Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Next
Comments 99301 to 99350:
-
miekol at 18:31 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
All very nice, but all I see is a graph showing a rise in CO2 between 1850 and 2010 of 280 to 380 ppm, and a temperature anomaly from -0.4 to 0.4 during the same period. Is the temperature rising because C02 ppm is increasing on a global scale or is CO2 ppm increasing because the temperature is rising on a global scale? That's the crux of the debate isn't? Global warmers cannot prove with certainty that its the increase in CO2, man made or not, that's causing the increase in global temperature and the sceptics cannot prove that its an increase in global temperature that's causing CO2 to increase, or have I missed something? You don't have to explain it here. Just give me links to both sides of the argument. I'm willing to be convinced either way.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] See Bibliovermis' response to you at Comment #6 below and read the linked discussions there. Thanks! -
archiesteel at 18:21 PM on 6 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
@HR: where's your evidence that natural variability has been driving the current warming? Oh, right, you don't have any. I'll stick with the evidence we have rather than your imaginary science. -
archiesteel at 18:19 PM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@GC: "With regard to the first point in (#25), they show temperature leading CO2 concentration. While correlation does not imply causation it is clear that CO2 is not driving temperature changes on Vostok timescales." Yeah, that's pretty much the point of this article. Glad to see you're finally coming around to reason: CO2 has most often been a feedback, not a forcing. This time, of course, things are different: anthropogenic CO2 is a forcing, not a feedback. CO2's effect, however, is anything but subtle. Observations confirm a 2.5 to 4C increase for a doubling of CO2. -
HumanityRules at 18:12 PM on 6 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Bibliovermis What exactly is the empirical evidence for little-to-no natural variability affecting temperature trend over the past 3 decades or so? At best it's interpretive analysis. -
gallopingcamel at 18:12 PM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
As frequently happens on this blog, one of my comments (@24) was deleted after some of you had responded. Thank you, Ann-Marie Blackburn, Phila and others for your responses. Yes, my comment about the "New Lysenkoism" was off topic, so I will keep that argument for another day. I spent a dozen years feeding at the trough of federal research dollars, putting project proposals together, so I understand pretty well how researchers "sing for their suppers". Ice cores show all kinds of interesting things and the list keeps growing as our analytical techniques improve. With regard to the first point in (#25), they show temperature leading CO2 concentration. While correlation does not imply causation it is clear that CO2 is not driving temperature changes on Vostok timescales. Does CO2 affect temperature at other timescales? I have no doubt that it does through all kinds of mechanisms including radiative heat transfer, the weathering of rocks, the decomposition of carbonates subducted in plate tectonic processes and so on. However, the effect of CO2 is subtle rather than dominant. -
owl905 at 18:01 PM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Apologies for interrupting the discussion, but some of the usual nonsense has distorted some points:- 1. In a continuous system, cause and effect is misleading, and even useless. Contribution rise and fall is more relevant, and more accurate. 2. CH4 records outline the same pattern as CO2 records but not the identical measurements:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg CH4 is more volatile, less persistent, and more indicative of ... swamps. 3. The levels of glaciation illustrates the weak basic solar influence, not the dominance:- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Milankovitch_Variations.png The sun isn't a variation driver - it's the constant light-bulb that promotes stability. Only the gyroscopic motions of the earth give it a place in the cycles. 4. Dust levels may strongly influence the shape of glacial/interglacial turnaround (stronger dust levels during the last and the current interglacial): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png 5. The attempt to remove CO2 influence from glacial oscillations needs to show that the Greenhouse Effect does not exist. The anomaly that it is being artificially force-fed is critical to differentiating between natural behavior and AGW. Most pro-pollution arguments demand a 'cause and effect' with 'prove it' discussion - an attempted semantic victory over scientific reality. Anyone attacking the Greenhouse Effect with the 'not the historic warming cause' gambit, has a pro-pollution agenda. No one ever claimed it was the driver of inter-glacials or return to glaciation. 6. There is one parallel to the current extended warming - the Hoxnian Interglacial (425kya-370kya). 'If' there is a common factor, it's may be the 'flood' event of Lake Agassiz emptying into Hudson Bay. Scablands to the west, the Mississippi basin south, and the Great Lakes carving east, all show geologic markers as flood-event basins. But the current stability (which is now being overturned by AGW) may relate to the anomaly of a Hudson's Bay drainage. -
archiesteel at 18:00 PM on 6 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
@KL: "Figure 1 keeps getting trotted out in these threads despite plenty of discussion in other OHC content threads to show that the OHC jumps and spikes of Fig 1 are impossible." The fact that contrarians have claimed in other threads that the OHC increase is impossible doesn't make it so. Funny how "unskeptical" some people get when assessing claims that happen to agree with their opinion... -
Ian Love at 17:41 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Nice one Keith. In fact, Excel does allow different y-axis scales - you have to choose their XY plot to access that rather than their Line plot. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 17:19 PM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
I assumed in my post that Bill Peddie #58 would twig to the fact that more water evaporates as it gets hotter (it's getting hotter because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere), which means there is now more water vapour in the atmosphere, which, because water vapour is a greenhouse gas, makes things warm up even more. On re-reading his post, it seems that he may not have made that fairly obvious connection between more CO2 and more water vapour. Where more CO2 is giving rise to more heat, which is giving rise to more water vapour, which is giving rise to even more heat. And he might not have twigged to the fact that rain is the effect of water vapour condensing into liquid water, which puts a cap on the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere at certain temperatures and humidity levels. Sometimes it's easy to miss the obvious, or pretend to do so. -
caerbannog at 16:55 PM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Bill Peddie, you'd be well advised to watch this lecture video before you post another message here: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml -
Paul Magnus at 16:47 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
and here is some more... http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/12/statistical-proof-of-anthropogenic.html -
Ken Lambert at 16:12 PM on 6 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Original Post dana1981 Figure 1 keeps getting trotted out in these threads despite plenty of discussion in other OHC content threads to show that the OHC jumps and spikes of Fig 1 are impossible. With a steady purported CO2GHG forcing summing with other heating and cooling forcings to a positive forcing of 0.9W/sq.m (Trenberth 2009) rising continuously (if not steadily) for at least 100 years, the dramatic spikes, declines and jumps in the chart on a global scale are simply inconsistent with the forcing history. For those who wish to suggest that cycles such as ENSO, La Nina, AMO etc are responsible for these responses, then consider that these cycles are supposed to be re-distributing heat within the system and are not 'external' forcings - so should have little or no effect on 'global' ocean and land heat content. If ENSO, La Nina etc are responsible for these global OHC variations, then we have a new set of 'external' forcings - able to drive gains and losses of heat to space. In such case - that is contrary to current understanding of the external forcings at play, and would change the whole AGW story. The more likely explanation is that pre-Argo measurements of OHC are not worth a crumpet - in which case Fig 1 should come with disclaimer 'probably not reliable before 2003'. -
Jim Simpson at 16:09 PM on 6 January 2011What's in a Name?
Isn't this subject some what dated nowadays by White House science adviser John Holdren's reported 'name change' back in Sept 2010 ie http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1312874/White-House-changes-global-warming-global-climate-disruption.html# ?? -
lurgee at 15:53 PM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@ Bill Peddie "First it seems simplified science to imply CO2 is the main greenhouse gas since the water molecule absorbs in many parts of the Sun's spectrum and CO2 only in three main peaks." I don't think anyone has suggested this. Water vapour is the major GHG. We emit both, and both absorb IR and heat the atmosphere. The difference between water vapour and CO2 is that CO2 is that it stays in the atmosphere for A VERY LONG TIME, where as whatever water vapour is put out is gone in a couple of weeks. That's why CO2 is critical. "Because the absorbed energy is transferred by collision the retention time in the atmosphere is not a factor ie water is a much more significant greehouse gas." Of course its a factor, because as long as CO2 concentrations keep increase, there will be more absoption, more collisions and ore heating. The CO2 doesn't just absorb once and then go away. "The lack of correlation between CO2 as a causal factor and consequential temperature rise has been increasingly obvious since 1998 when the temperature apparently started to level off with a continuing rise in CO2 level." The temperature rise you'd see over that period resulting from CO2 would be masked natural variation - yer solar fluctuations, yer el Nino and la Nino type stuff. that's why you can't look at a short term 'snap shot.' This is a back of a cigarette packet calculation, and I'm happy to be corrected if I've got it ENTIRELY WRONG. But here goes ... The CO2 concentration in 1995 was about 360ppm, in 2009 it was 386 - a 7.22% increase. Best estimates for the effect of doubling CO2 is about 3C, so a 7.22% increase in temperature would be 0.22C. Over that period, we've seen temperatures vary from 0.2C above anomaly to 0.6C above anomaly, a difference of 0.4C, enough to mask any trend over such a short span. The 5 year and 11 year running records show the underlying trend amid the short term variation. "What is baffling is why a vastly complex set of interrelated factors should have ever come to be portrayed as an oversimplified single cause /effect relationship which appears to have now dominated the debate and even got as far as a United Nations supported international seal of approval." It hasn't, actually. If I'm roughly aware of the complexities, then the information is easily available. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 15:45 PM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
#58 @Bill Peddle: The main reason that CO2 is identified as the mail cause of global warming is because it IS the primary cause of global warming, although not the only cause (eg deforestation is another and there are more). The complexities arise because of the myriad of secondary effects (such as ocean dead zones, acidification), feedbacks and interactions. The complexities are recognised and documented in scientific papers and popular science articles. Unfortunately these complexities can be and are often used by deniers to obfuscate the fundamental problem, which is that the waste being thrown into the air as if it was a huge garbage dump, is making the world warmer and forcing climate change - more frequent and worse floods, droughts, heat, intense rain events etc. A few years ago there were concerted efforts around the world to deal with the growing problems of landfill with rubbish, contamination of land etc. This problem is still ongoing. We are only just now starting to address the problem of 'air fill' with waste products such as CO2. Many of us are already suffering from the effects of treating the air as a garbage dump. If we don't do more to stop polluting our precious atmosphere very soon, many more people will suffer. The atmosphere is our only protection between earth and outer space and we are rapidly destroying it, effectively subjecting the earth to slow 'suffocation' by global warming. -
Phila at 15:23 PM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Bill Peddie #58 First it seems simplified science to imply CO2 is the main greenhouse gas This misconception has already been clarified several times for the benefit of the "skeptics" on this thread. Apparently, some of them have perfected their "skepticism" to the point that they no longer need to read comments. As for the remark about "simplified science"...well, of course. The unsimplified science takes up a huge amount of space, and would be indecipherable to most readers (especially the "skeptics," judging from this thread and others). What is baffling is why a vastly complex set of interrelated factors should have ever come to be portrayed as an oversimplified single cause /effect relationship which appears to have now dominated the debate and even got as far as a United Nations supported international seal of approval. Well, there are two possible explanations, as I see it. One is that you are mistaken. The other is that some shadowy global cabal has conspired to falsify decades of climate science for unknown reasons, but has done such a ludicrously shoddy job of it that any gifted amateur with a little spare time can knock down the entire house of cards by invoking some glaringly "obvious" phenomenon. That the latter position tends to be "skeptical" one speaks volumes about the nature of this debate. -
Albatross at 15:06 PM on 6 January 2011We're heading into cooling
Karamanski @3, You said @1 that you had read the paper...... -
actually thoughtful at 14:48 PM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Bill - take a look at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php Number 25 might help your confusion regarding CO2 vs. water vapor. Number 4 should clear up your confusion regarding 1998 and all the cooling you are having there in Auckland. Be sure and click through to read the article, and then drill down to the actual science if you need more convincing. No need to be confused! -
Stephen Leahy at 14:44 PM on 6 January 2011What's in a Name?
I've used climate change in my journalism for the last 15 years because that's what climate science uses. In Canada global warming was rarely used back then or by any other country if I recall correctly. It's a far more popular term in the US and often used incorrectly. And seems to be part of the public's confusion about climate change. I like Lovelock's term "global heating" better than GW. And given the extremes "climate disruption" might be better than CC. -
Bill Peddie at 14:38 PM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
First it seems simplified science to imply CO2 is the main greenhouse gas since the water molecule absorbs in many parts of the Sun's spectrum and CO2 only in three main peaks. Because the absorbed energy is transferred by collision the retention time in the atmosphere is not a factor ie water is a much more significant greehouse gas.The lack of correlation between CO2 as a causal factor and consequential temperature rise has been increasingly obvious since 1998 when the temperature apparently started to level off with a continuing rise in CO2 level. What is baffling is why a vastly complex set of interrelated factors should have ever come to be portrayed as an oversimplified single cause /effect relationship which appears to have now dominated the debate and even got as far as a United Nations supported international seal of approval. For anyone interested in some of the complexities can I be so bold as to suggest glancing at my paper on the Science of Global Warming posted on http://billpeddie.wordpress.com Bill Peddie, Auckland New Zealand -
Karamanski at 14:27 PM on 6 January 2011We're heading into cooling
In the graph you displayed above it is difficult for me to figure out what the lines represent. The keys provided don't say much about what the projected temperatures are. I need some assistance in understanding what the black, green, and purple lines show. Are they climate scenarios?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You could try reading the section of the post at top dealing with Noel Keenlyside and following the link therein. Or you could just go here. -
kdkd at 14:14 PM on 6 January 2011Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
KL #12 Seeing as the tree rings are validated against the thermometer record for much of recent history, and against other proxies prior to this availability, it's really very difficult for me to understand the substance of the point that you're trying to make here. It certainly doesn't support a so-called sceptic agenda. -
John Chapman at 14:13 PM on 6 January 2011What's in a Name?
Personally I prefer to use global warming because the term identifies the source of the problem and is closer to the CO2 culprit. Though ideally it would be nice to use the term "CO2 climate change" so that the fossil-fuel villain is clearly identified as opposed to some natural event such as El Nino. -
Bibliovermis at 14:11 PM on 6 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Because they have empirical evidence and you have belief in contradiction of said evidence. -
Bibliovermis at 14:06 PM on 6 January 2011Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
Please refer to argument #107. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.
-
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 12:52 PM on 6 January 2011What's in a Name?
I try to use both terms together, thinking it helps clarify the distinction in the mind of readers. I use the words 'climate change' mostly when referring to changes in local / regional climates. For example, there is a distinctly changing climate in my part of the world as a result of global warming from human emissions of greenhouse gases. The climate has shifted to being hotter and drier, and when it does rain it buckets down much more heavily than it used to do. Records are frequently broken - heat records and rain (intensity) records. There are more frequent and damaging fire events. All this is now happening just as has been predicted for many years by our nations climate scientists. (I first heard the predictions in the 1970s, they've been refined over the years since then but are more or less in the same ballpark.) I mainly rely on measurements from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (which has excellent on-line records going right back), although I'm old enough to have also observed the changes over my lifetime of more than 60 years and maintain a backyard weather station. -
Ken Lambert at 12:43 PM on 6 January 2011Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
kdkd #10 Happy new year. So some tree ring proxies showed warming and some showed cooling after 1960. And what is the exact date which these became 'unreliable'? 1950?, 1940? It sounds odd that these proxies become unreliable within a relatively short period of time. Logic would dictate that the same factors which caused the 'unreliability' were were working all through the time record. A likely explanation is that these proxies were never reliable. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:27 PM on 6 January 2011It's not bad
In another thread Albatross posted a graphic showing 18 weather-related deaths from cold per year (313 for heat). The CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001231.htm says 711 deaths back in 1979 before the recent global warming. The CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5529a2.htm also says 688 deaths per year for heath (1999-2003) -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:19 PM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Painting @ 55: I perfectly understand the relationship between biodiversity and biomass. The point I was making was that the gentleman to whom you were commenting was referring to the widely held belief (by some people) that during that time period there was a greater abundance of life due to the higher CO2 and resulting larger supply of producers and therefore larger consumers. (I'm not telling you he is right, I am just clarifying what he is saying.) And, FWIW, biomass and biodiversity don't always go hand in hand. An emergent field certainly has a greater amount of biodiversity than a redwood forest, but is severely lacking in the biomass department. -
HumanityRules at 12:18 PM on 6 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
What I don't understand about the Latif work is that they seem to recognize that natural variability may have some impact on the rate of warming in the coming decade or two. We also seem to accept that natural variability has had an influence in the early part of the 20th century. Yet maybe the critical period (1950-now or 1970-now) have had little or no influence from natural variability. I don't understand if Latif and co-authors can see a role for natural variability slowing the rate of temperature increase for the next decade why can't we conclude that some of the heating in the past 2 decades was from natural variability? -
EOttawa at 09:33 AM on 6 January 2011What's in a Name?
I think "climate disruption" is also descriptive, especially of current happenings in the Northern Hemisphere. -
Albatross at 09:31 AM on 6 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Trans @49, Umm, it is "anthropogenic". "We've actually just had the coldest night recorded -27 degree's" This statement is completely meaningless without context. " i dare say cooling is the thing we should worry about, it poses a far greater danger" One, global temperatures are not cooling, 2010 is likely going to be the warmest on record. Two, heat is the number cause of weather-related deaths in the USA, cold ranks lowest on the list.
Source here.
-
lurgee at 09:29 AM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@ Sphaerica I'm more than familiar with the Wikipedia pages on ice cores, and I have taken time to read comments and papers published by the experts you refer to. They bear out what I said - that interpreting ice core data is fraught, even with all their expertise and the years they have spent working with the cores. I am not disrespecting them or their work - I am reflecting what seems to be their considered opinion. Can you point to a paper published by someone with suitable credentials, stating that the various problems I mentioned (Difficulty distinguishing local from global variation, and 'noise' from the inaccuracies inherent in the record. Hence my doubt about the wisdom of relying on a single core, or trying to 'refudiate' AGW on the basis of CO2 lagging temperature on the way down. If you compare different ice cores, you'll see significant variation between them. Vostok, for example, records a significant upwards blip in temperature, abOUT 8,000 years ago. Grip, at the same time, records an equal drop in temperature. EPICA doesn't show much of a trend at all (You see, I do have a Wikipedia+ familiarity with the topic). Is there any way of telling which represents a global change, local variation or just taint? 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. I was suggesting - to an apparent doubter - why some of the claims he made were dubious, based on my own limited understanding. It's a pity you failed to address the points I raised, either supporting them or countering them, preferring to snipe at me, personally. You had a chance to enlighten, but you missed it. As for my amateurism, if you're willing to pay me for my comments, I'll happily upgrade my status from 'rank amateur' to 'professional.' -
Bibliovermis at 09:28 AM on 6 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Transjasmine, Do you understand the difference between local weather and global average temperature? -
transjasmine at 09:18 AM on 6 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
its funny, this site is called skeptical science yet the only thing you people seem to be 'skeptical' about is anything and everything that disagree's with anthropomorphic global warming. we've actually just had the coldest night recorded -27 degree's, and actually i dare say cooling is the thing we should worry about, it poses a far greater danger. -
hfranzen at 08:31 AM on 6 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
It's a pleasure - I greatly appreeciate the feedback. -
stefaan at 08:29 AM on 6 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Hi, On the CNN website there is an intersting (and popularized) artcle about the GW and the slight decrease of warming speed the last decade. case for man made warming increased in 2010, scientist say Next to the aerosols and water vapor they mention, it's also a fact that the sunspot cycle went downwards the last 10 years, so even if this is a small influence it might also slow down the heating (until it goes up again of course). solar cycle data -
Rob Painting at 08:14 AM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50 @ 29 - Biodiversity refers to number of species. Biomass refers to the total mass of living biological organisms at any given time and place I don't want to veer this too far off topic, however I would expect a person teaching environmental science, might have a better understanding of the relevance of biodiversity and how it pertains to biomass. The relationship holds true today, consider the incredible biodiversity and associated biomass of the tropical rainforest, compared to the dry forest. And the biodiversity of the coral reefs and the huge biomass compared to less bio-diverse shallow oceanic regions. Biogeochemical cycle studies of the Phanerozoic, support this view too. So what leads you to suppose the time of the dinosaur was any different?. I don't have a clue about the biomass at that time but your chart is not applicable. If you don't have a clue, how can you then claim it's not applicable?. -
caerbannog at 08:11 AM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Some questions for "skeptics" to think about (should they decide to do so): When the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit is at or near a maximum, and the precession phase is just right, the SH will receive more solar energy than the NH (or vice-versa). When this happens, the two hemispheres will be 180 degrees out of phase with respect to the amount of solar energy they receive. Yet in spite of this fact, for the past several hundred-thousand years, the two hemispheres have warmed and cooled together on Milankovitch-forcing time-scales, even during these times of maximum hemispherical solar-energy imbalance. Why is this the case? Why didn't one hemisphere cool while the other warmed when these hemispherical imbalances of solar energy occurred? What kept the hemispheres "locked in phase" (on Milankovitch time-scales) with respect to warming/cooling during these times? Now go back a little over 35 million years. At that time, the Sun was slightly dimmer than it is now, and the latitudinal distribution of the Earth's continents was almost exactly the same as it is now. So the total solar + land-albedo forcing was about the same (or ever so slightly weaker) than it is now. Yet the Earth's poles were nearly or completely ice-free, and the Earth was too warm to cycle between glacial and interglacial phases. Why? -
Bob Lacatena at 08:08 AM on 6 January 2011What's in a Name?
5, reluctant skeptic, Regardless of history or intent, I do think that "climate change" is more appropriate, particularly to the man-on-the-street who is going to (idiotically) look at the most recent snow storm/cold snap/whatever and say "what global warming?" The point is that global warming doesn't necessarily mean warming everywhere or in the same proportions, and it doesn't mean "no more winter." It also can mean things completely (seemingly) unrelated to temperature, like floods, droughts, and more. Climate change is a lot easier to explain as far as an individual's experience with it, because it implies all of the nasty things that go along with global warming: precipitation changes that result in more or harsher droughts, more/harsher flooding, ecosystem changes, altered growing seasons and plant/crop viability, arctic ice melting, etc., etc. So regardless of who started it, to me "climate change" is a far superior moniker when discussing the ramifications of global warming, both to peoples as a whole, and the individual. -
citizenschallenge at 07:52 AM on 6 January 2011Why I care about climate change
I'm one of them old timers, I learned about climate science before graduating high school in 1973. Never been a scientist, but always loved and learned about science, meaning I've been spending four decades keeping up on the science and the public dialogue, from a working layman's perspective. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I've been dialoguing over at http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=223791#p223791 with a bunch of Skeptics. I hope you don't mind me sharing most of a recent post: Re: "Expert Credibility in Climate Change" examined Post #13 {...} Yes Christy is an interesting unique fellow, scientist. He was one of three scientists to land in both CE & UC lists. His science is one thing. His political pronouncements and very public advocacy are another. Do you appreciate that distinction? One problem with trying to communicate with "sceptics" is that they're all over the place. Big people like Senator Inhofe and his Morano make one deceptive, often down right fraudulent, claim after another - yet the troops are lining up behind him and his political machine. John Christy is a lot more nuanced and thoughtful - yet his main political message seems to be against any proactive political recognition or intervention in our self created AGW situation which he acknowledges is real. Instead believing that historic economic rules of the free wheeling free market approach should be encouraged, because more energy and consumption is what society needs to achieve more progress. Incidentally, another disturbing habit of "sceptics" is that rather than engage in a constructive dialogue of discovery with the "consensus science/scientists {and their fans} they resort to ridicule and rejection in the basest of terms. As though they've figured it out and all those other dude's are crazy. What's up with that? As for conclusions, I guess mainly that ~97% of real climate scientists agree upon the CO2 science and the basics of AGW as presented {in addition to wanting to continue the pursue of better understanding of the details}. But, that we know enough about the beast, that society needs to stop dragging its feet and pretending that this climate transition isn't going to have tremendous impacts upon society as we know it. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Peter M http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com -
Scrooge at 07:49 AM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
To gary thompson.. As discussed previously on this blog and others you may be right that we should be in a cooling trend, but that it is being overwhelmed by AGW. The rate of cooling is so gradual that if you cant believe the data showing the current warming there is no way you can say there is a cooling signature. To say we haven't been warming really requires blatant cherry picking and a vivid imagination. The warming trend continues just as expected. But anyway when we look at the what should be cooling, and is actually warming the statement that AGW accounts for 80 to 120 percent of the current warming seems pretty accurate. Also more in line with this post, previously co2 was a feedback, in the current situation it is the driver. IMHO. I do like when Mr thompson comes here and posts, he is civil, and does make for a lively discussion. -
curiouspa at 07:18 AM on 6 January 2011What's in a Name?
just observation- it does seem climate change has replaced global warming in the media. Not sure why and doesn't seem like it makes any difference either way. Just curious- do most folks think this is mainly based on push from fringe skeptics, media, or some other source? -
muoncounter at 06:38 AM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
#52: Albatross, That's a terrific summary graph of the mess we've put ourselves in. Great find! -
Albatross at 05:52 AM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Sphaerica @50, To add to your and Phila's excellent discussions-- this Figure also places the radiative forcing from CO2 in context.
The above image was sourced here, where a table is available.
-
Bob Lacatena at 05:34 AM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
43, apriatelooksat50,Does anyone have a source for a chart showing the other greenhouse gases and their relationship with the temperature cycle?
First problem, what is "the temperature cycle?" No such thing. You mean "relationship with global temperatures," period, no "cycle." Beyond this, there are several ways to look at this. The first way to look at it is relative strength as a greenhouse gas, molecule for molecule, and that in itself is an oversimplification. A molecule will absorb (and emit) energy in varying wavelengths, based on its geometry, and that has to be taken into consideration when looking at the absorption/emission profile of the body in question (i.e the Earth). You have to study molecular physics to understand that. There aren't really any simple numbers (this is twice as strong as that). The second way to look at it is their relative prevalence in the atmosphere. The most common by a mile, and from that point of view the "strongest," is H2O. CO2 is pretty much next. Methane, CH4, is molecule for molecule a "strong" greenhouse gas, but there's a lot less of it. The third way to look at it is the way they get there, and how long they stay. If there's no ready source, or if they don't hang around, any effects on global temperatures would be transient. H2O is the most common, but it's also the most malleable, in that it's prevalence should be pretty directly tied to temperature. As temperatures go up, H2O goes up, and temperatures go up further. As they go down, H2O goes down, and temperatures drop further. CH4 is in short supply partly because its residence time in the atmosphere is short... when it gets there, it doesn't stay there long. So it's not going to be that big of a danger in the long term. The thing about CO2 is that once it gets into the atmosphere, it takes a long time to "fall out." It mixes well, and the greatest sink -- the ocean -- is temperature dependent. The higher the temperature of the ocean, the less CO2 it absorbs from the atmosphere (or, to put it another way, the more CO2 it releases into the atmosphere, depending on the balance at the time). -
Bob Lacatena at 05:18 AM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
43, apiratelooksat50,The sole focus on CO2 (and anthropogenic CO2 at that!) troubles me. Does anyone have a valid reason for the focus on CO2?
I have a hard time believing that you teach environmental science, even at the high school level. This is pretty basic stuff. That said... there is no "sole focus" on CO2, and there's no need to qualify "anthropogenic CO2" as if it's a different animal. As far as "sole focus" goes, no, scientists have studied myriad different climate influences, from changes in insolation to GCRs to land use to greenhouse gases and more. These have been studied through observation and statistical analysis (i.e. "is there a correlation") as well as logic (i.e. "if A causes B, and there is more A, then there should be more B"). All of these studies have arrived at bupkis as far as evidence, either empirical or logical, for marked contribution to the current warming, except for CO2. In addition, it would be a very surprising result if we were not seeing warming from CO2. That would require lots and lots of research funding, because it wouldn't make any sense. As far as anthropogenic versus other "types" of CO2... CO2 is CO2. It's merely a question of what is causing CO2 levels to rise, and that is unquestionably the result of burning huge quantities of fossil fuels (i.e. carbon that has been sequestered under the ground for hundreds of millions of years, with no way until now to get out). So, no "sole" focus, and no "anthropogenic" form of CO2. In fact, your entire statement reeks of a denier trying to color things in a certain way, rather than that of a person truly looking for education. -
dmyerson at 05:16 AM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Since the glacial cycle is a big topic now, it seems to me that the varying temperature slope pre- and post-glacial is an important aspect that doesn't get much attention. It warms up going into an interglacial much faster than it cools when leaving it, in the last few cycles. Since the triggering process of orbital variations presumably has the same forcing gradient on both sides, doesn't this imply that the Milankovitch cycles couldn't possibly be the sole cause of the cycles, and that positive feedback is a requirement. And also that positive feedback is much stronger on warming than on cooling? I point this out and ask about it because it seems that the more scientifically-oriented skeptics these days focus on sensitivity and claim that there is little or no evidence of positive feedback. The above seems to indicate that belief in strong negative feedback from clouds is misplaced and hard to support. Unless the feedback part of the process works completely different now than in the glacial cycles (due to a different trigger). Is there a reason to suggest that?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Google clathrate gun hypothesis. -
les at 05:16 AM on 6 January 2011What's in a Name?
In the spirit of graph based nit-picking... If you do the Ngram for UK English and US English you will find that CC is still on the rise in the UK although GW is dying out... so global warming isn't actually global, but climate change is!British English
American English I hope this doesn't fuel any "global warming" skepticism!!
-
pbjamm at 05:10 AM on 6 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Glenn Tamblyn @16,17 - Thank you for this. A lot of time is spent arguing the minutia of various bits of Climate Science, having it put back together in a coherent whole helps keep it in perspective. Philia @44 (and Spherica quoted) - A great summary of the contrarian method and mindset. Enough dusty tuxs to open up a rental shop.
Prev 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Next
