all the temperature records
John Glad to see you using my consolidated anomaly data file. I've just posted a "how to" on developing a common baseline for the 5 major anomaly series ( link). The RClimate script lets users compare 2 series with a trend chart and xy scatter plot. I have added combined baseline csv file to my on-line data files so that citizen scientists can directly compare the series using a common baseline (link )
Prev 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Next
