Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Next
Comments 99451 to 99500:
-
MarkR at 21:19 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
#14 miekol: please read the SkS article on human CO2. The single dominating fact is that humans are pumping out ~30 bn tons/year and the amount in the atmosphere is going up by about ~15 bn tons/year (actually, by an average of 45% of human emissions rate, see Knorr's paper on atmospheric fraction). To say that the CO2 is coming from nature involves you inventing a magical way for 30 billion tons of human CO2 to disappear and nature to somehow pump out 15 bn tons on top of that. And we know that the oceans are absorbing CO2 since their pH is falling; and that's the main mechanism for CO2's shorter term temperature response... That the rise in CO2 is human caused is so close to certain that I can't understand how anyone who's had the time to check the evidence could conclude otherwise. -
malamuddy at 21:05 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
miekol at 14. #12 answers your question. Maybe you had not seen it when you posted. Your choice now is to thank Scaddenp for clearing up your problem, answer the question in that post or give a reasoned explanation of why it is unsatisfactory. To other posters: I have noticed that a common ploy among deniers is to pose as serious seekers of wisdom -"I genuinely would like to have such and such explained". But once that is done they revert to type, accusing others of not being scientific, denying what they have said elsewhere or opening up peripheral questions about the dictionary meaning of words. Far be it from me to assume that meikol is like this but, if he or she is not prepared to take up the options above, I would think future posts could be safely ignored -
tobyjoyce at 20:59 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
miekol, I have engaged in several on-line debates with people who have issued the challenge: "Ok, go on! Convince me about global warming! I'm open minded." In the end, I have realised that it really is a futile exercise. The discussions were an interminable "Well, what about ....?" or different versions of "Go fetch another rock". In the end, I realise the best we can do is to iterate and re-iterate the evidence. In the end, a person can only really convince themselves. If you are sincere, it is you who should be assimilating and evaluating the scientific consensus for your own benefit. Where is your own bottom line? Where do you see weaknesses in the case, and what will it mean if the global temperature anomaly rises for 1, 2, 3, 4 .... years more, Arctic sea ice extent continues to decline, glaciers continue to retreat ... etc. Most people who have trapped me into "debates" have just continued to iterate "Well, I'm not convinced!" at each presentation of new evidence. But, being a contrarian cannot be just an article of faith. If you are acquainted with the Bible, you know that even the legendary Doubting Thomas had a bottom line. What is yours? -
lurgee at 20:56 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
If we accept that CO2 is a significant GHG, then it follows that increasing its atmospheric concentrations to levels not seen in the last 400K years (or whatever) is likely to be a problem. If you're going to argue that CO2 isn't a significant GHG, then you have to do some pretty nimble scientific footwork, to explain how it behaves differently from other non-homogenous diatomic molecules. -
miekol at 20:29 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Blibliovermis This is a science site, Which means accuracy in statements,as John would point out. I've not kept count of my posts but it probably numbers no more than 10 to 15, certainly not 100s. Also I have never used sarcasm, at least not as defined in an English dictionary. Unfortunately unwise but very clever people often credit me with knowledge and cleverness that I simply do not poses. I simply say it as I see it, but it gets interpreted as my being a smart ass. Just as its likely you will interpret this post as a 'smart ass,' retort. Its not, and its not meant be. I remain waiting to be convinced either way as regards whether or not CO2 produced by man is a problem.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Actually, you have posted here more than 40 times since July 29, 2010. You have continually expressed doubt about CO2 being a greenhouse gas and that it cannot be certain that CO2 plays a role in controlling temperatures in any way. The in-line responses to you have provided numerous links to allay your concerns; that you are still maintaining this fiction means that you have not read the links (done your homework) or you simply choose to continue to unbelieve. That is your choice. Do not, however, maintain that no one has tried to help you. -
fydijkstra at 20:24 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
I made similar calculations last year. Using the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and warming I estimated the climate sensitivity at 1.8±0.25 °C. See this graph.
I do not speculate on positive or negative feedbacks, that might alter the shape of the curve. This picture also shows that the present halting of the warming still falls within the confidence limits of the trend. Only if the 1998 record will not be broken at a CO2-level of 440 ppm (probably in 2036) the relationship will be falsified, or if before 2020 the temperature drops below the 2008 level. There is still hope for humanity!
-
scaddenp at 20:13 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
meikol - the isotopic signature of the CO2 being added to the atmosphere shows it is from fossil sources whereas as the SLOW feedbacks from temperature rise would be biogenic. (eg the change in CO2 during glacial cycle as shown from isotopes in ice core gas bubbles). Can you postulate some physically reasonable mechanism by which temperature rise could increase fossil CO2 in atmosphere? I don't think there is any question that increased CO2 is anthropogenic - skeptic arguments have to hang off decreasing the effect of this. -
fydijkstra at 19:57 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
I don't feel the need to interfere in this discussion. Just a point to support tobyjoyce: Excel is very well able to use two Y-axis. You even don't need Excel 2007. My 2003 version does it perfectly, and as far as I remember, also the earlier versions. -
tobyjoyce at 19:27 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Keith, Just a point on Excel. "Ideally, I would like to put two vertical scales in place so that each line could be scaled separately. But Excel won’t allow that" In Excel 2007, you can plot some of your series on a secondary axis for any chart type - that was only available before on a special chart. Would Excel 2007 have the application you were looking for? -
tobyjoyce at 19:22 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Warming Power of CO2: Correlations Hi, Keith, could you take a quick look at this paper and give an opinion. A friend sent it to me ... it got a fuss made over it on Anthony Watts' site. The gist of it is (more or less): "A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 cap-ture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface." Another effort to disprove the greenhouse effect through statistics. -
Bibliovermis at 19:12 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
It has been possible to prove that the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is anthropogenic since Hans Suess conducted his research on carbon isotopes in 1955. wiki: Suess effect -
dansat at 19:10 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Keith, Very good. I think Apple Numbers allows a double scale as well. I have started responding to certain myth claims on twitter with the link to the appropriate post on Skeptical Science. Saves a lot of time. Dan -
Bibliovermis at 19:00 PM on 6 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
The same empirical evidence that shows that it's anthropogenic. Please refer to argument #33. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming -
Bibliovermis at 18:53 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Miekol, Please refer to argument #26, both beginner & intermediate. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions Then move on to argument #33. There's no empirical evidence A quick search shows hundreds of comments over the past nine months asking the same questions or simply posting sarcasm. This belies your claim of being "willing to be convinced". -
perseus at 18:47 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
How bizarre! I've also been through exactly the same procedure with GISS a few months ago, paartiually to combat the zombies you mention. It makes no difference.
I have been reluctant to publish it in full since we really should be using CO2e rather than CO2 which includes the other greenhouse gases. It is rather more difficult to obtain these figures despite repeated requests to various institutions, so if anyone can provide me with a source please post the URL.
-
Klaus Flemløse at 18:45 PM on 6 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Very good. Thanks. -
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?
Prev 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Next
