Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Next
Comments 99601 to 99650:
-
Daniel Bailey at 13:25 PM on 5 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
Re: Blueflash (210) 1. Read the study (petit et al 1999) 2. IBID. Then read this. 3. You expect all glacial epochs to be Xerox copies? 4. 450,000 years of data, multiple cores. Say what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that that's an awful lot of years and even more snowflakes. Humans do a pretty good job at understanding past and present ongoing climate change and predicting future climate changes. Strawmen distractions about off-topic supervolcano's aside (we are overdue for a Yellowstone blow, tho), human beings are pretty capable of screwing the planet up. Get used to it. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 13:21 PM on 5 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
#210: "if the graph was drawn with uniform granularity..." If the graph was drawn uniformly, it would be a misrepresentation of the data. The time resolution of an ice core (and many conventional cores) decreases as you move downhole (older). Petit et al 1999 is the classic description of how these data are obtained. The mean resolution of the CO2 (CH4) profile is about 1,500 (950) years. It goes up to about 6,000 years for CO2 in the fractured zones and in the bottom part of the record "... only really 5 samples of interglacials represented here and that really isn't much of a data set." Why is this a concern? This isn't a pattern matching exercise. -
Blueflash at 12:46 PM on 5 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
Here is the full graph. Shows a more similar curve between 430,000 years ago and now: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.pngModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Not so similar. Remember that ice core temperature reconstructions use 1950 as year zero. Here's what that would look like if CO2 were extended to today's levels (I do seem to be having to show this illustration a lot lately!):
-
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 12:39 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Pity that the chart doesn't show today's CO2 levels. That really puts the cat among the pigeons!Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Try this one then: -
Blueflash at 12:38 PM on 5 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
Perhaps I'm missing something,but several things jump out of this graph: 1) The data only goes back about 430,000 years, yet the axis goes back 450,000 years. Why? To me it looks as though someone has removed the first part of the line. I'm not saying they did, but such things do happen from time to time. In this instance it's a fairly critical question because the interglacial that occurs at the left of this graph is allegedly the closest fit to the one we have now in terms of the alignment of the planet. 2) It is apparent that the later data is at a high level of granularity than the more recent data, you can see this by the spikiness (thickness) of the line. This is not surprising because the closer we get to the present the more data we have. However it does somewhat skew one's perception of the graph because when we look at 430,000 years ago compared with now, we are not - in graph terms - comparing apples with apples, due to the granularity difference. I strongly suspect that if the graph was drawn with uniform granularity then the temp change 430,000 years ago would appear more similar to the present temp change. 3) The temp peak in this current interglacial is presently a very thin one at 2C. Other than that the temp appears to be hovering somewhere between 0-1C, this is actually lower than in pervious interglacials, all of which peak between 2-4C. 4) There are only really 5 samples of interglacials represented here and that really isn't much of a data set. Now I fully appreciate that this can;t be help given the time periods in question, but it doesn't change the fact that there are only 5 samples for comparison. Humans are as yet hopeless at predicting localised weather let alone the climate. This doesn't mean people shouldn't try but perhaps they should hold back predicting catastrophes until we have a better understanding. For all we know the super volcano in Yellowstone National Park could go off in a few decades and that would really throw a spanner into the works. The Earth is a living planet, and nature takes no prisoners. Personally I am glad of all this hoo-har over climate change because if nothing else it is teaching people not to mess around with nature. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that won't mess around with us and everything else on this planet. If nature chooses to make some changes then - take note kids - human beings are powerless to do anything about that. Get used to it. In LVX -
michael sweet at 12:29 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
TIS: As the article points out, CO2 was not a forcing in the past. It was a feedback to the solar forcings. CO2 can be both a feedback and a forcing. In the past CO2 was a feedback. The situation today is that CO2 is the forcing. The data showing CO2 lag indicate that the solar forcing started the cycle and the CO2 feedback makes the cycle stronger. Since CO2 is the forcing today its effects are different from what was seen in the past. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 12:16 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
The lag at the beginning of an interglacial is not overly useful for determining the impact of CO2 on the temperatures. Far more interesting is the end of the interglacials. At the end of the Eemian CO2 was above 260 ppm until ~112 kybp. Temperatures had been dropping for more than 10,000 years before the cooling oceans was sufficient to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Forget the beginning of the interglacial periods to determine the importance of "warming." The fact that the interglacials end with CO2 already elevated indicates that the forcing effect of CO2 is not the critical factor in the glacial cycles. Solar insolation leads the global temperature which leads the CO2 levels both at the beginning and end of the interglacials. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:23 AM on 5 January 2011Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
Added 5 more posts from November, 2006:Nov 8, 2006 Tales from the Thermometer Nov 9, 2006 Hockey Sticks Nov 10, 2006 CO2: They call it "life"... Nov 10, 2006 For the Love of it! Nov 11, 2006 Days of Wine and Roses
The Yooper -
Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
The entire Dr. Mann comment can be found here on RealClimate - search for "graft" to see it. To quote one of the next lines: "Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them (e.g. highlighted in red as here)...(again see the comparisons here, with the instrumental record clearly distinguished in red, the proxy reconstructions indicated by e.g. blue or green, and the uncertainties indicated by shading)" The extra detail is quite informative. -
tobyjoyce at 09:46 AM on 5 January 2011A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
dorlomin, Yes, I think we know how this will play out. Sometime in the future a serious weather/ climate disaster will just make it all so obvious. Unfortunately, a series of minor disasters can be easily hidden on the back pages, so it will have to be a major showstopper. Like the British Appeasers after 1939, or the American Isolationists after Pearl Harbor, suddenly denialism will disappear. Not that denialists will disappear, especially the political ones. What's the betting many will become more climate-hawkish than the climate hawks? Suddenly they will "always have believed in the science". I only hope too much damage has not been done, and that it is not too late, when this comes about. -
Albatross at 09:25 AM on 5 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Tim @86, OMG, you have to be kidding me. Argue strawmen much TTT? "This is about rubbishing Lindzen because he made a claim that most people dont even begin to understand." Except you, of course. And this is not about "rubbishing Lindzen"-- as has been explained to you several times now, it is about Lindzen engaging in B.S. The responsibility for that lies with him, and him alone. But if you insist on fighting his battles for him, the ball is now in your court to provide hard scientific evidence (not musings about hypotheticals or what ifs) which supports Lindzen's claim. So either put up, or please do shut up. "Lindzen's responses were very brief and he went into no detail" Exactly-- he made a baseless and unsubstantiated claim. He could have also submitted follow-up evidence in writing after the hearings to support his baseless assertions made at the hearing. He has, to my knowledge, not done that. The planet is warming TTT, deal with it. -
mclamb6 at 09:22 AM on 5 January 2011Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
Fred, Why don't you post the entirety of Mr. Mann's comment? -
Fred Staples at 09:05 AM on 5 January 2011Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
Phil Jones 16th November 1999 “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Michael Mann December 2004 “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum”. As a direct result of this hockey-stick nonsense, George Monbiot in the Guardian ( a paper with a well respected “bad science” column) announced the elimination of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age with a single stroke. The problem with the relentless propaganda which alarmists purvey is that non-scientists believe it.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please refrain from accusations such as: "The problem with the relentless propaganda which alarmists purvey is that non-scientists believe it." Unless, of course, you can provide linked quotes from reputable sources (i.e., not a blog) to prove your assertions. Thanks! -
TimTheToolMan at 08:51 AM on 5 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
" Total discussion about greater preponderance of highs versus lows was about 4 min and 30 sec. " With the chaiman phrasing and rephrasing the question, sure. Lindzen's responses were very brief and he went into no detail. From his "answer" point of view the exchange was considerably shorter. "And what dhogaza said--there are multiple, independent lines of evidence that the planet is warming which do not require thermometers. " One thing at a time. This is about rubbishing Lindzen because he made a claim that most people dont even begin to understand. He won an award for it in your eyes afterall. -
Utahn at 06:53 AM on 5 January 2011Temp record is unreliable
Here is the link to "Tales from the thermometer" which is available via replay wayback machine: http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090216121919/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2006/11/08/tales-from-the-thermometer/ Which brings up my question on the temp data sets, the HadCRU and GISS ones are the same thermometers, with different data adjusting procedures etc..., while the GSOD database has many more stations - my question is does it also include the GHCN stations (while adding many more), or is it a set of completely distinct stations? I couldn't find for sure from the links at Ned #90...Also, are there any other worldwide surface station data sets distinct from the GHCN that have been looked at? Many thanks!! -
Rob Painting at 06:30 AM on 5 January 2011Glaciers are growing
rockpicker - "Dr. Tim Ball.....He said world glacier ice mass is currently growing" The World Glacier Monitoring Service say otherwise:
Given that the last decade is the warmest in the instrumental record and 2010 the warmest year in that decade, Tim Ball's assertion seemed unlikely from the get-go. Does make you wonder why he would make such an erroneous claim, when it's so easy to check its' veracity.
-
Utahn at 06:26 AM on 5 January 2011Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
Can we add "Tales from the thermometer" to the top? http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090216121919/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2006/11/08/tales-from-the-thermometer/ It's the one referenced in the "Temp Record is Unreliable" post, but the link doesn't work, the replay machine did find it as above, though... ThanksModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thanks, I'll take care of it! -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:25 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
To follow up on dhogaza... Or maybe scientists should not make any predictions about anything. All systems at their core are chaotic. That means it's impossible to know anything to a level of certainty that we could ever act upon anything, ever. Okay, I'm going back to bed now. No point in doing anything because I can not have certainty about anything I'm going to do today. //Sarcasm off// I can hardly count the places I've read about uncertainties or lectures I've listened to on uncertainties related to climate change. Some here will remember that I did a count of the number of times the word "uncertainty" was used in the WG1 report of AR4 (the number was larger than the number of pages in the report). All of life is a game of how we act upon uncertainties. The uncertainties related to climate are low enough that we should, as a broader society, be making concerted efforts to avoid the potential outcomes that we face. From the standpoint of uncertainties, this is a no-brainer. -
DSL at 06:15 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Snowhare -- fist-bump on the Asimov essay. His non-fiction is badly neglected. -
dhogaza at 05:21 AM on 5 January 2011A Positive Outlook For Clouds
"See Second Law of thermodynamics for a thorough discussion of this question. Hopefully, we don't have to reinvent this wheel." Staples might also want to visit Science of Doom, which has dissected the bogus second law arguments in excruciating detail. -
dhogaza at 05:18 AM on 5 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
"This reminds me of surfacestations.org repeatedly threatening to expose the soft underbelly of the USA SAT record. In the end it was Menne et al (real, working scientists), who actually did the number crunching and research and published a paper in the peer-reviewed literature on the reliability of the US temperature record." For the heck of it, I visited surfacestations.org. Here's the lead: "NEWS Updated 07/16/2009" That's 18 months ago. Tee-hee! -
Albatross at 05:17 AM on 5 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Arus@160, "I believe in AGW, and there is no hard evidence yet that it has either stopped or slowed down," Thanks for answering the question. It appears to me though that your posts here are not consistent with that position. Also, as Alec points out @162, until now it has been incredibly difficult to determine exactly what your position is. "I think the purpose of these two rather aggressive and hostile comments must be to get rid of all opposition, so that everybody here agrees about everything" I save us the "surprise" at the alleged "aggressive" comments-- a perusal of this thread shows that you are not innocent in all this. It is no wonder that people have grown extremely tired of playing the same game of whack-a-mole with contrarians over the years. In fact, people here have been tolerant of your posts, and you have made many posts. All we ask is that you bring some constructive and substantive to the table. Requesting that is not unreasonable. And nobody has been trying to "get rid of all opposition". Early in your post @161 you agreed that AGW has not stopped or slowed down (on that we agree), and yet, later in the same post you claim that SS is trying to get rid of 'opposition'. How can SS posters like me be guilty of that when (a) you are allegedly in agreement regarding the topic of this thread (i.e., there is actually no opposition), and (b) when you have had the opportunity to post so many comments? "But what then would you debate about, with whom, and why? Anyway, I am out of here. Healthy (and oftentimes vigorous) scientific debate continues daily in coffee rooms, journals, talks, and at conferences. You, on the other hand, seem to be here solely for the sake of arguing because some has to. That is not constructive debate. Pick your battles, but be prepared to back up your assertions with data, science and the scientific literature. -
dhogaza at 04:58 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
"Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors." Tell that to all those Europeans who schedule month-long vacations each and every July or August ... -
Ron Crouch at 04:51 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Casino managers may not be able to predict actual profit and loss margins, and they don't need to. I'm afraid that the gambling that takes place in a casino has a lot less unknowns or not understood factors as is submitted. The odds are always stacked in the casino's favour. Therefore a casino manager can always predict with confidence that the casino will make a profit. I have found that the majority of those seriously studying climate science are much more cautious about such claims. That's why most climate scientists talk about "range of possibilities". While a climate scientist may not be able to specify the exact nature of what the future ramifications of climate change might be, he/she can certainly predict with confidence based upon the preponderance of evidence that change can be expected. And I've never run across a serious scientist who would dispute that there are unknown unknowns. I can use a weather forecast as an example. A forecast is nothing more than a prediction based upon certain knowns that are subject to the influences of unknowns. So if a forecast calls for a high of 30C and the actual temperature at that location for that day registers at 32C, does this mean that we should have no confidence in the forecasts being produced? Certainly not. Therefore I submit that Kelvin's fallacy does not apply here. -
Alec Cowan at 04:29 AM on 5 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
@Argus #161 If that's your position -which I can't share with intellectual honesty- there's still the matter of what argumentation are you trying to do with this long thread of comments to this post. It all looks fuzzy, like a bunch of examples of heights and lows that should make somebody think that while the sound of clanging may be heard, there's still a possibility to win some kind of battle. I prefer you to explain it, but we could also start a careful analysis of what you wrote here. -
muoncounter at 04:25 AM on 5 January 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
"It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors" It was the consensus (bad word) of this thread that weather is chaotic, while climate is not. In each of Ned's examples, there will be times and locations where the weather varies due to local conditions and is therefore difficult to predict. However, the overall pattern and trend is well-determined from the conditions in each case. See the wiki article on chaos theory for other examples and an explanation of the specific meaning of 'chaotic' in the scientific sense. In short, complicated does not equal chaotic. -
Ned at 04:18 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Phila's suggestion is a very good one. I've replied to fdijkstra's claim over in the thread Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?. -
Ned at 04:13 AM on 5 January 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
In another thread, fdijkstra writes: Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. That is silly, as a moment's reflection would have told you. Would you seriously object to any of the following predictions? (1) On average, in 2011, the Arctic and the Antarctic will be cooler than the tropics. (2) On average, in 2011, regions lying in the Intertropical Convergence Zone will have higher precipitation than regions lying at the poleward edge of the Hadley Cell. (3) On average, in 2011, the northern hemisphere will be warmer in July than in December, while the southern hemisphere will show the opposite seasonality. Those are all very specific, quantifiable predictions about the climate (well, #2 would require some complicated definitions to quantify...). I suspect that virtually everyone who understands the basics of the Earth's climate would agree that all three of those predictions are reasonable. OK, how about these predictions: (4) In the absence of any other countervailing forcings, an instantaneous 25% decrease in solar irradiance, sustained for a century, would cause the Earth's mean surface temperature to decrease and the extent of sea ice to increase. (5) A volcanic eruption or large asteroid impact that injected a large quantity of aerosols into the stratosphere would also cause the Earth's mean surface temperature to decrease. Those are slightly more complicated predictions, but still things that pretty much everyone would agree with. Again, they are based on conceptual or numerical models of the climate system. From here, one could move to more detailed and more complex predictions. Naturally, we will be less confident in our predictions as they get more specific in terms of time, place, and phenomena. That's OK, everyone understands that. The claim that somehow the climate is just too complicated to predict is just plain wrong. We can make simple predictions with a very high degree of confidence, and more specific predictions with correspondingly greater uncertainty. -
Glaciers are growing
rockpicker - As addressed on this topic with multiple papers and lots of data, glaciers are not growing. There's also no indication that the level of undersea volcanism has changed in the last 100 years or so - and geothermal inputs are on the order of ~1% those of greenhouse gas effects. So changes in undersea volcanism isn't driving oceanic warming. Dr. Tim Ball is not what I would call a reliable source - he chairs the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which is apparently run by energy industry lobbyists, as well as being one of the best known members of the Friends of Science group. He's a well known climate change skeptic with ties to industrial groups. I'll also point out that a show which "...is a broadcast vehicle for introducing new and ancient knowledge, solutions, discoveries, and compelling stories" doesn't sound like a great scientific forum - it sounds like something closer to "Ripleys Believe It Or Not!". -
caerbannog at 04:06 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. The illusion that the climate can be predicted is an example of Kelvin's fallacy: the assumption that there are no unknown unknowns. Casino managers should not make any predictions about revenue. No loss predictions, no profit predictions, because any particular gambler's winnings/losses are unpredictable. A casino is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. The illusion that the a casino's earnings can be predicted is an example of Kelvin's fallacy: the assumption that there are no unknown unknowns. -
rockpicker at 03:54 AM on 5 January 2011Glaciers are growing
http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2010/timball2/ Dr. Tim Ball was interviewed by Kim Greenhouse on her program on Dec. 10, 2010. He said world glacier ice mass is currently growing, and he talked about the contribution undersea vulcanism is making to oceanic warming. Can you address these issues? -
Ron Crouch at 03:47 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Someone earlier suggested that the Gulf Stream was slowing. I've not seen anything in press that supports this. However there may have been some changes to the Labrador Current since the 1970's that requires further studies in order to deduce the implications. More on this: Atlantic currents have seen 'drastic' changes.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] the Gulf Stream slowing/stopping was a fake story. See here. -
Argus at 03:30 AM on 5 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Alec Cowan 157, - I am rather touched by seeing the effort you have put into finding all my comment numbers. I don't know why you bother asking for an answer from me about #143, but (providing I understand the question correctly) my answer is: instances of record colds do not form evidence of global warming, nor do they form evidence of global cooling. Record highs and record lows are both perfectly compatible with global warming. Albatross 160, - So what is this thread about? What is pertinent? I haven't seen many significant contributions from either side in this thread. As for your earlier question in #122 - ("Has anthropogenic global warming stopped (and by that I do not mean slowed down.) If so, when exactly?") - I believe in AGW, and there is no hard evidence yet that it has either stopped or slowed down, (but I am hoping that it will slow down, and looking at some curves and other diagrams presented, I can sometimes see reasons for hope in the latest decade). I think the purpose of these two rather aggressive and hostile comments must be to get rid of all opposition, so that everybody here agrees about everything. But what then would you debate about, with whom, and why? Anyway, I am out of here. -
Ron Crouch at 03:22 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Part of a pattern that I've seen repeated over and over through the years. Always seems to be a large flurry of this sort of nonsense every time the GOP is gearing up to steer the U.S. away from concrete action on climate change. Brace for a lot more of this type of garbage in the ensuing days as the battle between the GOP and Obama heats up. -
Phila at 03:17 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
fydijkstra #29 Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. Or to put it another way, climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted. Been there, done that. Please do us all a favor and search this site for your pet "skeptical" arguments before posting them. If you must post despite the rebuttals, please do it on the correct thread. -
Alec Cowan at 03:05 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
@fydijkstra #29 Let me analyze your comment: You are using an extended list of buzzwords in a density that is not very common to see (chaotic system, Kelvin's fallacy, El Niño, unreliable datasets, solar minimum) along with your favorite epistemological horse "nobody knows" in a context of add campaigning ("the climate of the next 10 years could bring new surprises" Wow! How deep and precise! And you'll be the most surprised among us) Daniel Baley already set straight your idea of El Niño playing tag as the pursuer and 365-day-long 2010 becoming a warm-to-be year but no. I don't share Daniel's opinion about 2010 being the warmest during the instrumental record. In fact, what I think is worse, it's probably going to be the second many things, not only warmer. You used the buzzwords 'chaotic system' to "extrapolate" the laymen-level meaning of 'chaotic' and substantiate your argument. Your innuendo is that being the flush of a toilet a chaotic system the water can jump and smash all the s*** in your head as 'nobody knows' and the water flowing by the drainage is not an option for this chaotic system. It looks like 'nobody knows' unless you authorize them to know. I don't think so. About the buzzword use of a buzzword concept -the portmanteau 'Kelvin's fallacy'-, you twisted its basic render "rejection in the lack of an explanatory theory" with your see-how-ironic-i-look "assumption that there are no unknown unknowns". Don't agree? Provide then proper links to Kelvin's fallacy. Links with academical value. I will leave aside -by the moment- all the straw you gather to set a fire. -
Albatross at 02:49 AM on 5 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
TTT @82, The whole thing took place in maybe 30 seconds. Honestly TTT, do you know no shame? Your posts now reek of desperation. The exchange (mostly) between Baird and Lindzen lasted 2 min. That was followed by another discussion on the same topic (preponderance of highs versus lows) between Meehl, Cullen and Baird which lasted another 2 min and 30 sec. Total discussion about greater preponderance of highs versus lows was about 4 min and 30 sec. Real scientists keep an open mind about such things. The climate scientists whom I know and work with are inherently open minded and curious. they have also have an insatiable need to solve problem, figure to what is happening and essentially understand how the climate system/biosphere works. Lindzen provided no evidence whatsoever to support his assertion. This reminds me of surfacestations.org repeatedly threatening to expose the soft underbelly of the USA SAT record. In the end it was Menne et al (real, working scientists), who actually did the number crunching and research and published a paper in the peer-reviewed literature on the reliability of the US temperature record. This is most annoying, all it seems "skeptics" have to do is make (sometimes wild) accusations or entertain intriguing hypotheses (for the purpose of sowing doubt), without actually following through. And what dhogaza said--there are multiple, independent lines of evidence that the planet is warming which do not require thermometers. Lindzen, like Watts, is chasing ghosts and, yet again, shamelessly engaging in B.S. -
Albatross at 02:35 AM on 5 January 2011We're heading into cooling
Re @1, "When I read the paper" It would seem not. Thanks Daniel, you beat me to it. -
Albatross at 02:31 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Esop @34, "How on earth has the CRU dataset all of a sudden become more reliable than the much beloved UAH dataset (that is even run by a skeptic). I thought brave skeptics proved the CRU data to be fraudulent in the Climategate scandal?" A most excellent point. Northing new though-- cherry-picking, contradiction and internal consistency appear to be the bread and butter of wannabe skeptics. -
Albatross at 02:26 AM on 5 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
BP and Argus, Please stop obfuscating, arguing strawmen and disrupting this thread and answer this pertinent question here. Thanks. -
Esop at 01:11 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
#29 (fydijkstra): How on earth has the CRU dataset all of a sudden become more reliable than the much beloved UAH dataset (that is even run by a skeptic). I thought brave skeptics proved the CRU data to be fraudulent in the Climategate scandal? Why is it that "skeptics" now all hail the CRU data to be the most accurate? This seems odd, what has changed? Could it have something to do with the fact that CRU don't cover the high Arctic, thus omitting the region that has warmed the fastest, by far, causing a rather large cold bias in the data? -
muoncounter at 00:54 AM on 5 January 2011It's the sun
#770: "not sure that the peak values are the most important. ... from the diagrams in the article in can clearly be seen ..." Figure 5 in the Krivova paper is a graph of UV flux vs. time. In order to represent increasing energy, the area under the curve must increase: either the peaks must be bigger or the width (time duration) of the peaks are broader. The largest peak UV was in 1958 and the time duration of the subsequent cycles is the standard 10-11 years. What part of that is clearly demonstrating your point? If you are saying that the cumulative energy summed over all cycles is increasing, that's obvious. But that sum is not a measure of the energy balance at TOA or in the oceans. Here are the author's conclusions: ... since the LTE approximation underlies the computations of the brightness spectra of different photospheric components, the original version of the model fails in the UV. Although it contributes little to the total irradiance (such that the modelled TSI is nevertheless quite accurate), this wavelegth range on its own is of special interest for climate research due to its important influence on the chemistry and dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere ... -- emphasis added There is no mention of UV contributing to ocean heating. Their "value of about 1.25 W/m2 as our best estimate for the 11-yr averaged increase in the TSI between the end of the Maunder minimum and the end of the 20th century, compared to 1.3 W/m2 derived by Balmaceda et al. [2007] and Krivova et al. [2007]" doesn't specifically say that it increased through the end of the century. Further discussion specific to ocean heat content should go here. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:34 AM on 5 January 2011A Positive Outlook For Clouds
Excuse me, I format the wrong one link: Quantification of DMS aerosol-cloud-climate interactions using ECHAM5-HAMMOZ model in current climate scenario, Thomas et al., 2010.: “The regions with higher DMS ... -
JMurphy at 00:34 AM on 5 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Argus wrote : "It is interesting that you have such exact sociological data on those you categorize as skeptics/deniers. What is the source of that?" So as to not go any more off-topic, or into controversial labels, here are a few links for anyone who wishes to do their own research into those who are into anti-AGW : ExxposeExxon Wikipedia 'Climate Change Denial' Wikipedia 'Opposing scientists' Wikipedia "List of Climate Scientists' Wikipedia 'IPCC WG1 authors Wikipedia 'Merchants of Doubt' IPCC AR5 WG1 Authors It is very easy to work out from those simple links (which lead to loads more) what political persuasions are represented, how many women are involved in this field and how many of them are so-called skeptics. -
JMurphy at 00:19 AM on 5 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Berényi Péter wrote : "It is predicted, indeed. The only problem is warm snow, unlike the one we are having, is called rain." Why do some people prefer newspaper reports of comments by scientists ? Couldn't you find a newspaper report of a paper which suggests what you are hoping to show ? Berényi Péter wrote : "Let's be a bit more specific. Currently it is colder than average everywhere, except in some regions where no one lives and where "warmer than average" is still damn cold." "Let's be a bit more specific" without actually specifying anything in particular ? Right Berényi Péter wrote : "Now, that's preposterous. You should immediately provide peer reviewed references to support this abominable insinuation." My last off-topic comment on this : if you'd read the article, you would have seen that the study in question is being peer-reviewed prior to publication. I wonder if you will still call it an "abominable insinuation" then ? -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 23:19 PM on 4 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Weather might be hard to predict sometimes. Climate is easier to predict. So far the predictions of the way the climate is likely to change here in Australia are spot on. It's going to have more wet up north and more droughts and hotter down south. When it does rain it's likely to be heavier downpours. And this is just what has been happening. The world-wide pattern of warming is fairly close to predictions as well, except the changes seem to be happening just a tad faster than some people expected, mainly because we've chosen the higher emissions path while many people thought we'd act sooner to cut emissions. It would be nice if it were more like economic predictions where people take action when there are dire economic predictions so that they don't eventuate as often. If we all took enough action quickly enough, we might avert the worst case scenarios. At the moment the worst case seems to be the one we're choosing to follow, given that predictions are based on assumptions about emissions. -
Exxonwhereareyourmoney? at 23:15 PM on 4 January 2011It's the sun
#770 Update: here is a couple of figures showing the latest (corrected) data on energy content of the oceans (one together with GISS-projections). http://i47.tinypic.com/20kvhwn.png http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.htmlModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Further discussion on ocean heat content should go on a more relevant page. Use the search function in the upper left corner of every page to find a more appropriate thread if continuing a discussion of OHC is your intent. Thanks! -
Alec Cowan at 23:08 PM on 4 January 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
@vank #69 Thank you. You have expressed your ideas and background quite clearly. The right answer would have been an epistemologically valid argumentation and inference departing from your CO2 similar levels. You were asked that before and avoided to provide it. Now, confronted with your "trick" you abandon all doodles in climate science and answer in a proficient way about "tricks" including what I suppose to be an expression proper of the "trade". Keep this coming and thank you again. I need for my students more material like your posts, which are very juicy for that purpose. -
Exxonwhereareyourmoney? at 22:53 PM on 4 January 2011It's the sun
#769 I´m not sure that the peak values are the most important. The oceans are acting as large integrators and from the diagrams in the article in can clearly be seen that the overall imparted energy has increased (from the UV-band) until about the year 2000. Since UV have a higher penetrability than light in the oceans it is not strange to assume that variations in UV energy fluence may have some impact on the total energy content. The decrease in energy fluence after approx. 2000 is consistent from what is observed, i.e a stable decrease in ocean energy content (since 2002-03). This may eventually have an impact on the surface temperatures as well. (The word "may" should be used more often in climate science considering the uncertainties).Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Your own linked graphic you provide in 771 below shows the fallacy of focusing on short time scales:
Datasets are noisy; the overall trend is up, like global temps. -
Alec Cowan at 22:53 PM on 4 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
@Argus #155 "Alec Cowan, I have no response to that - I was just challenged to produce some data." I think you were challenged to make some sense before of that. I fail to understand the purpose of your comments #19, #43, #64, #74, #78, #80, #89, #90, #92, #93, #94, #114, #116, #120, #121, #141, #142 (and counting). There's a lot of things going on there but all seems to be summarized in "hey, hey, look this", "I don't like what you are saying", and probably some pleasure of getting +50 replies to your comments. Can you state your point in a nutshell (be aware I don't even use your 'scientifically') provided you can't even answer #143.
Prev 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Next
