Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Next
Comments 99351 to 99400:
-
MarkR at 23:35 PM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
@60 Keith: if my accelerating you mean more CO2 means temperatures going faster, there's no good physical reason for that yet afaik. It's probably because this only looks at CO2 forcing and not total forcing. Aerosol's negative forcing hasn't grown as quickly as CO2's has. Assuming that it is negative and not increasingly negative at the same rate that CO2 is increasingly positive, then it would give the illusion of more impact from CO2 and acceleration. -
JMurphy at 23:01 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
I have referred to apiratelooksat50, and this comment of his on this thread, on another thread about zombies. (Just being polite, in case he thinks I'm doing it behind his back !) -
JMurphy at 22:56 PM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
I see that some of the zombie responses that I highlighted above, have re-appeared on another thread ( Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change), courtesy of a poster called apiratelooksat50 : "...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." "...it would be necessary to shut down the entire global economy for a decade." "By adopting a wait-and-see approach, we still have plenty of time to address even the worst-case predictions of climate change." Pure zombie-opinion in place of facts or evidence, as usual. But there were a couple of extra zombie arguments also, that I forgot to mention : "Or, we could feed and educate everyone in the world." "Even if global warming becomes a problem, it’s going to be a problem regardless of how much we spend." "Initially I was pro-AGW, but over the years as I've witnessed the shouting down and negative labeling of legitimate scientific inquiry that questioned components of the AGW theory, my position changed. Real science is always open to refutation and revision." You often see the supposed 'concern' for the poor and starving of this world (alongside the false supposition that all problems could be solved, and that the poor and starving wouldn't continue to suffer, if only we spent all that money - money which shouldn't really be spent anyway, as far as the zombies are concerned - on food and education); as well as the shoulder-shrugging, 'so what, we can't do anything about it anyway (even if it is a problem), so why should we bother' attitude; and the 'I used to be convinced about AGW but seeing the horrid attitude to the brave deniers (as I now realise they are), I was convinced otherwise and have disregarded the science in favour of standing with the oppressed and ever-courteous Galileo-like real skeptics like, um, Watts and, er, McIntyre', and some others. Laughable, but bizarre. -
Paul D at 22:22 PM on 7 January 2011What's in a Name?
Further to my comment @25, some of what sout stated was correct. It depends a great deal on the interpretation of the word 'natural'. -
Paul D at 22:08 PM on 7 January 2011What's in a Name?
Sout@23 Your comment is way off topic and couldn't be more wrong. Humans are natural and what they do is natural. Beavers dam rivers, they use knowledge and materials to do that, even if it isn't the same level as humans. Just about everything you wrote in that comment is completely wrong. But this isn't the place to discuss it. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 21:28 PM on 7 January 2011What's in a Name?
Ron Crouch But climate change is not happening 'on its own' and it infers nothing - the role of humans in global warming and climate change has been directly observed in changes in Earth's radiation balance. All this in the complete absence of a competing theory - there's no evidence that natural forcing is behind it all. Perhaps Joe Public would have fewer problems keeping abreast if people stopped trying to confuse the issue by making statements that ignore the actual state of knowledge. -
Mike Palin at 21:08 PM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
A few days ago I came across a paper provocatively titled “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" (PDF available here). It received an Ig Noble Prize in 2000 and is definitely worth a look. Some of those doing battle with the Zombies may find it insightful. -
Rob Painting at 21:07 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Lurgee - It's always nice to learn things are much worse than previously thought. Just before bedtime and all. Not frightening the horses is generally a good idea, except when said horses (humanity) is galloping (like a camel) directly toward a cliff. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 20:56 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel I don't think anyone has ever said that CO2 was the only factor affecting temperatures. You could also have mentioned the mid-20th-century cooling to make your point, for example. The thing with global warming is that it can lead to changes in wind and precipitation patterns, which is why some phenomena that can be perceived as counter-intuitive have been observed - such as changes in precipitation patterns leading to some glaciers growing despite warmer temperatures. In terms of possible outcomes, a warming world could lead to the disruption of the North Atlantic conveyor belt, which would lead to cooling in some regions of Europe. This is why scientists look at long-term trends in global average temperatures, rather than what is happening at a regional level, when assessing the effects of CO2 on Earth's temperatures - as Daniel has already pointed out. Regional responses to a CO2 increase will vary according to a number of variables which affect the climate of any given region, but this in no way suggests that CO2 is not the main factor driving temperature changes at a global level. -
lurgee at 20:55 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
It's always nice to learn things are much worse than previously thought. Just before bedtime and all. -
Alec Cowan at 20:40 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@gallopingcamel In spite of your introductory fanfare "One would expect to find temperature trends magnified at high latitudes, so I have concentrated on high latitudes in the northern hemisphere." giving to it all the adornment of a legitimate intend to understand, cherry picking is still cherry picking in the end. Readers can see in this site every day attempts like that to supposedly substantiate or call attention on trends or lack of them through pruning a dataset of selecting an area. Just to cite one the most recent attempts, this one. Why don't you take a look to the other comment and try to deduct a trend from both? Later, I will suggest a third one, a forth, and on and on. -
JMurphy at 20:19 PM on 7 January 2011We're heading into cooling
Does cruzn246 pop up every time it's cold outside where he lives ? Perhaps he should look up the difference between 'weather' and 'climate' and actually check some temperature records, rather than relying on what can be read in the Denialosphere. -
Daniel Bailey at 19:09 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Re: lurgee (108)"If I may ask a further question, stemming from what DB posted (genuine, I assure you), if it takes thousands of years for CO2 to be sequestered, does this mean the current CO2 levels will persist for a similar period? I had been under the impression CO2 hung about for a couple of hundred years - which might explain my looking askance at the ice cores."
An excellent question. Skeptical science has examined this previously in posts here and here. RealClimate has examined this many times, most recently here and here. An RC post examining the lag between CO2 and temps is here. Wiki provides a usable synopsis:"Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[60] Recent work indicates that recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels will result in an effective lifetime of tens of thousands of years.[61][62]"
The references are found here and here. That's assuming we manage to curb our addiction to CO2 soon. As it stands now, we have (likely) effectively put off the onset of at least the next round of glaciation. The Yooper -
Albatross at 18:55 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Lurgee @108, "if it takes thousands of years for CO2 to be sequestered, does this mean the current CO2 levels will persist for a similar period? I had been under the impression CO2 hung about for a couple of hundred years - which might explain my looking askance at the ice cores." The short answer to your question is yes, probably. A more detailed discussion is provided here, and that thread is probably the most suitable location to discuss this particular matter further.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You type fast. I am jealous.
-
lurgee at 18:20 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
I agree there has been a bit of avoidable fuming on all sides. With regards DB's earlier post, thank you for drawing my attention to it. I'd missed that in the strum und drang I unwittingly unleashed. If I may ask a further question, stemming from what DB posted (genuine, I assure you), if it takes thousands of years for CO2 to be sequestered, does this mean the current CO2 levels will persist for a similar period? I had been under the impression CO2 hung about for a couple of hundred years - which might explain my looking askance at the ice cores. Without wanting to jeopardise the fragile harmony, with regards the Eric Steig piece, I didn't intend to present his comments as a peer reviewed piece (though putting the year of publication was probably a BIT thoughtless). But - unless Steig's speech was intended as a comedy turn at the workshop - I'd say it was an accurate reflection of his professional opinions. And, of course, it referenced several other sources. -
keithpickering at 18:10 PM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
@garythompson: I think I see what you're looking at, but it's an optical illusion. Two ways to check: first, plot the graph with axes switched, like this:
... and any "flatness" should become verticality, which is not evident to my eye.
More formally, check to see if the linear regression fit is improved by a polynomial fit. In this case, it isn't much improved ... but more importantly, the best 2-order polynomial fit is actually concave upward, i.e., the curve is accelerating rather than decelerating.
-
gallopingcamel at 17:59 PM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
While I disagree with your conclusions you did a magnificent job with this post. -
Albatross at 17:53 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Hi Daniel, Many thanks for providing the link above and for confirming that I am a scientist. However, just to clarify, although I have a strong background in various aspects of meteorology and have obviously studied climate over the years, I am not a climate scientist in the traditional definition and am currently not actively publishing in that particular field-- although some of my recent research may have applications in climate science. I know, clear as mud, but I'm really tired. -
garythompson at 17:04 PM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
well, that didn't work either. i'm sorry about cluttering your site up. please delete the other posts too. ugh!Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You are almost there. Try linking to a PNG or other graphics file instead of a PDF (PDF's will not link as a visual graphic in a SkS comment window). -
Albatross at 17:01 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Lurgee @104, "See? I get it, and I totally agree with all that." Where you are referring to my questions posed to you at @104. Good, we are in agreement. In fact, after re-reading this thread, it seems that somehow we have been mostly speaking past each other. If my posts have seemed aggressive or intolerant, my sincere apologies--please understand that, intentionally or not, some of your posts came across (to me and evidently others too) as those of a concern troll, and after years of playing whack-a-mole with contrarians and refuting the same old nonsense over and over again, one tends to get pretty intolerant. I concede that I too have (unintentionally) argued a few strawmen arguments along the way. So, for now, I'm willing to consider that my initial assessment of you was a false positive, although I suspect Sphaerica may disagree ;) The last thing I want is to be responsible for sending someone to the 'dark side'! Anyways, we'll see how my updated assessment pans out after more posts from you. Before signing off I would like to regroup, and speak to this statement you made @104, because this is what it all seems to boil down to: "But I haven't seen anything but bluster in response to my suggestion (intended to silence a 'sceptic,' not increase your blood pressure) that the claim CO2 continued to rise or stayed high for thousands of years after temperature started dropping was couldn't be borne out by looking at a single ice core" In your very first comment that you made here you state that: "I'm a rank amateur, but I'd question the accuracy of the ice core on that point" In the post immediately before your post, Daniel Bailey had already addressed the issue of why CO2 remained high after temperatures started cooling. Now maybe you cross posted with Daniel, but your question has already been answered; the apparent discrepancy has nothing to do with the veracity of data derived form the ice cores, and much to do with lags in the system. As for your statement: "Also, looking at a single ice core is a bit like looking at a single thermometer - you can't really be sure how much is local variation, how much is global, and how much is just confusion and noise." If I understand the literature correctly, I mostly agree with you when you are talking about temperature. However, the reason why CO2 content derived from the ice cores is representative of CO2 over a much larger area is because CO2 is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere, as evidenced by the excellent agreement between on-going measurements of CO2 made at various locations around the world.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] The comment Albatross refers to is here. -
garythompson at 16:20 PM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
can you show an additional plot related to your figure three to show monthly co2/temps? i have done this and i see a flattening of the curve at co2 of around 375 ppm and the temps are flat above that region. your yearly graph seems to show the same thing. if i had a web site i'd post the graph and don't know how to show it along with the data in this comment field. i took the hadcrut3 monthly global temperature anomalies on the y-axis and the mauna loa monthly co2 ppm on the x-axis. there was a very pronounced 'flattening' of the curve past 375 ppm. why is that? -
Bob Lacatena at 15:51 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
103, lurgee, What sort of paper do you want? A study specifically aimed at proving that the ice core data is wonderful? You know that doesn't exist, because there's no reason for anyone to create such a paper. If someone had produced a paper claiming that the ice cores were unusable, then someone else might be inspired to produce a paper proving the opposite, but the former has never happened. Steig 2008 is not a peer-reviewed, published paper. It's a brief set of notes for use at a workshop. More importantly, it does not and never even implies that the data is unusable or inaccurate or untrustworthy. It simply details the known issues with the data, and highlights the fact that, though expensive, more cores are needed. On the other hand, the point I made is very clear. Thousands of scientists have used and continue to make use of the ice core data in their work. Would they do so if they considered it untrustworthy? Clearly they don't. So what you do is to simply choose to dismiss the arguments that you can't refute. The thing is, you began all this by playing coy:I'm a rank amateur, but I'd question the accuracy of the ice core on that point.
Just an amateur, but raising a seed of doubt. Called on that, you upped the ante.I am not disrespecting them or their work - I am reflecting what seems to be their considered opinion.
You're "reflecting what seems to be" (your interpretation, and clearly a flawed misrepresentation) "their considered opinion." So you got called out on that. Next comes this: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.
So now you do seem to be an expert, or at least to have the strength of opinion of one. It's also no longer mere doubt, but instead "the experts regard" it as a "confused, torturous mess". When you're given evidence, you give this:I can't believe you offer up a google blast as evidence. That's hardly scientific, is it?
Actually, I think the fact that 3,730 papers/articles have been written by scientists using the ice core data is pretty darn good proof that the scientific community finds it valuable. Refusal to accept this is just so much foot stamping and tantrum throwing. All along the way, you've scatter tidbits of information, debate tactics analysis ("ad hominem!" "straw man!"), and calls for proof, and yet when you are faced with evidence of the value of the ice cores... you dismiss it out of hand as not good enough. You can stop now, Lurgee. You've accomplished your task. You've littered the thread with just enough reasoned insanity to help to confuse people who are already confused and are eager to deny AGW using any marginal handhold, no matter how unsteady. You've given that to them. They can look at your comments, and say to themselves "that sounds reasonable to me, the scientists themselves know that the ice core data is flawed, so I don't even have to pay attention to this post. I can stick with the CO2 lags temperature argument" [which hinges on the ice core data] "because the ice core data used in this discussion is invalid." Sheesh. Absolutely beyond belief. -
lurgee at 15:41 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Albatross, Can you point out where my "potpourri of complaints" has been shown to be unreasonable? I've seen nothing scientific to that effect. I am sure, as a scientist (A real one, or in the manner of the Oregon Petition?), you wouldn't be so foolish as to accept a google blast to 'prove' a point. You'd actually expect reference to a specific paper relating directly to the paper under discussion. That's what I asked for, but instead I got a "Never mind the depth, feel the width" type response - and a lot of attacks on my integrity. I do not demand "perfection" from the ice cores as you claim (what will I do with all this straw?). Quite the opposite. But, if observing that the ice cores are imperfect is "not even remotely new or original" (Did I claim it was?) then surely it should be possible to come up with a better response than, effectivle, "Shut up! Know your place, peasant! Look at all these hits on Google Scholar!" I do not understand your claim that I am "clearly in denial about the fact that current CO2 levels are the highest in about 800,000 years, and possibly the highest they have been in 15 million years." I have suggested nothing that would substantiate that claim. Why do you advance it? I think I understand quite clearly why "in the past CO2 lagged temperature and why. Because, in the past, temperature changes were driven by orbital variations, which in turn increases GHG concentrations, those concentrations creating a feedback loop where temperature and GHG continue to increase until a further orbital shift throws the process into reverse. I also understand why the current situation is reversed, with CO2 leading temeprature - because humans have been burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees, which may lead to a similar feedback system to the one described above. See? I get it, and I totally agree with all that. But I haven't seen anything but bluster in response to my suggestion (intended to silence a 'sceptic,' not increase your blood pressure) that the claim CO2 continued to rise or stayed high for thousands of years after temperature started dropping was couldn't be borne out by looking at a single ice core, and more than global temperature could be derived from a single thermometer.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] For the record, Albatross is the genuine article: a working scientist that we are fortunate to have time to share with us here. As for the rest of your comments (this and previous) you have yet to adequately respond to the points Sphaerica raises in his comment here. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 15:25 PM on 7 January 2011What's in a Name?
@ Ron Crouch #22. As you imply, humans are unnatural. They are not animals. They do not affect other animal species at all, nor any other living or inanimate natural matter. Building fences to keep out wild dogs or rabbits is silly. Animals are natural and will respond solely to natural forcing and ignore barriers put up by artificial humans. Humans cannot force water to take an unnatural path. The dams that humans build for redirecting and moderating river flows are a total waste of money. Building levees to hold back sea or river water is a joke. The rivers and seas only respond to natural forces and humans are not natural. As for agriculture - how natural is that? We don't eat natural food, it's all artificial, just like humans. Everyone knows that humans and all they touch are artificial and divorced from earth, just like Crouch says. We were manufactured from synthetic elements and plonked on this planet, and told that no matter what we do we will be unable to change 'nature' for better or worse. So no matter how much we try to mess up the planet, the planet will survive (even if the artificial humans don't). (OTOH if humans were natural, then they would be part of nature and would contribute to forcing along with all the other forces of nature. What a crazy idea!) -
lurgee at 15:20 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
muoncounter, I do not intend "a ringing condemnation of ice core data." That's just another straw man. I'm expressing reasoned doubt, based on my understanding of the opinion of experts in the field. There's a bit of a 'God Of The Gaps' routine going on here - first I was told to pony up with some evidence to back my position, now that I've done that, its not enough to cite one expert (who in turn cites dozens of others), I need to cite more. Meanwhile, Sphaerica has signally failed to meet my request 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. Instead, I got an unmediated mass of hits on Google.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] The one reference you posted didn't support your position all that convincingly. You've been questioning the validity of a widely used dataset; I would expect you to be eager to do a more thorough job backing up that contention. However, this thread is not about the details of ice coring; if you feel you have a credible case to make as to why those data are suspect, find a more appropriate thread (perhaps 'ice data made cooler'). -
archiesteel at 15:17 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Moderators, it looks as if there's an unclosed italics tag somewhere...you might want to correct that. :-) -
archiesteel at 15:14 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
If at least the contrarians offered us some pie after all that cherry-pickin'... -
archiesteel at 15:13 PM on 7 January 2011We're heading into cooling
@cruzn246: there is no indication we are in a cooling phase. 2010 was one of the warmest years on record. The vast majority of climate scientists believe the warming will continue, rightly, as the quantity of CO2 keeps increasing. You obviously have no idea how ice ages come about - then again, you seem keen on following the lead of meteorologists on climate... Please stop peddling your pseudo-science. Thanks. -
muoncounter at 14:49 PM on 7 January 2011We're heading into cooling
#5: "The flip of the EPO ... " EPO? OPE? POE? I get it now! -
cruzn246 at 14:44 PM on 7 January 2011We're heading into cooling
Some of the scientists who predicted the cool off jumped the gun a bit but it's still not off the shelf. just like some of the coldest weather of the last cool period came right after the PDO and NAO shifted, we got some of our warmest right after they both shifted again. It's called lag time folks. you throw the term around all the time and don't even appreciate what it means. There are plenty of scientists, including meteorologists, that think the warming is ending now. I am with them.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] For the newcomers, cruzn246's last 40 comments here dating back to September 26 have all consisted of comments just like this: a derivative denial of the topic of the post, followed by other commenters chiming in to help correct the errors in his/her comments. Despite numerous pointers and links to sources, you persist in your misbeliefs. That is your right. But it is clear to all the position you come from. -
cruzn246 at 14:39 PM on 7 January 2011We're heading into cooling
Flipping out over the warmest temps in the last 130 years is about....silly. We are in a warming phase...at the end of a warming inter cycle. So, what might you expect. Yes, the warmest temperatures in a good long while. Till we have a big flipper, like a big volcanic event or something, we are going to keep warming in roughly the same thirty on and thirty off cycle for a while?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] The multifactorial warming of the last 130 years is pretty well understood. That CO2 is the predominant source of the observed warming of the past 30 years of that period is clear. That continued release of anthropogenic-derived CO2 will continue to act as a forcing to global temperatures is also clear. If you have anything other than unsupported speculation as a source for your opinions expressed here, now would be the time to provide them as a linked source. They will need to be from published, peer-reviewed sources. Blogs not based on science do not count, do not pass Go. -
cruzn246 at 14:33 PM on 7 January 2011We're heading into cooling
We are now into a cooling phase, which will be followed by more warming. That is, if we are still in the glacial cycles. I think we are. We have not appreciably moved the continents or grown mountains enough to shake that little thing. The flip of the EPO and NAO is now taking effect, and we will see a period of about three decades or so of cooler temperatures. The N hemisphere will drive an overall cooling of the Earth during this time, just as it drove an overall warming over the last 30 or so years. Yes, this will be strong enough to overcome the added CO2. You all can get back to the AGW discussion in about 2040. Then we can talk about the cooling again in about 2070. Maybe you all will get tired of talking about it when it warms again in 2100. This warming is gonna keep going on till we get sea levels up high enough to interrupt some very important ocean circulations, and then we go into ice age again. Of course a few volcanic things could pop up and play havoc also. Have fun.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Do you have any peer-reviewed published sources as a basis for any of the above speculative statements? Any? -
Daniel Bailey at 14:11 PM on 7 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Re: 92 Agreed. And ditto. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 14:07 PM on 7 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
#90: Got your back, bro. And you're quite right, maybe the long winter nights are bringing out the snow jobs. -
gallopingcamel at 13:47 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Anne-Marie Blackburn (@69), you said: "This does not mean that CO2 isn't responsible for current warming. Scientists are looking at current data and observations to draw their conclusions, not what may have happened in the past." With a little help from scientists at the NCDC I have been trying (in my amateur way) to understand this issue. One would expect to find temperature trends magnified at high latitudes, so I have concentrated on high latitudes in the northern hemisphere. My analysis of Greenland shows a warming trend of >2K since 1850 compared to the IPCC's 0.8K (AR4) for the same time period. Given that the CO2 concentration has been rising over this period it is reasonable to suggest that it caused the warming. Here is a plot of temperature anomalies for Greenland's coastal weather stations based on data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/coastal-average.png As you will see, there was a rapid rise in temperature that ended in the early 1930s. After that there was a steep decline ending in the early 1990s. There must be other factors at work that overwhelm the contribution of CO2 given the 60 year decline during a period when CO2 concentrations were increasing rapidly.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] GC, do you mean for us to believe that your regional analysis, using DMI data for Greenland coastal stations, is meant to overturn the demonstrated global effects of CO2... Because that's how it sounds... -
muoncounter at 13:42 PM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
#51: "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." The curves are similar because there is a genuine physical cause for their similarity: increasing CO2 concentration increases CO2 forcing in a predictable way. Your argument is based on the (deliberate?) omission of this obvious fact -- and that is why it must be so tortuously circular. See CO2 effect is weak and any of the many threads on climate sensitivity to forcing. See the graph here for the relative strength of the long-term forcings; there can be no doubt that CO2 is the key. -
Albatross at 13:10 PM on 7 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Lurgee @98, Try again. Your potpourri of complaints is anything but reasonable as I and others have pointed out to you. And for the record, I am a scientist and frequently use Google Scholar. It is a very powerful, convenient and useful tool. Regardless, you seem to have elected to miss sphaerica's point. The limitations of (and caveats pertaining to) the ice core data are well established and well documented in the scientific literature-- making that observation is not even remotely new or original. And of course one can always improve the sampling and data processing techniques etc., but when working with these kind of data, demanding perfection is setting up the science for a fail, and that is quite a predictable tactic used by 'skeptics' who do not understand science. So your predecessors have long ago burnt that bridge for you. To place things in context, in all my years of conducting research, I have yet to work with a data set that doesn't have any issues-- yet, my colleagues and I have gained much insight into the problems at hand by careful consideration of the limitations of the data. You are clearly out of touch with the realities (and frustrations) of being a practicing scientist Lurgee. You are also clearly in denial about the fact that current CO2 levels are the highest in about 800,000 years, and possibly the highest they have been in 15 million years. Now to try and focus the discussion back to the topic at hand: 1) Do you understand that in the past CO2 lagged temperature and why? 2) Do you understand that the current relationship between CO2 and global temperatures is reversed and why that is? I have a suspicion that (deep down) you know the answer to those questions. But if you don't, people here will be happy to give you some pointers or try and explain it to you. -
Marcus at 13:06 PM on 7 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
That's a point I often make, caerbannog. From my reading, the planet was around 6 degrees warmer, then, than during the bulk of the Quaternary Era-in spite of a much dimmer sun. Of course, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were anywhere from 3 to 10 times higher than the Quaternary too! -
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.
Prev 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Next
