Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Next
Comments 100551 to 100600:
-
Eric (skeptic) at 16:22 PM on 25 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
muoncounter and Daniel Bailey, thanks, I'll look at those some more tomorrow. On first glance though, those factors are not sufficiently quantified into CO2-doubling-type forcings to get a sensitivity number out of the graph above (not to mention poor granularity, not much of a temperature proxy shown on the graph except glaciated and not glaciated, etc). It might speak to the general argument but is not quantifiable. -
Tom Dayton at 16:19 PM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
I've posted a response to NETDR's claim that CO2 is increasing only linearly rather than exponentially on a far more relevant thread: "CO2 Is Not Increasing."Moderator Response: Good idea; everybody take discussion of that topic to that thread (CO2 is not increasing). -
Eric (skeptic) at 16:08 PM on 25 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, I think your new argument in this thread "I was under the impression that you and everyone else here knows that the climate doesn't do anything but change" is not going to go over too well. For starters there are several threads and hundreds of posts that discuss that topic and rebuttals. If you didn't intend to propose that as a new argument, then you probably need to be more specific. I have done that same thing in the past and probably will do it again by responding to what may seem like a tangent to me, but isn't.Moderator Response: Thanks for helping keep the discussion on topic! For this particular one, how about everybody go to "Climate’s changed before." -
Daniel Bailey at 16:03 PM on 25 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
Re: Eric (skeptic) (14) The biggest obstacle to finding a "smoking gun" (causative mechanism) to end the ice age in question is the granularity of the measurements. Unless we find a datable proxy that catches a mechanism "in the act" we may never know for sure. An example of a postulated "quick" mechanism would be the methane clathrate gun. Recent evidence has been found to support such a mechanism (see free copy here). By no means am I postulating this mechanism is the specific one to end the ice age in question. Just wanted to point out one possible mechanism. Hope this helps, The Yooper -
dhogaza at 15:55 PM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
"In fact until 1978 or so when satellites were launched we had little clue of temperatures up there." Satellite data used for temp reconstruction don't include the Arctic. Gosh, how many time do you want to be wrong in a public forum? -
dhogaza at 15:53 PM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
"Claiming this very slight upward trend offests logarithmic effects of CO2 would be counter-factual." Not at all, the first doubling from industrialization hasn't happened yet, and won't, for some decades. The CO2 forcing and exponential increase in CO2 accumulation are happening on roughly the same time scale. You're starting to be very boring, much like those who argue the earth is flat, or 2+2=5, or pi=3, etc. -
dhogaza at 15:50 PM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
"The rate of accumulation of CO2 is almost linear" Sure, exponential increase can look like that. While it's still exponential ... It's all about timescale. At least you're honest enough to admit it's *not linear* ("almost linear" means "not linear"), despite your subsequence display of ignorance (i.e. that over short terms, an exponential function closely matches a linear one). -
RW1 at 15:22 PM on 25 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
muoncounter (RE: Post 223), I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you and everyone else here knows that the climate doesn't do anything but change. You do understand that even if mankind never emitted a single CO2 molecule, that the climate would still be doing what it has always done - change (go through periods of warming and cooling, etc.)?? A roughly 0.6 C sensitivity is at least as consistent with a 0.8 C rise so far, and probably more so, because 0.8 C is much closer than 3 C.Moderator Response: Comment on that topic in the relevant thread: "Climate’s changed before." -
RW1 at 15:11 PM on 25 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: Post 223), The gain is not a subjective number or "my gain". It's a very simple objective number. You have power coming in from the Sun. Some of that power is reflected back out via the Earth's albedo. The rest of the power "forces" the climate system. The amount of power at the surface is greater than the post albedo power entering the system from the Sun and greater than the power leaving the at the TOA. The surface power divided by the post albedo power is the gain in the system. It's simply a representation of what about each 1 W/m^2 of power coming in is amplified to at the surface due to the greenhouse effect. Power from the Sun is measured in W/m^2. Increased power from CO2 is measured in W/m^2. A watt/meter squared of power is watt per meter squared of power, independent of where it comes from; thus power from the Sun is proportionally the same as power from CO2. -
Tom Dayton at 14:52 PM on 25 December 2010CO2 is not increasing
This is my response to a comment by NETDR on another thread, as my attempt to move that conversation to this appropriate thread. Tamino wrote an excellent post demonstrating that CO2 rise is exponential, not linear. -
caerbannog at 14:51 PM on 25 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Norman said, From 1998 to 2010 the temp trend is negative...cooling phase. OK, Norman... here's an interesting exercise to try. Compute temperature trends for that length of time starting at 1980 and incrementing by 1 year for each new trend computation. (That is, compute the 1980-1992 trend, the 1981-1993 trend, the 1982-1994 trend.... etc, up to the 1998-2010 trend). How much variability do you see in your trend computations? What does that tell you about the robustness of trend computations for such a short time period?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed text. -
caerbannog at 14:18 PM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Ken Lambert said, Deep mixing of the ocean layers is inconsistent with suface layer acidification. Someone here is completely overlooking the concept of time-scales... -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - Sorry, your gain makes no sense whatsoever to me. The energy trapped at the surface is a function of the insolation and the ability of the Earth/atmosphere system to radiate that heat away in a temperature dependent fashion. I think we are all much better served by using the actual relationships there rather than a non-physics based 'gain factor' that isn't actually a constant. There's no difference between insolation changes, aerosol changes, albedo changes, and CO2 changes in terms of forcing beyond their "efficacy", and the only factor with an efficacy close to 1.6 in anyone's estimation (and I consider that an outlier) is cloud albedo (Figure 2.19). -
muoncounter at 13:38 PM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#65: "rate of accumulation of CO2 is almost linear." Interesting; you like the simplest possible answer to science questions, but you'll find the most convoluted interpretation of events and motivations to form your conspiracy theories. That's a hallmark of skeptics: reduce complicated issues to sound-byte size chunks, then repeat the sound byte, even when they are debunked. Very productive. The annual rate of change in atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing; it was 1 ppm/year in the early days of the MLO record, but its been over 2-2.5ppm per year for several years now. It tracks CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption quite well. The recent recession dropped US CO2 emissions slightly in 2009, but didn't faze China and India. Add in the Law Dome CO2 and you have a rapid rate of increase over a short period of time, and yes, that does overcome the log relationship of forcing vs. relative CO2 concentration. A graph of temperature change due to CO2 forcing vs. time is concave up, meaning it has an increasing slope. The rest is off-topic. If you want to debate changes in the Arctic, there are plenty of active threads on that topic. But if 'we had little clue' is all you've got, I wouldn't advise it. -
Ken Lambert at 13:29 PM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Rob H #22 "Small unexplained elements of a theory do not undermine a theory." The three 'inconsistencies' I listed are not 'small'. They go to the heart of AGW theory. What you are suggesting is the 'its there but we just can't measure it' argument which can hardly be called scientific rigour.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Per Rob's comment at 22 above, in order to prove a theory wrong you need to have a competing theory that fully explains all current observations. And it needs to explain them better. You have merely pointed out three areas where the existing theory seeks more robust data, which no one denies. Conflating that into "since we can't know everything therefore we can know nothing" serves no useful purpose. Nor does it add anything to the dialogue, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly on other threads. Please come up with a viable physics-based alternative to AGW which explains what we have known about GHG's for over 150 years which also explains why anthropogenic CO2 doesn't act like the GHG that CO2 already in the carbon cycle does. That would be displaying scientific rigour. Anything less is sophistry. -
muoncounter at 13:23 PM on 25 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
#14: "not with today's ocean turnover rate." Why would you use today's anything rate when talking about 450 mya? The continents were in a completely different configuration; oceanic circulation was vastly different. Here's evidence that the Ordovician ice began forming in a much lower CO2 environment: the evidence suggests that the ice began to build up some 10 million years earlier than when volcanoes began pumping the atmosphere full of the CO2 that ended the Ordovician ice age. "... sounds plausible and simpler. " The answer to this question will not be found in a simple one-size-fits-all model. -
NETDR at 13:15 PM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#64 The rate of accumulation of CO2 is almost linear. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:2010/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:2010/trend #Least squares trend line; slope = 1.43127 per year Admittedly there is a very slight upward trend but worldwide recessions have a way of periodically reducing CO2. Claiming this very slight upward trend offests logarithmic effects of CO2 would be counter-factual. The CRU data set is the longest one we have and arctic temperatures in 1860 are non existent on any data set. In fact until 1978 or so when satellites were launched we had little clue of temperatures up there. -
Ron Crouch at 12:23 PM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Due out in print Jan 2011 How Safe Is Our Food?. An advance Epub from the CDC. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:15 PM on 25 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
muoncounter, thanks for the info. My question was narrower, I just wondered if there was a known CO2 source for the increase 445m years ago in the chart above. dhogaza, it could have come from the oceans, but not with today's ocean turnover rate. Since it took millions of years to vent out (although I'm sure the chart above is fairly crude), the ocean turnover would have to be very slow to very slowly warm and thus very slowly release its CO2. Such slow turnover may be possible with the continents arranged the way rockytom pointed out. Tom's explanation in #11 also sounds plausible and simpler. -
Ron Crouch at 12:04 PM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Rob #32 I agree with the point you are making Rob. I simply wanted to point out that food safety is far less than one might expect, making it a poor example (i.e. 4 of 186 restaurants in my city passed inspection with a full 25% being red carded). Sashimi anyone? -
dhogaza at 11:36 AM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Of course, not only does NETDR cherry-pick his time intervals, he cherry-picks his dataset. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1860/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2010/trend If you use GISTemp things look quite different. As we all know, GISTemp includes an estimate of temperature anomalies in the Arctic, which is warming faster than the rest of the planet, while HADCrut does not. And, of course, climate scienctists understand that CO2 forcing isn't the only thing that impacts temperature, but also that as CO2 forcing increases its effect on temperature is slowly becoming more important than natural variation, one reason why the last 12 years are the warmest on record despite our being in a deep solar minimum. "The rate is gentle and irregular and should slow since the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. So unless the input increases geometrically the rate will slow and it is already too slow for a catastrophe." Exponential, actually, and that happens to be what's happening. NETDR, meet the Keeling Curve -
Bibliovermis at 11:22 AM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
More grasping at straws to support your conspiracy notions. The links section of this site currently shows 396 articles supporting the "it's cooling" argument. The logarithmic effect is being countered with an exponential growth in anthropogenic emissions. Any other conspiracies you want to bring out in to the light? -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:07 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Ron Crouch @ 27... Likewise, there are a great many well tested aircraft that have left the ground with many souls on board not to make it safely back to earth. The point being that everything has risk. Getting out of bed in the morning carries with it risk. But we take great pains to make sure that the things we do involve acceptably low levels of risk. This is the point of the article. At this point the risk models are high and yet we proceed each day as if there were no risk at all. There is one aspect of the risks that I don't think is addressed here. Slow and fast. Eating poisonous food or a crashing airplane is an immediate catastrophe. Climate is a very slow progressing catastrophe. If you are 60 years old today you will likely not see the worst of what is to come. If you are 20 today your situation is vastly different. As well, if you live in a poor nation you are more likely to be affected than if you live in a wealthy nation. The risks involved are very unevenly distributed. -
NETDR at 11:06 AM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
It has warmed. Who says it hasn't . The rate is gentle and irregular and should slow since the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. So unless the input increases geometrically the rate will slow and it is already too slow for a catastrophe. -
Bibliovermis at 11:00 AM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
1978 - 1998 is only 20 years. No matter how hard you insist otherwise, the world has still been warming. The hottest 12 years on the record are the past 12. Do you have a conspiracy notion about that too? -
NETDR at 10:53 AM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Dhogaza #59 The point I was making is that if we have a 30 year cooing or lack of warming the catastrophe in CAGW is nonsense. Notice that it took until 1980 to get as warm as 1940. That has to hurt the overall warming. I was surprised to find that the steep 30 year period from 1978 to 1998 was only 1.2 degrees per century. That was with ocean currents very high sunspots and a monster El Nino. Mother nature was helping all she could and the rate was still low. The reason the last period is only 12 years long is obvious, I will post the rest in 18 years. -
Albatross at 10:29 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
In science you cannot "prove" anything, but you can disprove it. The onus is on the skeptics to disprove AGW. Despite having well over 100 year to do so, the "skeptics" have been unable to refute the theory of AGW/ACC, or offer a reasonable alternate theory that has withstood scrutiny. -
Camburn at 10:27 AM on 25 December 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Has Antarctic Ice been similiar in the recent past? Yes it has, and in fact has prob been lower. http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract?sid=0f422966-63d5-4963-895f-b8a3935beb2d -
dhogaza at 10:00 AM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
"Mojib Latif seems to think that in short time scales like 60 years natural variation is more important than CO2" Mojib Latif has complained loudly and visibly about his views being misconstrued by climate change denialists such as yourself. Please refrain from doing so here. He merely points out that on short time scales like a *few years* (note the lack of caps), not *60 years*, natural variability can swamp the long-term signal. He understands that over periods of two to three decades the signal expresses itself. As for your wood for trees plot, cherry-picking can get you any result you want. Yet, it's interesting that in order to get your result, your first series (1880-1910) is thirty years long and shows a fairly steep decline, your second (1940-1975) is 35 years showing a very slight decline, while your last (1998-2010) is 12 years and is essentially flat. So your own cherry-picking shows these "stalls" in warming switching from leading to a fairly steep decline before anthropogenic CO2 began to kick in in earnest, a slight decline in the 1945-1970 period, and a flat period which you could only get by cherry-picking a short 12 year period. In other words, totally consistent with increased CO2 forcing increasing warming, ... -
piloot at 09:23 AM on 25 December 2010CO2 was higher in the past
Shouldn't the title of the article read "DO high levels of CO2 in the past contradict..." (instead of does)? -
chris at 09:18 AM on 25 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 at 05:24 AM on 25 December, 2010"How do you figure we've had all the warming of a 2 C sensitivity?"
Come on RW1, this was explained here, and here, and here. Remember we're using your own argument, (but doing it correctly). It's very straightforward (use the equation here) to determine the full warming expected at equilibrium from the rise in [CO2] between 1900 and 2000 (the dates you chose yourself). [CO2] in 1900 was 298 ppm. [CO2] in 2000 was 371 ppm. The warming at equilibrium for 3 oC climate sensitivity is 0.95 oC. The warming at equilibrium for 2 oC climate sensitivity is 0.63 oC. The actual temperature rise during this period was 0.75-0.8 oC. In other words we've had all the warming already that we expect from a climate sensitivity of 2 oC (Earth surface temperature rise per doubling of [CO2]), even though the Earth surface hasn't come to equilibrium with the enhanced greenhouse forcing during this period, and even though some of the warming has undoubtedly been countered by the large increase in made made aerosols. We know the solar contribution to warming has been small during this period (very likely less than 0.1 oC) as the very competent solar scientists inform us [see e.g. Lean and Rind (2008) and Hansen et al (2005)]... (and if were being very careful we should factor in the small contribution from man-made rises in methane and nitrous oxides atmospheric concentrations). So your assertion that 20th century warming is "in line with about a 0.6 C upper limit from a doubling of CO2" is clearly incompatible with empirical observations. That should contribute a warming of 0.19 oC at equilibrium from the 20th century rise in [CO2]. If your assertions are so wildly at odds with empirical observations RW1, then there's something very wrong with your argument."How about you explain why the sensitivity numbers I've put forth fit very well with the temperatures differences at perihelion and aphelion..."
I expect the numbers (you got them from someone's website I think) match rather by chance, unfortunately. It’s clear that you haven’t made any headway with your numerology with the set of rather bright individuals who have tried to help you out on this thread! In any case, the dominant effect on the relative hemispheric warming/cooling at aphelion and perihelion is the relative amount of land (low heat capacity) and ocean (high heat capacity) in the two hemispheres. Since the sinusoidal seasonal solar forcing is paced much faster than the Earth (and especially the oceans due to its high heat capacity) can come towards temperature equilibrium with the rapidly varying forcing, there is a strong mismatch between the rates that the hemispheres gain and lose heat. The N hemisphere (lots of land) warms more quickly than does the S hemisphere (90% ocean). Clearly, if one were able to determine climate sensitivity from analysis of the seasonal response to insolation variation there would be a nice body of scientific literature on the subject! There isn't. Unfortunately these analyses are bedevilled by difficulties in determination of the characteristic time constant of the climate system response to forcing. More importantly, the response to the very rapid (monthly) changes in insolation during the Earth's speedy passage around the sun, means that only the elements of the climate system that respond more rapidly are (partially) sampled (atmosphere and land surface). So as described in Foster et al (2008), for example, analysis of transient responses to rapid changes in forcing generally produce climate sensitivities that are biased low relative to the climate sensitivity of interest, namely the full Earth response to a strong, persistent (and progressively increasing) enhanced greenhouse gas forcing. -
NETDR at 09:11 AM on 25 December 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
These subjects blend from one subject to another. How can a conversation with many elements possibly take place ? I came over to the PDO thread but the recovery from the LIA is part of the story. Carrying on a conversation with both elements is impossible and frustrating. #33 The warming may even be due to CO2 who cares ? The overall warming is about 1/2 ° C when the periodic cooling is taken into account. When the maunder minimum was over we started to measure temperature. Thinking all warming was caused by mankind seems contrary to fact. Positive feedback if it exists would multiply solar effects by 3 or more, but it might take time for them to build up. Notice the sunspots increased slowly until the late 2000's, it is an integration not an instantaneous phenomenon. http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html -
NETDR at 08:23 AM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#56 Bibliovermis To me the sine wave is clearly visible. Saying that it would be the consensus view if it were rue is meaningless. Many skeptics like Spencer have written about it also ! Here is even a paper from the University of Alaska which explains it. http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf Here is the data, notice the cooling in 1880 - 1910, 1940 - 1978, and 2000 - present. [Actually the last is lack of warming not actual cooling yet.] Notice that the cooling cycles start about 60 years apart. Mojib Latif seems to think that in short time scales like 60 years natural variation is more important than CO2 and this graph seems to substantiate it. Over the long term there is warming, no doubt but the periodic cooling cycles make a mockery of the catastrophe in CAGW. Here is the temperature from 1860 to present. The 60 year trend is clearly visible to me. I can't understand why you can't see it. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1860/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2010/trend #57 Mouncounter Notice that they all are tenured. For a young person starting out it wouldn't be a good career move. Accepting research funds from big oil would be career suicide. -
muoncounter at 08:08 AM on 25 December 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
#30: "ramp is because of recovery from the Little Ice Age" Even positing that's true for just a sec, what would cause such a thing? "the sine wave is caused by ocean currents. [ADO and PDO]" Which you just said, cannot cause warming. What's nice about AGW as a scientific theory, other than that it's real, is that it explains observed phenomena. Which is important in science. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.Moderator Response: Everybody comment on recovery from the Liitle Ice Age on that thread, not this one. -
muoncounter at 07:49 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
#21: "during a period of maximum CO2 potency, they have risen at a rate of 0.64degrees C per century, and currently show every indication of slowing down." Do try to keep your facts straight. O.14 deg C per decade on the low end; 0.4 deg C per decade may be the new norm. See Assessing global surface temperature. As for 'every indication of slowing down', look here, where the most recent 30 year trend is in excess of 0.5 deg C/decade: that isn't an indication of slowing down. Comments regarding temperature records alone -- off topic for this thread -- should go to one of those or one of the many similar threads. -
muoncounter at 07:30 AM on 25 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#218: "...a representation of how much can be expected to be added on top of natural variation from 2xCO2." There's not currently a 'natural variation' that is doubling CO2. If your model is due to the effects of CO2 only, why do you start with planetary albedo and continue with emissivity? These points of basic physics are not CO2-specific. "The amount of warming we've seen so far is perfectly in line with about a 0.6 C upper limit from a doubling of CO2." Utterly incorrect and shown a number of times in this thread. Look at hfranzen's article; he arrives at 0.14 deg C/decade, which is far more than an 0.6 C sensitivity can produce. His results come from a strictly physics-chemistry calculation. You can't both be correct -- and his work agrees with measurements of temperature increase. -
muoncounter at 07:18 AM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#53: "things happen so slowly that incorrect beliefs aren’t punished for 30 years" That's just ridiculous. Response to a nonsensical hypothesis is swift and sure, thanks to this very medium. Unfortunately, good people get trashed, even before their papers come out in print. "Going along with the consensus is the best career choice in climatology." Then why, according to the deniersphere, are there so many climate scientists who reject AGW? Or is that just another conspiracy? As for your 'sine and ramptheoryidea, perhaps you could email it to John who could post it here. -
Andy Skuce at 07:06 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Long before we had modern science, one of the ways we know whether food was safe was by watching what happened to our neighbour when they ate those tempting red berries. If only we had a neighbouring planet that had quickly consumed all its coal deposits; then we wouldn't need all those GCMs, we could disband the IPCC and James Hansen could spend more time with his grandchildren. Those red berries tasted nice, perhaps the fever that I'm starting to experience means that I should just eat more of them. Um, why are those alien neighbours watching me so closely? -
muoncounter at 07:04 AM on 25 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
#8: "how we got out of the glacial conditions 400m years ago." #10: "where does the CO2 come from?" A large quantity of CO2 was removed from the atmosphere/oceans during this point in the geologic past. It's not a question of where it came from (may have been 'primordial'), but where it went: The widespread deposition of Ordovician marine carbonates (CaCO3) in warm shallow seas. -
RW1 at 06:56 AM on 25 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
johnkg (RE Post 219), Your maths or STILL wrong. CBDunkerson put you right on that way back in post #34. And I then clarified in Post 96 I was referring to the intrinsic response of CO2 - not any additional increase as a result of feedbacks. My statement in #218 is accurate. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:36 AM on 25 December 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Re: netdr (30) Akasofu commits many an error (multiple violations of the top 10 in the upper corner of this page). Trenberth has demolished Akasofu's credibility in the past, as shown here. You grasp at straws, as Bibliovermis details above, and as Stephen Leahy alludes to in his comment here. The Yooper -
caerbannog at 06:33 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Fred Staples said: Now what will happen if the absorptivity of the atmosphere increases again? Nothing will happen. If the atmospheric temperature increased, the outgoing energy to space would be greater than the incoming energy, and it would promptly cool down again. OK, what part of the atmosphere radiates IR directly to space? And as the CO2 concentration increases, what happens to that part of the atmosphere? How will that impact the average temperature at the Earth's surface, and why? If you have even a *very basic* understanding of atmospheric physics, these should be slam-dunk easy questions for you to answer -
Bibliovermis at 06:32 AM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Positing a 60 year temperature cycle that the scientific community is either purposefully ignoring to keep their funding flowing or is too incompetent to see is a perfect example of what this entry is discussing. -
Ron Crouch at 06:27 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
#20 Rob Maple Leaf Foods which has been in business for well over 100 years had a major problem with listeriosis in it's packaged meats in mid 2008 which led to several deaths. Any resulting deaths place such issues far from a tiny risk factor or little concern. I would submit that your food may not be as safe as you might think. Some of you that live in the U.S. might think that the USDA and FDA have your best interests at heart (and they do, but are constrained by the lack of technology). You might be surprised upon closer scrutiny as to just how much tainted stuff is let through. There is a relatively good elementary article on this subject here. -
dhogaza at 06:27 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Clarification - Angstrom wasn't wrong in the context of the experiment he performed, he was wrong in his extrapolation of that experiment to the atmosphere. Here's a summary of the physics involved: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/ -
dhogaza at 06:25 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
"So, in your view of applied science we must test every bridge to destruction before we build it." Strangely enough, that's exactly what's done to bridge components, not to mention every new major airline design (the Boeing 787 project has suffered many delays, one was due to a destruction test showing that stressing the wings caused a failure in the connection to the fuselage at a level of force less than predicted by engineers). A quick read of the rest of your post shows a similar lack of understanding of stuff you talk about. Saturation doesn't not happen in the atmosphere, and the physics showing why Angstrom (who perhaps should've stuck to his unit) was wrong was figured out over FIFTY YEARS AGO.Moderator Response: Don't use all caps. -
Stephen Leahy at 06:21 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Vast majority of climate 'skeptism' has nothing to do with science or evidence. More information or analysis will not help. It is a culture war waged by those adopting neo-conservative values and whose very identity and world view is threatened by the reality of climate change. As Clive Hamilton puts it: "facts quail before beliefs". Everyone should consider this point he makes in his excellent essay Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change "The evidence contradicting the information deficit model is overwhelming, so that those who continue to cleave to it, ipso facto, demonstrate its falsity. Faith in the power of information prevails over the power of information." We are not the rational creatures we'd like to think we are. -
Bibliovermis at 06:08 AM on 25 December 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
You keep insisting that there was an 70s ice age scare and that the globe has been cooling since 1998. Both of these contentions are wrong and are addressed in other areas of this site which are linked to from the top of the left column. There is no 60 year temperature cycle. Try getting your scientific knowledge from scientific sources rather than popular media like Newsweek. -
johnkg at 06:02 AM on 25 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#218. damorbel "As stated earlier in the thread, we've already reached 75-80% of the intrinsic forcing from a doubling of CO2 and we've only seen about 0.6-0.8 C of warming." Your maths or STILL wrong. CBDunkerson put you right on that way back in post #34. -
NETDR at 06:00 AM on 25 December 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
The temperature since 1860 seems to follow a 1/2 ° C per century ramp and 60 year sine wave pattern. Yes the PDO cannot cause warming but a long slow increase due to recovery from the LIA or Maunder minimum and a positive long feedback time can. It might even be because of CO2 but it is so slow that there is no catastrophe. The tops and bottoms of the sine wave causes some climate scientists to arrive at incorrect conclusions like global cooling [Newsweek 1975]. And Catastrophic Global Warming [CAGW] circa 1998. Here is a chart which shows how the temperature of the earth has varied since the beginning of records. It consists of a ½ ° C per century ramp and a sine wave with a 60 year period. The ramp is because of recovery from the Little Ice Age [or some other cause but it started before mankind emitted significant CO2] and the sine wave is caused by ocean currents. [ADO and PDO] http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png Here is a peer reviewed study by a different author which comes to the same conclusion. http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf There is a chart on P7 which explains a lot of “mysteries” of the temperature record much better than a CO2 based explanation does. When the sine wave went up in 1970 to 1998 the climate scientists went ballistic. They projected that to mean 3 ° C warming by 2100. When the sine wave started sideways or down in about 2000 they were shown to be wrong. To me this explains the temperature cycle far better than the "CO2 and Aerosol" theory..Moderator Response: Newsweek is not a scientific journal, and the article in question was not written by a scientist. There is no recovery from the Little Ice Age; see the post "We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age." This is your last warning about posting off-topic comments.
Prev 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Next
