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:
-
archiesteel at 12:28 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@apiratelooksat50: "If CO2 levels are a major force force in global temperature increases, and we have this sharp increase, then the we should see a similar increase in temperature." CO2 is not the only factor in global temperatures. It's naive to think there would be a 1:1 increase, and no one (except you, it seems) thinks this is what happening. It would appear you are setting up a strawman. This graph, posted in another article, does however show a pretty good relationship between CO2 and temperature:
"Nothing should be ignored, but instead should be considered in reality and not in gross projections of worst-case scenarios."
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst is the better survival strategy.
I'll add that most projections are in fact conservatives, and that apathy is a much bigger threat than alarmism right now.
"What!?!? Isn't this whole thread about orbital forcings and didn't we agree on the abilitiy of orbital cycles to initiate both warming and cooling phases?"
Sure, but orbital forcings aren't responsible for the current warming phase. That is pretty easy to prove, considering we have a pretty good grasp of the Earth's current orbital parameters.
"CO2 is a factor, but the major title is still disputed."
Not really.
"I can trot out as many peer reviewed papers as can you that differ with each other."
97% of publishing Climate Scientists support the idea of CO2 being the major driver of the current temperature increase. That's pretty far away from 50-50...
"It's the magnitude of these effects that are in legitimate question."
It's not really in question. Just about the only "scientists" contesting this are financed by conservative think tanks, themselves bankrolled by the like of David Koch and his ilk.
Seriously, there's not much to debate. Deniers and contrarians have failed time and time again to provide scientific evidence to support their challenge - and don't make any mistakes about it, the burden of proof is on them to show that the established science is wrong, not the other way around.
-
apiratelooksat50 at 11:06 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Sphaerica @ 183. "So all of your arguments devolve into one thing -- that the mechanisms as described are correct, but the quantifications are either unknown or unknowable, and therefore everything can be ignored." That is a broad stroke of the brush, but in an attempt at brevity: I have other points. Mechanisms are mostly correct, but the quantifications are not verifiable at this point. Nothing should be ignored, but instead should be considered in reality and not in gross projections of worst-case scenarios. "Let's get more to the point. You dodged my last question completely. Given the understanding of how CO2 has affected both temperatures and the entrance and exit processes for glacial periods in the past, regardless of degree: The "temperature lags CO2" argument against CO2 induced climate change is an invalid one." What!?!? Isn't this whole thread about orbital forcings and didn't we agree on the abilitiy of orbital cycles to initiate both warming and cooling phases? "That is: (a) CO2 has lagged the initial change in temperature in the past, but ultimately is still a major factor in pushing temperatures further up or down -- the appearance that CO2 lags temperature is an illusion due to the fact that the initial forcing is from a change in albedo, and puts CO2 increases "behind the curve"." CO2 is a factor, but the major title is still disputed. I can trot out as many peer reviewed papers as can you that differ with each other. And, did you really use the word illusion? We really are getting into magical realms, now. "(b) Increases in CO2 without the same historical initial forcings and sources (i.e. CO2 as a result of increased temperatures, versus CO2 as a result of the burning of fossil fuels) can be expected to have similar effects, regardless of the fact that in this case CO2 is not rising as a result of rising temperature." Of, course. CO2 is CO2. Whatever effects it has are going to be the same regardless of the source. It's the magnitude of these effects that are in legitimate question. "Do you agree?" See above. -
Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Klaus Flemløse - Soares works with extremely short (months and 6-month periods) to examine his correlations; as keithpickering pointed out this is far too short. In looking at longer term correlations, he fails to account for other forcings (such as mid-century aerosols, which counteracted a great deal of CO2 forcing), which is quite a serious mistake. It's a very poor paper. This journal is very curious, both in article content and the mysteries of who is putting it out - previous comments have noted this as well. I would be very careful about accepting the articles based on it's (very short) history. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:54 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Daniel Bailey @ 182. If CO2 levels are a major force force in global temperature increases, and we have this sharp increase, then the we should see a similar increase in temperature. Can you overlay that graph, as well? -
MrAce at 10:45 AM on 10 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
I think I found the paper where Hansen came to his 1.2C. It looks like it is the result of a 'simple' model with radiation, convection, clouds and aerosols, but without the water vapor feedback: Climate impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide -
keithpickering at 09:17 AM on 10 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
@Klaus Flemløse Soares failed to find a correlation in monthly values, a totally unsurprising result. The lag between forcing and temperature change will always be longer than that. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:01 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
175, apiratelooksat50, So all of your arguments devolve into one thing -- that the mechanisms as described are correct, but the quantifications are either unknown or unknowable, and therefore everything can be ignored. Let's get more to the point. You dodged my last question completely. Given the understanding of how CO2 has affected both temperatures and the entrance and exit processes for glacial periods in the past, regardless of degree: The "temperature lags CO2" argument against CO2 induced climate change is an invalid one. That is: (a) CO2 has lagged the initial change in temperature in the past, but ultimately is still a major factor in pushing temperatures further up or down -- the appearance that CO2 lags temperature is an illusion due to the fact that the initial forcing is from a change in albedo, and puts CO2 increases "behind the curve". (b) Increases in CO2 without the same historical initial forcings and sources (i.e. CO2 as a result of increased temperatures, versus CO2 as a result of the burning of fossil fuels) can be expected to have similar effects, regardless of the fact that in this case CO2 is not rising as a result of rising temperature. Do you agree? -
hfranzen at 09:00 AM on 10 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Initially I did the calculation of GWPPT6 to convince myself that the science that I know something about (P.Chem.) would not lead me to doubt the predictions of the IPCC. Once I had done the calculation and could see that it was straightforward (no estimates or extrapolations) and was a basic conformation of what was being claimed, I felt that it was worthwhile to try to get out to friend and foe alike what I see as a logical conclusion, namely that basic science leaves the deniers no wiggle room. The calculation is shown step-by-step on my web site (hfranzen.org) Anyone in the world should feel free to examine the argument for errors. I do not know where Jim Hansen got his numbers so it is impssible for me to say why our numbers differ. I can say that my calculation is primitive compared to those done by climate scientists with large computers. There are two points at which my pared down approach might introduce some error, namely in the neglect of water vapor absorption competing with carbon dioxide absorption (line overlap) and in the use of 50 reciprocal centimeter intervals (as opposed to 5 recip. cm intervals or line-by-line calculation). It is impossible for me to say by how much these simplificaions alter the results, but, in the years I have been working on GWPPT6, all the feedback i have received has indicated to me that the errors are not significant. But, even if my number is off by some tenths of a degree, I feel that the calculation catches the essential features of the interaction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with the earth's infrared radiation and provides me with a basis to assert that global warming is a scientific fact, a statement which I am quite certain is accepted by most readers of these threads. It is my hope that the availability of the argument presented in GWPPT6 will provide for some a deeper understanding of the nature of the interaction. -
citizenschallenge at 08:43 AM on 10 January 2011What's in a Name?
Global Warming is what is causing it, Climate Change is the result, Climate Disruption is what we are going to be increasingly experiencing. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:40 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Re: muoncounter (179) You're right, that one's usually my shtick. This Skeptical Science update of the ice core/Mauna Loa data is pretty compelling, too:
For over 400,000 years atmospheric CO2 has never been over 300 PPM...until now
The Yooper
-
archiesteel at 08:39 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@gallopingcamel: this is getting off-topic, as indicated by the moderator, so I'll try to seque back to CO2 and its lag. "It is highly relevant that the present is a better time to live than the LIA owing to the higher temperatures." Sure, as long as they remain within natural viability, i.e. the temperature we had before the current warming increase (which started long after the LIA had ended). The fact that we have pumped CO2 in the atmosphere has taken us out of the natural variability zone, and we have yet to see its full extent due to the time it takes for the full effect to take place. Again, all the evidence points to the fact that CO2 has warmed the climate as a forcing, not a feedback, and thus the "lag" issue is a red herring. "My caring started a long time ago when working to reduce pollution in London (UK). " That has nothing to do with CO2 and the greenhouse effect. "If this thread is about anything it explores the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and climate." Actually, this thread is about how the CO2 lag in paleoclimatology is irrelevant to the current warming trend, where CO2 is a forcing rather than a feedback. "I find the arguments of "apiratelooksat50" more persuasive than anything the vocal majority here has offered." That's because you agree with his opinion .That doesn't make for strong science... "I strongly endorse his answers in #175." Again, that a politcal agreement, not a scientific one, since he made at least two factual errors in his post. I think you've made your case. At this point, all you seem intent on doing is repeating the same thing over and over, which is a hallmark of contrarians on this site. (sigh) -
gallopingcamel at 07:58 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
archiesteel (#177), you said: "Irrelevant. We are not debating whether or not the fact that it's currently warmer than the LIA is a good thing or not. We are debating the risks caused by such unprecedented human-made warming, especially with regards to the future. You see, I care about future generations. I suggest you start caring as well." I disagree. It is highly relevant that the present is a better time to live than the LIA owing to the higher temperatures. My caring started a long time ago when working to reduce pollution in London (UK). Actions speak louder than words. If this thread is about anything it explores the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and climate. I find the arguments of "apiratelooksat50" more persuasive than anything the vocal majority here has offered. I strongly endorse his answers in #175.Moderator Response: Everybody stick to the topic of this thread. -
muoncounter at 07:48 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
#175: "the importance relative to other factors has yet to be determined." Actually, it has been determined; its called forcing. See How CO2 warming is driving climate. For a completely different approach that also finds that increasing CO2 results in warming, see Physical chemistry. "we are violating the usual pattern ... I believe violate is too a strong word " Is there anything natural about the right hand side of this curve? (Although it's usually Yooper who points to this graph). Breaking our environment out of the comfortable zone we as a species grew up in should not be taken lightly. "the consequences have yet to be determined." Ah, that old dodge. If we can only wait a few more decades, we'll see ... Busted in Its not bad and Extreme weather, among other threads. At the end of the day, all your arguments will keep vanishing (a bit like Arctic ice). The only thing that can remain is the 'No it's not' hard line. What will it take to break that wall down? -
archiesteel at 07:35 AM on 10 January 2011One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
@JR: "Underestimated" doesn't mean "wrong." In fact, scientists will often present conservative estimates in order to be safe. You seem to be arguing that scientists should use the high end of their estimates, but that would cause many contrarians to cry "alarmist!" -
One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
What is the rebuttal to "If sea level is rising faster than predicted, what do we not understand yet and how do I have any confidence in the predictions if they are already wrong?"? -
archiesteel at 07:04 AM on 10 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
@Klaus: that journal you're linking to doesn't seem very credible. This is the title of one of the articles they posted: "“Molecular genetic program (genome) contrasted against non-molecular invisible biosoftware in the light of the Quran and the Bible” You can read more on the nebulous SCIRP in a Nature exposé. -
Rob Painting at 06:57 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Pirate @ 175 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. Huh?. One minute you teach environmental science, the next you don't understand either the geologic and biologic carbon cycles, nor Milankovitch cycles. And now it's the runaway Greenhouse Effect?. Where do you teach?.Moderator Response: All further runaway warming omments by everybody must be on either the runaway warming Argument or the runaway warming Post. To find those, type runaway warming into the Search field at the top left. -
archiesteel at 06:52 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@GC (#166): "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." Yes, we all agree on this. "The world is warmer than it was three hundred years ago and we should all be thankful for that." Irrelevant. We are not debating whether or not the fact that it's currently warmer than the LIA is a good thing or not. We are debating the risks caused by such unprecedented human-made warming, especially with regards to the future. You see, I care about future generations. I suggest you start caring as well. "While I have many patents and peer reviewed papers, my climate work is amateur so I will respect the opinions of other amateurs." Patents and peer-reviewed papers in optics are irrelevant to the current debate. As others have said, you should be *more* critical of amateur opinions, especially if they go against the established science. I know the idea that the underdog is right has a romantic appeal to it, but more often than not that's not the case in science. -
archiesteel at 06:47 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@apiratelooksat50: "I will agree with this, though I believe violate is too a strong word and has negative implications." That opposition on your part is political, I'm afraid. "Atmospheric CO2 rates are higher than in the recent past, but temperatures are still normal." Temperatures are increasing dramatically. I fail to see what is "normal" about this. "If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would rise indefinitely in a runaway greenhouse effect." Wrong. Positive feedback does not necessarily lead to runaway greenhouse warming. Please read this before commenting further on the subject. So, unless you come up with some unheard new science, will you admit you are wrong on this? We've lost enough time debunking the same old myths for your benefit... -
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)
Prev 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Next
