Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Next
Comments 99851 to 99900:
-
Bibliovermis at 08:05 AM on 2 January 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
Today is not 1950, it is 2011. The CO2 levels are higher now than they've been in the whole record of the Vostok ice cores. To say otherwise is denial, plain and simple. To talk about 1950 levels in a discussion concerning today is nothing but misdirection. The spikes were caused by net oceanic outgassing in response to increased solar irradiance from the Milankovitch cycles (orbital variation). The oceans and terrestrial biomes are currently net sinks. The primary source references to validate this claim are available elsewhere on this site. Please post any questions and responses on this matter under those entries. -
vank at 07:43 AM on 2 January 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
The question stands (still...). 130000 years ago CO2 levels = 1950 230000 years ago CO2 levels = 1950 330000 years ago CO2 levels = 1950 If we are raising CO2 levels today who did 1/4 of a million years ago? Thats all i m asking PS muoncounter since the ice cores and data are from Vostok Antarctica research station and if the ice there is melting away lets pay the last tribute to the station, (perhaps they will drill for soil cores in few years) and write here... hope thats ok with uModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Ask a question, get an answer. If you want to be taken seriously, when you do get an answer and it contains linked references for you to read as homework it is then incumbent upon you to do that homework. Muoncounter was kind enough to give you some linked references for your gaining an understanding of the subject of your question. Please read them & ask questions on those threads if you have questions therein. Also please read this link as well. Thanks! -
dana1981 at 07:27 AM on 2 January 2011Italian translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
Great language for the first Guide translation. Italian is awesome! -
eldorado2768 at 07:26 AM on 2 January 2011Arctic Ice Part 2: A Review of Factors Contributing to the Recent Decline in Arctic Ice
Could someone please comment on this satellite data which appears to show increase in arctic ice thickness over 2 year period from 2008-2010. PIPS Data -
dhogaza at 07:06 AM on 2 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
BP: "Currently it is colder than average everywhere, except in some regions where no one lives..." Yesterday was 6 degrees warmer than average in NY City, and a couple of days ago it was well above average in London. Obviously he's never been to NYC or London, or else he wouldn't make the outrageous claim that "no one lives there". -
Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Berényi - Regarding your claims that specific humidity is decreasing in the Arctic: Given that Trenberth recently stated that global water vapor has increased by 4% over the last 30 years (roughly the volume of Lake Erie), I find it difficult to believe that absolute humidity (the water vapor in the atmospheric column, and sets the WV greenhouse level) has decreased over the Arctic, although specific humidity (relative to what the air can hold) certainly might as the Arctic heats up. Again - can you point to any data supporting this position? In particular, if there is data indicating a specific humidity drop, does that represent an absolute humidity decrease as well? -
Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Berényi - Your statement "Currently it is colder than average everywhere, except in some regions where no one lives and where "warmer than average" is still damn cold" could well be considered a class example of the Cherry Picking fallacy, with a slight admixture of It's not bad. Some regions are colder, some are hotter - weather patterns are changing. The full data for the globe indicates increasing temperatures. Significantly increased temperatures (even if they are still cold from your perspective) are leading to ice deposition/melt rate changes; we're looking at long term albedo changes (highly positive feedback) and sea level rise. Personally, I consider those significant issues. Can you point to data that indicates that it's "colder than average everywhere?" Perhaps from this site, or somewhere else with a reasonable amount of data? I'm also interested in any data demonstrating your claims that specific humidity (or much more importantly, absolute humidity) is decreasing on a large scale, whether in polar regions or elsewhere. Can you point to the data in that regard? I have not heard this statement elsewhere. -
Paul Barry at 05:14 AM on 2 January 2011The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
Eric, Thanks for that additional graph. It follows with what has been said in the comments above. I've no trouble imagining how ENSO causes variability - steps in the progression of ocean warming. The problem is still the relative scale of these steps. Rob Painting, I think you agree with that too. Of course I'm not skeptical about ocean warming. It's happening. I just want it to see it presented realistically. We know how 'skeptics' behave when they see graphs that are questionable. That graph based on Murphy et al is, I'm afraid, not very realistic. Thanks especially for that last link which I think covers the issue of ocean acidification well. I don't think there is anything wrong with reproducing the particular FAQ entry from that site here which I think is a good explanation. I particularly like the way he throws in some numbers too to give you a sense of proportion: Won’t the CO2 outgas as the oceans begin to warm up, therefore cancelling out the problem? The CO2 content of the surface waters of the oceans responds to both changes in CO2 content of the atmosphere and changes in temperature. For example, if ocean temperatures were not changing, a doubling of preindustrial CO2 levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) would cause an increase in the total amount of dissolved carbon in the surface ocean from about 2002 to 2131 micromoles/kg of seawater (assuming salinity = 35, temperature = 15°C, and alkalinity = 2300 micromoles/kg). If ocean temperatures warmed by 2°C over that period, then less carbon would be taken up (the increase would be from 2002 to 2117 micromoles/kg). Thus, a 2°C increase in temperature results in about a 10% decrease in carbon uptake in surface waters. The expected warming of the oceans also may alter ocean circulation, further reducing their capacity to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, but the excess CO2 will still remain in the atmosphere and drive further acidification. For pH, the net effects of climate warming on atmospheric CO2, CO2 solubility, and chemical speciation approximately cancel out. — Scott Doney, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA; Joan Kleypas, Scientist III, National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA The problem of this apparent contradiction being a stumbling block probably won't arise too often (it's nothing near a killer argument for overall climate-change denial), but if we can answer these kinds question easily without getting grumpy and defensive it does wonders for our ability to convince others that we might know what we are talking about. Something has been achieved here. I think a Skeptical Science guest blog on the complexity of CO2/ocean interaction is in order! Many thanks to all. -
SoundOff at 04:35 AM on 2 January 2011A Positive Outlook For Clouds
Ken Lambert #28, "The equilibrium will never be reached if a positive forcing is sustained." --- As long as no increase in forcing occurs (it is only sustained), equilibrium will reached. This is the very basis of equilibrium. I'm very familiar with Trenberth's figure 4. It's the reason I stated other non-CO2 forcings neutralize each other. We'll just disagree on the "two points in time" issue you’ve raised, as it's not clear to me why this is even a pertinent issue. If two point-in-time temperatures are not a function of any time lapse, only of the forcing, the temperature increase is simply the difference between the two point-in-time temperatures regardless of the time lapse between the two points. Adding in a time lapse is only useful to see the rate of temperature increase. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your issue. -
michael sweet at 04:14 AM on 2 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Argus, I am still waiting for your to produce data on a location that is colder than average. Hot locations support my position that it is still warming. Yesterdays weather map shows a high of 13C for Greenland. So much for cherrypicking a single day. I just report the high for the day we are having a discussion. According to BP's source that is about 16C above normal. The average temperature this month was higher than the normal high temperature. I call that boiling hot. The weekly anomaly graph shows 6-9C hot for this week in coastal Greenland. The original discussion was about global anomalies: it appears that December will be above average, in spite of the strong La Nina that should have made it below average. 2010 will be either the hottest or second hottest on record. Your assertion that December would be cold is wrong. Your assertion that it is not warming is wrong. BP: "Warm snow= rain" Everyone knows that if it is -10C and it warms up 5C it is still cold enough to snow. You are being a pest with your absurd and contradictory arguments. It is a waste of time to respond to the Gish Gallop that you are doing when you are obviously not seriously raising issues. Please do not use up space if you are only trying to be annoying and not contributing to the discussion. Moderators: are Gish Gallops allowed by the comments policy? -
Chris Winter at 03:42 AM on 2 January 2011It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
Link for Tamino's "volcanic lull" page: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/antrhopogenic-global-cooling/ (The transposed letters — antrhopogenic — are in the link.) The URL here (both basic and intermediate) is apparently out of date.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thanks, Chris, for bringing that more recent Tamino post to our attention. Tamino's newer post, which you cite, looks at the overall warming and cooling trends of the 20th Century as a whole and examines supporting evidence to understand them. Anne-Marie Blackburn based this post largely on Tamino's earlier post, Volcanic Lull, which looked specifically at the volcanic contributions to global temps earlier in the 20th Century (I've supplied a working link to it in this response). Future versions of this post will have the correct updated URL in the main text. Thanks for the help! -
Berényi Péter at 03:41 AM on 2 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
#87 Argus at 01:56 AM on 2 January, 2011 It seems that the the vast majority of so-called warmists are also male, so what was it you were trying to hint at? What he is trying to say perhaps is since the vast majority of mathematicians is male, math is also crap. One should go directly after the big picture instead of painstaking obsession with details (called "proofs" by members of that nerdy tribe). The same goes for physicists with all their meticulous experimental & observational hocus-pocus. #65 JMurphy at 23:20 PM on 30 December, 2010 It's also worth trying to think beyond what a so-called skeptic would call his (let's face it, the vast majority of them are male) world - what he can see out of his window and what he has experienced personally. Doing this will allow one to look at the heavy precipitation as snow in the Northern Hemisphere and the heavy precipitation as rain in the Southern Hemisphere. Are they linked in some way? Is this more evidence of the increase in precipitation predicted as the world warms? It is predicted, indeed. The only problem is warm snow, unlike the one we are having, is called rain. It also allows you to understand why it can be very cold around your own locale, while the world as a whole is warmer than average. 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. As I say, it's very difficult to persuade any so-called skeptic who is set in his ways and who cannot think outside his own boundaries. Perhaps it is linked to a report I read about recently, which seems to suggest that people of a certain (right-wing) perspective had a "more pronounced amygdala – a primitive part of the brain associated with emotion...". Now, that's preposterous. You should immediately provide peer reviewed references to support this abominable insinuation. -
Argus at 03:33 AM on 2 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
archiesteel #83: "That's for the entire month, Argus. The average for December 30 is closer to -7 and -8C." From where did you get this particular average? It does not seem to agree with this link: http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/index/gronland/klimanormaler-gl.htm Also, a Happy New Year to you and the other debaters on this friendly website, and a pleasant winter to the inhabitants of Qeqertarsuatsiaat and Ittoqqortoormiit! -
Argus at 03:20 AM on 2 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
muoncounter, #89: "The question of this thread will not be solved by dueling with weather reports. Yet you gave weather reports here and here." Are you serious? I was inundated by weather reports and weather maps from frantic so-called warmists, who were trying to impress me with hot spots and odd temperature readings on Greenland and in remote parts of Canada. I was simply replying to a couple of them. -
Argus at 03:09 AM on 2 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Ganesha, #84: "- Are you claiming that thermal radiation is "target-aware" and will not radiate in the direction of any body that is "colder"? Can you clearly describe how that mechanism works? And is there a limit to the distance by which object one's thermal emissions will be "aware" of a "colder" body that might be in the path of its thermal radiation?" I don't quite understand the question. When you write "colder", do you really mean "warmer"? Anyway, there is no selective mechanism involved in heat radiation. Any body warmer than absolute zero radiates heat in all directions, in varying amounts and in varying frequencies depending on body temperature. If two similar bodies (with different temperatures) are near each other, both will radiate heat in all directions (also onto each other), but the net heat transfer between them will still be from the warmer one to the colder one, because the warmer one sends more than it receives, and the other one receives more than it sends. -
muoncounter at 02:55 AM on 2 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
#89: "So what? It's just weather." Indeed. The question of this thread will not be solved by dueling with weather reports. Yet you gave weather reports here and here. But 'tis the season. In these dark days of winter, skeptics and their denialist shadows love the weather reports. Which begs the question: Why, come the opposite solstice, do they hide from the harsh glare of summer sun? -
Argus at 02:53 AM on 2 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Albatross, #85: " I cannot understand why you would blindly follow BP's bizarre reasoning and unsubstantiated claims." Can you please tell me, succinctly and scientifically, what is wrong in BP's #73? -
Argus at 02:21 AM on 2 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
archiesteel, #81: "... but ironically, you just proved msweet's point: all the temperatures you provide for the south and west coasts of Greenland are above average." Who said they were not above average? Not me. I simply wanted to show that the cherrypicked freak temperature of +14 was not typical for Greenland at present, which is was he seemed to be implying. Also, no irony here, and I did not "prove" anybody's point, especially not M. Sweet's. It has been somewhat milder along the eastern/southern coast of Greenland lately. So what? It's just weather. -
Alec Cowan at 02:16 AM on 2 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
@Berényi Péter #86 What's the usefulness of that wunderground site? I've just found there some data about my area that contradict each other or are far from the data provided by the local weather service. Supposedly temperature records are unreliable but all of a sudden some picked records from that site made to the rightness of your argumentation. Also, you as a 37° human being living in a planet of 15° averages are commenting about temperatures next to the Arctic Circle, around the Winter solstice, using human representations for comfort -for instance, "warmth"- mixed with data in watt per square meter, all in order to what? misrepresenting the ideas Michael Sweet wrote? C'mon! You surely know better. -
Argus at 01:56 AM on 2 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
JMurphy #65: "...trying to think beyond what a so-called skeptic would call his (let's face it, the vast majority of them are male) world..." It seems that the the vast majority of so-called warmists are also male, so what was it you were trying to hint at? Please elaborate! -
muoncounter at 01:50 AM on 2 January 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
#62: Have a look at Climate's changed before, Correlation between CO2 and temperature and CO2 is not the only driver. "If this was someone's ,say..., bloodpressure chart," Interesting analogy. In those terms, today's records would be the chart of a person who is being given CPR by a hyperactive teenager or perhaps the Incredible Hulk. Please note this thread is about current Antarctic ice loss. One of the links above is a more appropriate place for the 'driver' question. -
Ken Lambert at 01:45 AM on 2 January 2011A Positive Outlook For Clouds
michael sweet #23 "Other threads on Skeptical Science describe this lag as 40 years and more. Thus the 0.8C that we have already measured is due to the CO2 released decades ago. The increase from the last 40 or 60 ppm of CO2 has not yet been seen." I have often thought about this 'temperature lag' and it seems to make intuitive sense until one thinks it through with reference to the first law. As the Earth system (atmosphere, land, oceans, ice) absorbs heat energy from the theorized positive forcing imbalance it either performs phase changes (melts ice or vaporises water) or warms land and water. My understanding is that up to 90% goes into the oceans because the other sinks have little storage capacity and ice melt is a tiny portion of the total energy absorbed. The energy absorbed in the oceans must be obviously taken from the atmosphere and direct radiation via a temp increase in the top layers. Conduction and convection and complex mixing in the oceans will distribute heat and there will be a lag in the spatial distribution of temperature rise, but this process is moving around energy already absorbed in the system. There is no pipeline of energy from 40 years ago which is just arriving now. Your comment: "Thus the 0.8C that we have already measured is due to the CO2 released decades ago. The increase from the last 40 or 60 ppm of CO2 has not yet been seen" - cannot be true if the CO2GHG forcing is continually (in real time) adding energy to the system, because the bulk of that energy can only be stored by temperature rise of real mass mainly in oceans.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] The appropriate thread for discussion of the 40 year lag is The 40 year delay between cause and effect. -
Ken Lambert at 01:12 AM on 2 January 2011A Positive Outlook For Clouds
Soundoff #27 If you have not already done so, I suggest you have a look at this paper: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf In particular Fig 4 which lists the various forcings and the energy equivalents (E20 Joules/year). "Forcing (E) and Temperature (T) are interrelated (E = εσT^4)." What you have quoted is the S-B Eqan for radiative cooling for a body at absolute Temp T in degK. Not the same thing as a temperature increase of the Earth system between two points in time. "If one adds one W/m² of forcing in a single day and sustains that forcing until equilibrium is reached, or one adds the same forcing gradually over a period of 100 years, the end result is the same - the measured temperature of Earth will be ~0.75ºC warmer." I don't think so. The equilibrium will never be reached if a positive forcing is sustained. As temperature rises S-B radiative cooling (currently a climate response feedback of -2.8W/sq.m as per the above paper) increases with absolute T^4 and the forcing gap closes until it approaches zero - at which time the temperature approaches a new higher equilibrium. -
Berényi Péter at 01:07 AM on 2 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
#75 michael sweet at 22:54 PM on 31 December, 2010 Maybe all that heat is going to melt the ice in Greenland. According to this weather map the high temperature in Greenland was +14C yesterday. They measured a minimum temperature at the same location of +10C--> this is Greenland we are talking about. It has been over 0C most of this year. That must be in the vicinity of Narsarsuaq Airport (Mittarfik Narsarsuaq, 61.16083°N, 45.42556°W), close to the southern tip of the island. As you can see there's no ice there to be melted. Here is the December 2010 weather record for Narsarsuaq, Greenland. There is indeed a "heat wave" there in the last couple of days, but minimum temperature for this month was -11°C while the average is 1°C. Not exactly warm. It is not even a record. On December 21, 2001 maximum temperature was 16°C there. I live at 25 meters above sea level, how about you? It is 106 meters here, why? At Eureka it was 20C higher than normal for the past week !!!
Yes. Maximum temperature for the month there is -4°C, average -25°C, minimum -44°C. There's a warm anomaly there, but no warmth at all.
I still don't get your point. Over the ice sheet it's still damn cold, even if it is warmer than usual.
Snow surface in thermal IR acts pretty much as a blackbody. Radiation flux goes up fast with increasing temperature due to the fourth power temperature dependence of radiation law. It is 240 W/m2 at -18°C and 315 W/m2 at 0°C. With so many dry-freezed patches of air above the region, most of this radiation escapes to space. The tiny portion absorbed in the 14 μm - 16 μm CO2 band is re-radiated by ice needles floating in the air. This radiation has a much broader spectrum, so again, only a tiny fraction is re-trapped by CO2, the rest escapes to space on both sides of this band.
The extra heat transported there from lower latitudes by advection has really nowhere else to go.
-
vank at 00:29 AM on 2 January 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
Well i see one....does anybody else? I see ca.130,000 years ago the same CO2 levels like today, again 230,000 the same levels and 330,000 higher than today. If this was someone's ,say..., bloodpressure chart, i would say this person has elevated bloodpressure every 100,000 years (lol) Its safe to say that if we erase the text from the graph and show it to anyone, everyone would see the pattern. But one question stands and no one can answer.... Ok, humans drive our climate today with CO2 emissions, who was the driver 130,000 years ago and the exact same driver 230,000 years ago and did it again 330,000 years ago? thank you for your time....Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You are very much incorrect about the same CO2 levels as today existing in the timeframes you mention. The graph you refer to had a zero year baseline of 1950, when CO2 levels were much lower than today. See the updated graph I posted in comment 60 above. As for the blood pressure reference, Muoncounter nailed it in Comment 63 below. In fact, see the links Muoncounter cites for the appropriate answers to the rest of your questions. Thanks! -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 23:49 PM on 1 January 2011Italian translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
The French version is almost finished, too. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:54 PM on 1 January 2011NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Muoncounter, those are good questions. I need a better blocking metric than NAO and see if that relates to heat waves and other potential causes like UV. I do know that Antarctica is doing its own thing, as AO has been negative the past two NH winters, AAO has been positive http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/month.aao.gif. -
dhogaza at 15:30 PM on 1 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
"Can anyone enlighten me on the actual facts surrounding this?" Yeah, the Kiwi people were forced to redo their temp reconstruction analysis. The old trend and the new trend are exactly the same to the .01C level. Denialists proclaim victory because ... nothing has changed. -
muoncounter at 15:27 PM on 1 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
#206: "it stands to reason that each year will be warmer than the next until the warming trend ends." That would be nice, if we lived in some kind of cartoon-world, where the requisite laws of cartoon physics apply. However, you may be aware we had a 'Little Ice Age' and have fully recovered from that. So your idea that there's any possibility of monotonically increasing temperatures is not even lukewarm. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:21 PM on 1 January 2011The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
Re: muoncounter (64) More like this. The Yooper -
Matthew at 15:10 PM on 1 January 2011NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Here is what I expect Giss(nasa) 1st warmest year Noaa 2nd the possible 7-9th ranking dec that is possible made it 2nd in my opinion. Uah-2nd...Not going to quite top 1998, but very near it. Rss-2nd or 3rd? I don't even take the UK one serious because it don't include the arctic. -
muoncounter at 15:10 PM on 1 January 2011The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
#62: "Fortunately the planet has actually done the xperiments for us so we do not need to worry about the current theories until they agree with the empirical evidence." Yooper, You missed that last bit. What does it mean? Could he be referring to this experiment? Or maybe this? Happy New Year! -
muoncounter at 14:57 PM on 1 January 2011NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
#157: Eric, I'm just not getting the connection between blocking, UV and the NAO. As I observed in #155, there doesn't seem to be any consistency between NAO and UV. Can you document prior episodes of blocking? Compare those to prior heat waves; see if some kind of chronologic relationship exists? Only then could you unravel what is cause and effect -- and whether the NAO has anything to do with it at all. Recall, too that there are heat waves and droughts in other parts of the world. If it's NAO, then how does it work in Asia or the southern hemisphere? Or does the supposed non-AGW mechanism for all this need to get even more complicated? None of that takes anything away from the observation that extreme weather events, especially heat waves, are consistent with warming. Here is a review of the 2003 European heat wave; both it and 2010 were regional in scope; UHI isn't a factor. Here is a snippet, documenting that it wasn't an urban effect. The 0°C limit rose above 4500 meters elevation for 10 days. This unusual duration increased impacts, especially on shady rock walls at high altitudes, where thaw penetrated considerably deeper than in previous (warm) years and some areas may have been exposed to thawing for the first time. -
Marcus at 14:30 PM on 1 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Thank you for the response Daniel Bailey. So, just like "Climate Gate", this is just another Tempest in a Teacup manufactured by the Denial Industry. Even if they were able to show now warming for the last Century (which they haven't), we already *know* that not every part of the planet has warmed at the same rate-& some small areas have even cooled slightly. What matters is GLOBAL temperatures, something the Denial Crowd never seem to quite grasp. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:25 PM on 1 January 2011The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
Re: Dung (62) OK, let's do something differently: Debunking back to front this time!"The science suggesting that man is warming the planet and that this is happening through increasing Greenhouse gases is theory, it is not tested/proven experimentally/empirically."
Wrong. Science has known about the GHG properties of CO2 for over 150 years, in theory, experimentally and empirically. That the planet is warming is accepted fact. That man is the cause of it is over 90% certain (google the National Academy of Sciences position statement on this)."Secondly even if there WAS a consensus on the scientific basis for AGW (which I do not agree exists) it would be irelevant."
Wrong again. All right, I'll help ya out. That consensus statement can be found here."Firstly the raw temperature data from around the planet does not support the claim that there is ANY warming going on. Only after NASA or the UEA have "ahem" adjusted the data does warming appear."
Strike Three. See, actual scientists use temperature anomalies (deviations from established norms) so they can actually find out the answers to questions like that. There's no mystical mumbo-jumbo going on. anyone with a modicum of computer skills can google the wiki page on temperature datasets and adjustments & find that out for themselves. Or you can just look at the summary of all of them here:
(using the 133-month average filters out the noise effects of the solar cycle, revealing the signal in the data)
Either the sky in your world is a different color or you've been feed a long line of hoo-hah. But don't take my word on it. Everything you need to find out the truth for yourself on things climate-related you have available with a few mouseclicks.
The only remaining question is this:
1. Are you really interested in thinking for yourself?
or
2. Are you content to have others do your thinking for you?
If the answer is Yes to number one, a good start can be had by going here first and then here.
Your call.
The Yooper
-
Marcus at 13:23 PM on 1 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Hey guys. I read some crap about this so-called "Kiwi-Gate", from back in October 2010. It has something to do with a "Skeptic" Group taking the NZ meteorological society to court. Can anyone enlighten me on the actual facts surrounding this? The only place I see it mentioned are on Denialist Web-sites, so its hard to be sure if its even real (if it was, then The Australian failed to pick up on it-which is unusual for a Murdoch Rag). -
co2isnotevil at 13:01 PM on 1 January 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
How about this one-sided moderation, Huh? You made my point about one sided review ...Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] And your point is...? Only comments in violation of the Comments Policy get deleted. Stay on topic, accept responsibility for the content of your comments and bring a strong logically constructed argument with links to peer-reviewed supporting sources to lend credibility. Blaming moderators, being off-topic and saying inflammatory things about others mandates moderator intervention. That's life. -
Dung at 12:46 PM on 1 January 2011The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
Strangely (as an AGW sceptic) I agree that it is the science that divides us on AGW. Firstly the raw temperature data from around the planet does not support the claim that there is ANY warming going on. Only after NASA or the UEA have "ahem" adjusted the data does warming appear. Secondly even if there WAS a consensus on the scientific basis for AGW (which I do not agree exists) it would be irelevant. The science suggesting that man is warming the planet and that this is happening through increasing Greenhouse gases is theory, it is not tested/proven experimentally/empirically. Fortunately the planet has actually done the xperiments for us so we do not need to worry about the current theories until they agree with the empirical evidence. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:20 PM on 1 January 2011NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Albatross, my goal is to explain causes of blocking. Ice free Arctic is at best only a partial cause, or perhaps a factor in lengthening or deepening the blocking. I agree with the rest of your summary regarding the role of CO2 warming in making heat waves worse. As I pointed out in 51, 56 and earlier, record highs are not corrected for UHIE like average temperatures are, so the numbers of record highs is higher and record lows is lower because of UHIE. Muoncounter, a theory of blocking requires more than just a powerful forcing from CO2. The theory proposed in your link in 149 is a reinforcing, not a cause. On another thread you mentioned something about how skeptics are treating winter differently. It is different although some underlying mechanisms might be the same. In winter it might be that the lack of sea ice determines the placement of highs and lows and performs a reinforcement like warmer sea surfaces in summer (from 149). Still that begs for a causal explanation that was present before AGW played any role. NAO is one measurement of blocking, the lower the NAO, the more the blocking. There are other measurements. UV heats the stratosphere, see http://www.springerlink.com/content/h0q4h17u4632671v/fulltext.pdf Low UV cools the stratosphere along with GHG increases, that gives the potential of reinforcing by AGW. Seasonally the solar role would be greater in NH summer. Cooling of the stratosphere and blocking are both cause and effect (see http://ams.confex.com/ams/16Fluid/techprogram/paper_124458.htm) so it seems that the spatial variation in stratospheric temperature plays the greatest role in producing and sustaining blocking events. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:45 AM on 1 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
I lost interest half way through Monckton convoluted excuse for claiming to be what he's not. I'll take the word of the House of Lords vs his any time. However, this has no bearing on the vacuity of his arguments, which has been thoroughly exposed, nor does it lend more credence to the gross misrepresentation and deception that he has made his trade. -
adelady at 10:11 AM on 1 January 2011It's cooling
@101, thanks a lot, albatross. I've been a bit down lately with the amount of persistent rot-postings here. Inviting another one looks almost like masochism. Back to Chris's problem. The friend seems not to have provided names or references for this assemblage of learned persons. My response to this on other sites is to ask for names - I can do the scholar and general google searching thereafter myself. Chris cannot possibly deal with the mindset or the ideology or the paranoia. The strategy is simply to focus on specifics. And show a proper regard for facts - "I found this paper by A Williams, is that the one you meant?" Remember, you're not looking for a road to Damascus moment for this particular person. You're looking to chip away at the edges of their certainty about particulars, a.n.d. , to display to any observers of the exchange which of you has a better grasp of the correct way to find and interpret facts about science. -
muoncounter at 09:56 AM on 1 January 2011It's freaking cold!
#73: See earlier comments. Interesting how the deniers use the jetstream to 'explain away' summer heat waves, but in the winter, they call it 'climate astrology'. How do you spell 'double standard'? -
Rob Painting at 09:37 AM on 1 January 2011It's cooling
Chris @ 100 - where's the evidence from those scientists that the Earth is cooling?. Not the UK or parts of the US in winter, the Earth. -
SoundOff at 09:24 AM on 1 January 2011A Positive Outlook For Clouds
The goal of my calculation was to test whether the consensus 3ºC climate sensitivity figure for a doubling of CO2 (~0.75ºC per W/m²) is reasonable. Forcing (E) and Temperature (T) are interrelated (E = εσT^4). Time does not play a part in this relationship at the planetary level. Time is only needed to allow equilibrium to be reached so we can see the new temperature properly reflected in surface measurements. A 36-year period should allow that to happen. If one adds one W/m² of forcing in a single day and sustains that forcing until equilibrium is reached, or one adds the same forcing gradually over a period of 100 years, the end result is the same - the measured temperature of Earth will be ~0.75ºC warmer. The continuous warming that occurs over the much longer period is constantly radiated away into space leaving 0.75ºC for us to measure at the end of that period. The time for which the forcing is applied is not relevant to the calculation. As I stated earlier, other non-CO2 forcings neutralize each other (by chance) so they don't really need to be accounted for separately in my rough calculation, and 0.75ºC per W/m² is assumed to reflect all feedbacks, both positive and negative, well-defined or unknown. It is this assumption that I'm testing against reality. In all likelihood, the period for which I calculated the expected warming of 0.67ºC had/has both 0.5ºC of committed warming in the pipe at the start and end of the period, effectively allowing me to see a clear CO2 effect in surface temperatures without waiting for equilibrium to settle in and reflect what's still in the pipe at the end (i.e. the two cancelled). I'm not saying my calculation is proof of the consensus 3ºC climate sensitivity figure. I'm just showing that applying that figure in the standard forcing calculation gives an expected result that's consistent with the observed result. Had the results been wildly different, then I'd be wondering if our scientific understanding is correct. I'm sure if I tried the same calculation with shorter periods or periods before 1975, the result would not match so well. My explanation for that would be to say that CO2 needs to be the dominant driver of temperatures to see the effect clearly. My understanding is that CO2 has been dominant since 1975. -
Albatross at 09:12 AM on 1 January 2011It's cooling
Chris @100, IMHO, this is a no win for you. Your friend has clearly made up his/her mind that some conspiracy is afoot; so no matter how much science, data and reason you provide, s/he will just keep moving the goal posts or arguing strawmen or claiming there is a conspiracy going on. I my experience, people like this never concede a thing, and have no interest in the "truth", but only the "truth" as they perceive it. I sense a lot of bluster and extremely little, if any, substance in his/her rant. Rather it is just another long list of common (and predictable) misinformation being parroted from places like ClimateDepot. I might regret this, but perhaps the best thing to do is to urge/challenge him/her to post here. That way we can address each and every misguided, unsubstantiated and incorrect assertion they make. Also, it will force him/her to put their money where their mouth is. -
Daniel Bailey at 09:09 AM on 1 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
Dorianmc forgets (or is unaware) of the multiple layers of the atmosphere and that at the level of the TOA, convection is largely non-existent and radiative transfer rules. And that at no point in the last several interglacials did CO2 concentrations ever approach what they are today, heightening the importance of back radiation. Also remember that the zero baseline of Petit 2000 was 1950. Let's take a look at that whole timeframe, extending it to today's CO2 levels:
A re-watching of Alley's talk would be instructive here.
The Yooper
-
Trueofvoice at 08:42 AM on 1 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
Dorianmc, Firstly, who said we were undergoing runaway temperature increases? So far warming has been very tightly controlled, doing pretty much what climatologists said it would do in reaction to increasing CO2 levels. Secondly, we're in the middle of an interglacial period that should be cooling according to natural forcings, but it isn't. Temperature is spiking rapidly on a geological timescale. Thirdly, exactly how do you know that radiative transfer is "meager"? And what gives you the bizarre idea that convection isn't taken into account? Which model states that only radiative effects are taken into consideration? Your previous post is a rambling mess of assertion. -
dorianmc at 08:27 AM on 1 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
Have any of those individuals pointing to the “Petit 2000” graph actually bothered to look at it and study what it means? According to the graph if you move backward through time to "now" you see a rapid increase in temperature - consistent with other ice ages - but the highest temperature reached, during the present temperature increase period, never reaches the same high it reached in previous ice ages. The high in previous periods is over 3 deg above the baseline whereas it is less than 2 deg above the baseline for the present. How can anybody interpret this as a temperature rise that’s out of control? If we’re in the middle of a glacial warming period it stands to reason that each year will be warmer than the next until the warming trend ends. BTW: The most efficient way to transfer thermal energy is by convection. If you remember your physics there are three ways to transfer thermal energy – radiation, conduction and convection. Why does the GW model only consider the meager role of radiation heat transfer when convection heat transfer is far more efficient? -
Chris3699 at 08:01 AM on 1 January 2011It's cooling
Thanks for the responses Archiesteel & Bipliovermis. I directed my friend to this thread and this was his response: "Well, I followed the link you provided to the Skeptical Science site and I read what they had to say about the assertion that the earth is in a current cooling trend. I really don’t see what you see in the site? I provided you with a long list of scientists who are in agreement that the earth is cooling and skeptical science writes: “Whilst it’s natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves.” Yes … they thought of that! In fact it was a thorough study of temperatures from the sources listed that brought the list of scientists to the conclusion that the earth is in a cooling trend. This is a good example of the “Straw man” arguments put up by many Global Warmers. The Skeptical Science author implies that people who believe the earth is cooling just haven’t thought of measuring things like ocean temperature. Then he steps in and provides the easy answer to the ravings of the lunatic scientific fringe, “They only look at air temperature! They need to check the oceans!” Ahhh, thank you oh wise one! Of course, anyone who actually looked at the research being conducted by vast numbers of scientists all over the world would understand that their temperature data was amassed from a wide sampling. Also, and I mention this only in passing, anyone who even casually read the emails from the University at East Anglia would know that a major concern that the top Global Warming scientists had (Their research went directly to the U.N.) was that they had no data showing a heating planet and therefore conspired to destroy the data they had. They did in fact destroy and manipulate their data, ultimately resulting in a number of firings. I’m absolutely loving watching Global Warmers explain the current cold snap. The problem, of course, is that Global Warmers had been predicting heat …hence the name, Global “Warming.” So now Global Warmers must emphasize that hey, a few years or even a decade or longer means nothing, what really counts is the long term trend! Here’s how Skeptical Science put it: “For climate change, it is the long term trends that are important; measured over decades or more, and those long term trends show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming.” Now, go to the site that Chris linked to and drop down to the graph. Click on anything, Ocean heat Content, Sea Surface, etc. (Strangely, no matter what you click on you’re taken to the same story from the government agency NOAA but remember, “There is no political connection between government and Global Warming scientists” …keep repeating that) Look at the title of the NOAA story, See the word “Decade”? Now I don’t see any Global Warmers criticizing the government agency NOAA for irresponsibly reporting how the earth’s temperature increased over a decade when real science looks at the long term picture. Why is this? Why is it that we see Global Warmers jumping up and down and frothing at the mouth to explain away relatively short term cold spells when a simple Google search will reveal that Global Warmers use ANY sort of heating trend from a lake that appears to be drying up to a hot week in November to try and prove their theory that mankind is dooming the planet? Long term trends are indeed all that are important and real scientists know this. Global Warmers, on the other hand, play both sides of the fence. When things are hot, it’s a sign of the coming apocalypse, when it’s cold, it’s just “weather” that really doesn’t mean anything." -
Alec Cowan at 07:44 AM on 1 January 2011The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
@TÖP #49 At most AGW and GW are different "agendas" to people who only have a life with those. AGW is GW with an specific cause. You know it and you also know you were playing with the ambiguity in your words. Just in case you "won't understand", this is an analytical site that has developed a number of different argumentative lines not only for the sake of analysis but also as a way to neutralize the insidious tactic of the self called global-warming-skepticism, that of "throw(ing) everything at the wall a see what sticks". Following that lines this post offers a depiction including some GW evidence. You simply tried to make the causes of it the argument -a complete offtopic-. You later included Hansen in your plea, what dispels any doubt one can have, methinks.
Prev 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Next
