Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 Next
Comments 108001 to 108050:
-
muoncounter at 11:41 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#25: "meaning the rate of rise has decreased compared to the past rate the past 20 years" Not so. In a time series such as this, small variations do not have a significant impact on the long term trend. Those variations are called noise: In signal processing or computing it can be considered unwanted data without meaning. -
adelady at 11:38 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
I love all this stuff about graphs and trends showing declines or slowing or whatever for a few years or months. It's like a commentator on a car race. Oh, my goodness, that last lap was 3 hundredths of a second slower than the previous lap. The fact that the driver in question is lapping the field is irrelevant - because the race is actually won. So we have to find -something- to talk about. -
wingding at 11:34 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
This article is extremely poorly worded. The title says there is a 40 year delay between cause and effect, which makes it sound like the warming effect of co2 doesn't *start* until 40 years after co2 starts rising. Obviously that's wrong. But throughout the article this impression is given. Eg: "The reason the planet takes several decades to respond to increased CO2 is the thermal inertia of the oceans." The planet doesn't respond *at all* to rising co2 until several decades after? Of course it does. And: "With 40 years between cause and effect, it means that average temperatures of the last decade are a result of what we were thoughtlessly putting into the air in the 1960’s" And the 1970s and the 1980s and the 1990s. Not just the 1960s. Obviously what you mean is that there is a 40 year delay between cause and *maximum* effect. I only say this because I feel strongly that the way the article is worded, only people who understand this already are going to get it. People who are new to this or are not but are easily confused (*cough* Steve Goddard *cough*), will get (or have already got) the wrong idea. -
nofreewind at 11:28 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Not sure about Goddard(he doesn't seem right in this case), but the graph at the top of this post and the one at comment 18 both show the rate of sea level rise to below the mean for most of the past 3 years, meaning the rate of rise has decreased compared to the past rate the past 20 years. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:28 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Re: gallopingcamel (57, 60)"Daniel Bailey doubts my motives so let's clear that up."
Nothing personal, GC. Perhaps if you had phrased your comments with a bit more clarity so that there would be no doubt as to your intentions then I would have worded my response differently. My position is unchanged until I have seen evidence supporting the compatibility of A & B. I do have an open mind on it, but the intractability of humanity leaves me skeptical about its ability to change its behavior until its too late to have any meaningful impact. Given where we are now and the emerging picture of the nearness of the cliff we approach, the more my doubts about Lovelock's stance dissipate. Only my nature's staunch refusal to give up, even in the face of insuperable odds, keeps me searching for a way forward. CBDunkerson & scaddenp summarize the remainder of my position well (kudo's to those estimable gentlemen), only with greater eloquence than I. If the electric automobile had been developed first, then there would be no need for widespread internal combustion engine use. Coal is another bugger, tho. The Yooper -
kdkd at 11:08 AM on 4 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
KL #128 "kdkd is heckling from the bleachers because he finds my arguments so threatening to his belief structure." Nope I'm pointing out that your argument is wrong. It's not based on any competent standard of evidence. The more you repeat this nonsense, the clearer it becomes to others that your case is based on the contents of your own confirmation bias rather than anything to do with empirical validity. Go back and look at what it takes to show a statistically significant change in slope over short time periods again. Once you understand this, you'll understand how foolish you've made yourself look by perpetuating this nonsense argument. -
scaddenp at 11:02 AM on 4 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
JohnD - Firstly, want to back the assertion "possibly, second after sunlight" with data? Think for a moment on why wind affects evaporation. You take a cubic meter of air over water. Evaporation follows CC, raises partial pressure of water in that parcel of air, then wind moves it away. New parcel of air has lower pp of water so evaporation rate continues at same rate. However, our original parcel of area is over water in another place, and evaporation is slower because it already has an elevated pp of water. Locally wind is important, basin wide - not so much. The parameterization of the effect of wind used by models is based on empirical data. I cant see these studies back your assertion. Also, I cant see how wind can be a forcing. "some consider clouds a forcing". So who is "some"? How can clouds be a forcing? What can change cloud formation independently? Only the GCR hypothesis had an answer for that. Is that what you mean (which makes GCR the forcing not the clouds)? Or do you have another hypothesis? -
Joe Blog at 10:35 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
archiesteel at 10:27 You can just drag the NAWT one and overlay just in the article above... but not the otherway round because it rescales... the Y axis's o course are at different scales however... But this is the obvious thing wrong with this picture... unless the globe decided to ignore the laws o Thermodynamics at some stage, ocean Ts are driving atmospheric in these graphs. -
Ken Lambert at 10:30 AM on 4 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
archiesteel #126 A reduction in slope of a curve is 'flattening'. Go back and read other threads - the idea that warming might have slowed - 'flattened' is not controversial. BP demonstrated a reduced slope in the SLR curve - almost identical to my 2.0mm/yr number - much reduced from the claimed 3.3mm/year number. It is still a 'linear increase' - but flattened from a steeper slope!! This is very significant when you know how much heat sequestration is involved in a 1mm steric SLR rise. kdkd is heckling from the bleachers because he finds my arguments so threatening to his belief structure. -
archiesteel at 10:27 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
@TOP: why don't you show us your overlaid graphs so we can see for ourselves? -
kdkd at 10:15 AM on 4 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
KL #124 It's extremely frustrating to discuss these matters with you, as you basically ignore the majority of the relevant evidence in order to focus on your preconcevied notion that the so-called sceptic position must be true regardless of the evidence. #122 and #124 are excellent examples of this in action. In particular watch the way that you ignore detailed explanations of why your position is illogical, wrong and based on mischaracterisation of the evidence (see #123 for an example of this). It's a repeating pattern which is why I've been referring to your recent material as 'repetitive rubbish'. -
Alexandre at 09:49 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
I love those extreme cherry picks. Sea level has not risen for 6 months! It´s almost 8 pm here. Global Warming has stopped for at least 5 hours... -
Joe Blog at 09:38 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
Bibliovermis at 09:05 AM says "Where is that heat coming from?" From the tropics, the oceans are going to be a much more efficient transporter of energy than the atmosphere, if the THC is slow, more energy will be lost via radiation to space than if the same energy is transported via currents. So an increase in the THC will result in more energy being transported to higher latitudes than if it is slowed. "What other observations could be made to validate or refute this hypothesis?" Just more extensive sedimentary reconstructions in the north Atlantic... This study more pertains to the warming in the first part of last century, and may raise a few Q's about natural variability... and whether the initial cause of the "unprecedented" warming as seen in the paleo reconstructions is anthropogenic in origins... Or did anthropogenic influences cause the THC speed up(assuming this is what is being seen)... I doubt we did, we weren't really effecting radiative forcing all that significantly at that stage.... and the cores were disturbed for the later part o last century. -
JMurphy at 09:21 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
johnd, the UNSW are still claiming what you were astonished about : A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) - a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water - dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia. Have you been in touch with them to show them their error, or have you alerted the Japanese or Indians about their work being plagiarised/misused/whatever you think ? -
Doug Bostrom at 09:09 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
Yeah, johnd, you're the expert, after all. Clearly you've a good grasp of the literature. -
Bibliovermis at 09:05 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
TOP, For the sake of discussion, let's examine this hypothesis that the ocean is the source of heat. Where is that heat coming from? What other observations could be made to validate or refute this hypothesis? -
Joe Blog at 09:03 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
archiesteel at 06:32 The thing with this reconstruction, is its showing MUCH larger anomalies of deepish water, (400m, and double the size in a straight T comparison... water has a vastly greater thermal capacity than air) than atmospheric anomalies, at all instances in the past up until the core was disturbed(Mid last century). Energy dosnt sink, or concentrate itself, entropy increases, chaos increases(or stays the same) It dosnt decrease. You would expect this reconstruction, if it was driven by atmospheric T's in its region, to be considerably smaller than the atmospheric anomalies, and to be lagging atmospheric T's. This isnt the case. What this reconstruction, seems to imply to me, is that there was a sudden increase o the transport o warmer water into the north Atlantic shortly after 1900, and the atmospheric temperature anomaly at that time, is probably a result of this, rather than the cause of this. Why the increase in the THC?(if thats what it was) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3328.1 I dont know, but ill pretend i do, for arguments sake ;-) -
johnd at 08:57 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
doug_bostrom at 08:39 AM, I haven't got time to answer you fully now, I will come back later. However I think you will find that any BOM references to IO SST is unrelated to the areas where the IOD data is collected. Perhaps you can find something that indicates when they began incorporating IOD data into their modeling. BOM were critical of the Japanese researchers a couple of years ago, 2007?, when the Japanese alone correctly forecast that a La Nina that was virtually promised daily by BOM as being imminent, was overidden and failed to eventuate by unique conditions that developed, and had been seen developing in the Indian Ocean by the Japanese. It became quite a story in the Australian rural press the following year when it was revealed that the correct forecast was available but BOM chose to ignore the signals instead following their own outdated, and still outdated modeling. Legal action was being considered against BOM for losses incurred by those who followed BOM, whilst those who followed advice based on the IOD talked of being hundereds of thousands of $ in front. -
TOP at 08:50 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
I overlaid the OP's bottom water hockey stick onto the IPCC's hockey stick. It looks to me like the water temps are driving the air temps. Water has a low albedo, it doesn't reradiate much of the energy that strikes it back into space. The anomaly in the water temps is larger than that in the atmosphere. It is the driver. -
archiesteel at 08:40 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
@TOP: you're not making any sense. What two graphs did you overlay? What do you think isn't "driven by CO2"? -
Doug Bostrom at 08:39 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is a unit of the University of New South Wales. Or is it the opposite? Southwest Western Australian winter rainfall and its association with Indian Ocean climate variability 29 DEC 2000 Potential predictability of winter rainfall over southern and eastern Australia using Indian Ocean sea-surface temperature anomalies 1993 - bom.gov.au Sea surface temperatures and Australian winter rainfall 1989 Etc. Indian Ocean + Australia: new to you, not so much to the people you're claiming are ignorant. -
johnd at 08:25 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
doug_bostrom at 07:57 AM, the importance of the Indian Ocean to Australia's weather has yet to be fully appreciated by the likes of the UNSW, and even BOM and CSIRO. I have closely followed any research involving the Indian Ocean since the 1990's as I was interested in the apparent connection between weather patterns in SE Asia and SE Australia, two places that I had personal experience in. I had approached BOM scientists on two separate occasions and was told any connection was coincidental. Then I found the work of the Japanese researchers who actually identified the IOD in 1998, and an Australian forecaster/researcher who had also made the link and incorporated Indian Ocean data into his modeling at about the same time, leading to very accurate forecasts, which the Japanese also became able to provide. Australia's BOM has only in the last couple of years began to even refer to the IOD, and have not fully incorporated it into their modeling, I think they are waiting on new computers and say even then, reliable forecasts are probably still up to 7 years away. Fortunately reliable forecasts have been available for the last decade from other sources. It was against that background that I was astounded to read last year that the UNSW had just made a "discovery" linking the Indian Ocean to Australian weather. I'll take the work of the Japanese researchers any day over that of the UNSW, even BOM and CSIRO. -
TOP at 08:21 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
I just overlayed the two graphs. I'll have to read the paper. Given the very low albedo of the oceans it is hard to believe this is driven by CO2. More like the atmosperic temps are being driven by the ocean. -
CBW at 08:10 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Albatross, if he used the barometer-corrected data, it wouldn't show what he wants it to show, so what good would it do him? I like the comment on Goddard's thread from the guy who's against the metric system. Hilarious. It reminds me of a thread on another denier site where they were arguing that ice sheets like Greenland's must be able to come and go in the relative blink of an eye because the earth is only 6000 years old, after all. It shows you the mindset that science and reason are up against. -
muoncounter at 08:07 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#21: Yes, we are subverting their innocence with such filth as 2+2=4 and the like. -
johnd at 08:04 AM on 4 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
piloot at 07:14 AM, sunlight is also subject to cloud cover. Wind is a big factor, possibly second after sunlight. The study indicates that evaporation rates were higher in the periods when the air was supposedly "dirtier" than more recent times, so that doesn't seem to follow that evaporation rates dropped. The general consensus seems to be that clouds are a feedback mechanism, but some consider that they may instead be a forcing which could tie in with the evaporation rates. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:57 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
No, johnd, in point of fact you're claiming you know more, apparently: the UNSW video only reinforced my opinion about their climate expertise. I made the mistake of imagining you might have noticed the nuance conveyed by the UNSW researchers, how what they say comports w/your and Ken's remarks about moisture distribution. Nope, apparently you're focused on the things with which you disagree. You've reminded me of the futility of discussion in certain circumstances. Thanks for saving me another hunk of time. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:45 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Goddard has no shame, apparently. Against my better judgment but driven by curiosity stimulated by this thread, I mooched over to his blog and within a moment found him likening teachers to pedophiles. -
muoncounter at 07:43 AM on 4 October 2010It's El Niño
Continuing from #20 on the Goddard-is-cherrypicking-sea-level-data thread. The same statement was made as in #3 here: ENSO are, after all, cycles, which don't make much difference in the long term. However, as the familiar MEI graph shows, there seems to be a lot more red since about 1977 or so.
From a fascinating model run made by Timmerman et al. 1999:
The tropical Pacific climate system is thus predicted to undergo strong changes if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase. The climatic effects will be threefold.
First, the mean climate in the tropical Pacific region will change towards a state corresponding to present-day El Nino conditions. It is therefore likely that events typical of El Nino will also become more frequent.
Second, a stronger interannual variability will be superimposed on the changes in the mean state, so year-to-year variations may become more extreme under enhanced greenhouse conditions.
Third, the interannual variability will be more strongly skewed, with strong cold events (relative to the warmer mean state) becoming more frequent.
If I read that correctly, sounds like more red overall with the occasional deeper blue.
-
johnd at 07:42 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
doug_bostrom at 06:19 AM, are you saying that the just because you referenced a link to a UNSW video that they know more than researchers anywhere else? Just check the facts, check for yourself and see if the publication regarding their "discovery" is still available on their website. It had been authored by Bob Beale early 2009. Check the data on the Indian Ocean dipole and see if what was said in the video correlates with the recorded data. You may have your sources that support your views, most researchers have their own views, I look at a range and find some are more credible than others. -
muoncounter at 07:32 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#15: "SSTs respond to ENSO cycles." This is about sea levels. Can ENSO cycles really have any long term effect on sea level? They are, after all cycles, which tend to average out to small change. Switching now to the ENSO thread. -
piloot at 07:14 AM on 4 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
@johnd I'm very much at layman level, but what I understood from a very interesting documentary I once saw about "Global dimming" was that evaporation has dropped worldwide, caused by a reduction of sunlight which is a much bigger factor in evaporation than temperature (that went up in those places). I also understood that in more recent years the air in most western countries has become cleaner because of regulation (car catalyst converters etc) which has drastically reduced dust and soot particles (not reducing co2 though). Ironically the cleaner air is reducing global dimming, but increasing evaporation and increasing global warming. Neither phenomenon is nice. Apologies if I've just totally missed the point. -
gallopingcamel at 06:44 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
CBDunkerson (#58), I have no argument with you as I am trying to make a case against burning fossil fuels. We appear to be on the same side as far as the big picture (cutting CO2 emissions) is concerned. Even so, your closing statement is absurd on many levels: # Switch all public funds currently supporting fossil fuels to renewable energy (even ignoring the larger disparity which has accumulated over the past ~150 years) and it is the fossil fuels which are not economically viable. # I would like to set you straight but that would get us into the realm of "solutions". -
archiesteel at 06:32 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
@TOP: which two graphs have you overlaid, and how is this a good argument against AGW? -
Doug Bostrom at 06:19 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
So sorry, johnd, I forgot: you've got more knowledge stuffed between your ears than entire faculties of multiple universities. In future I'll remember not to bother trying to offer you anything that might be of interest to us ordinary mortals. -
TOP at 06:11 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
I just overlayed the two graphs. Seems to be a good argument against AGW. I'll have to read the paper. -
scaddenp at 05:58 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
GC - I completely agree that we can find the energy for our civilization without fossil fuel. What I am amazed about is the apparent assumption, too political for you to post, that somehow climate scientists would disagree. -
johnd at 05:42 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
doug_bostrom at 00:08 AM, the UNSW video only reinforced my opinion about their climate expertise. Early last year they published an article "Indian Ocean causes Big Dry: drought mystery solved". Anyone reading the article would get the impression that "the surprising finding" had been done by the UNSW scientists alluding it was they who had discovered the Indian Ocean Dipole IOD and "detailed for the first time" the link to Australia's weather. I found it most disappointing that they created that impression as it had been discovered by Japanese researchers, but also it had been discovered a decade before which put them well behind everybody else, even private forecasters and researchers here in Australia. In the video one of the speakers mentioned how the negative dipole that is associated with increased rainfall had been absent for about 15 years and seemed to allude that this was due to a permanent change in circulation patterns. What he didn't say however was the the long absence was not something new, in fact in the late 1800's it was absent for at least 25 years (the chart I took that from only began in 1880), absent again from about 1917 - 1930 and absent again 1942 - 1958, apart from the smaller gaps, but overall it seemed to be present more frequently from the 1970's to 1990's than any other period since the 1800's. All in all I wasn't impressed by the video presentation. -
Albatross at 05:36 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
And note also please, it seems that Goddard used the SL data to which the inverse barometer correction has not been applied. If true, double fail for Goddard. -
CBDunkerson at 04:53 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
gallopingcamel #57, without getting into the political downfalls around taking 'free market' ideology to extremes... I always find the free market argument against controlling fossil fuels inherently illogical. The amount of money spent to subsidize fossil fuels is enormous. Even leaving out the cost of wars instigated, at least in part, over these resources we are talking about amounts far in excess of anything which has even been proposed in the way of subsidies for other energy sources. Ridiculous amounts of public funding are provided to oil companies for exploration and research. Entire aircraft carriers have been built and permanently assigned to the gulf region with the sole, officially stated, purpose of protecting oil shipments. Switch all public funds currently supporting fossil fuels to renewable energy (even ignoring the larger disparity which has accumulated over the past ~150 years) and it is the fossil fuels which are not economically viable. -
johnd at 04:52 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
Ken Lambert at 00:02 AM, this may not be the paper you were think of, but may be be of interest anyway CHANGES IN AUSTRALIAN PAN EVAPORATION FROM 1970 TO 2002 One of the earliest things I remember learning about the Darling River at school was how the river boats that used to go up the Darling in the 1800's to carry the wool out, would get stranded for years at a time if they missed getting out before the water levels fell. Even the Murray River stopped flowing during some of those early droughts. -
Albatross at 04:37 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Goddard, FYI.
-
DSL at 04:37 AM on 4 October 2010Newcomers, Start Here
Or mountain pine beetles. The current destructive spread of this beetle is ten times worse than any previous infestation. I lost a tree yesterday, and the tree cutter said that "ten times" sounds about right, because he'd cut down about ten times the usual number of pines this year. The current spread is being blamed primarily on warmer winter temps preventing the usual die-off. Many tree species may be more flexible than insects in their ability to individually survive changing climate conditions, but they can't, as species, rapidly evolve to survive a changing insect, bacteria, and/or fungal context. -
CBDunkerson at 04:22 AM on 4 October 2010Newcomers, Start Here
Ken #34: "These fraught 'wildlife' impacts of AGW always follow the same theme - the impact will always trend between negative and disaster." I take it you haven't heard about global warming impacts on mosquitoes or marmots. -
johnd at 04:20 AM on 4 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Daniel Bailey at 01:14 AM, whilst there may be higher levels of moisture in the atmosphere, your comments about evaporation are a distortion of reality. Evaporation data collected around the world show falling evaporation rates over the last 50 years as this study shows,CHANGES IN AUSTRALIAN PAN EVAPORATION FROM 1970 TO 2002 which notes that "the terrestrial surface in Australia has, on average, become less arid over the recent past, just like much of the Northern Hemisphere." -
Paul D at 04:10 AM on 4 October 2010Newcomers, Start Here
ClimateWatcher, you have completely ignored my comment which covered the issue you raised. Human with gun versus polar bear. The same situation has been seen in Afrika with Elephants and India with Tigers. Humans win the habitat war, so lets assume the bears migrate and adapt, they aren't going to compete with humans. -
PeteM at 03:39 AM on 4 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
An earlier post referred to how certain UK newapapers ( such as the Daily Mail) might report this . Just to point out that several commenters made a spirited defence of science of global climate change and of the Royal Society At one point there were 212 comments about their article on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues-new-climate-change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html I'm not sure why, but these have all mysteriously disappeared . Perhaps we need a commission on this. -
tobyjoyce at 03:21 AM on 4 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
chriscanaris #20 "three years in a row of unusual conditions." is a fairly bland and anaemic misrepresentation of the factual situation, given the actual figures on ice volume. What conditions are you talking about, exactly? I have no doubt the Arctic holds some surprises for us. They may not be the ones anyone expects. If you have been keeping a weather eye on political developments, you will find that all the Arctic nations (Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark) are making medium term preparations for a growing regional population and a resource-rich ice-free ocean. The USA is also making preparations of sorts, but we have to wonder what a Tea Party Secretary of Defence will make of it all. Arctic ice is recovering, after all, so let's not waste the taxpayers' $dollars, right? Russia Claims Arctic Natural Resources "Russia has a "natural claim" to vast supplies of natural resources in the polar region a Kremlin aide told an international forum on the Arctic on Wednesday." -
HumanityRules at 02:19 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
I see your hockey stick and raise you a wavy line. The first reconstruction I found from a search I did on Web of Science. A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA Ljungqvist FC GEOGRAFISKA ANNALER SERIES A-PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY Volume: 92A Issue: 3 Pages: 339-351 From the data and methods section "The new reconstruction presented in this paper consists of 30 temperature sensitive proxy records from the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), all of which reach back to at least AD 1000 and 16 all the way back to AD 1." From the abstract "The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself." The money shot.
http://i54.tinypic.com/11wd2r5.png
John it worries me that lines such as "The growing body of evidence is strengthening the view that current warming is unprecedented over the past 1000 years" means that this has turned into a fight over a sound bite.
I'm more curious about what the various reconstructions tell us about natural variability. I know the conclusions drawn from a Mann hockey stick are very supportive of AGW. Would something like the Ljungqvist wavy line say this approach to diagnosing AGW is less conclusive?
-
gallopingcamel at 02:17 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
That's better! (posts #54,55 & 56), Daniel Bailey doubts my motives so let's clear that up. I am not trying to bait a trap in the hope of shouting "Gotcha!". It is much simpler than that; I strongly support the idea of a sharp reduction in CO2 emissions (point A), one of the key notions on this thread. Many people seem to believe that points A and B are mutually exclusive so my task is to convince you otherwise. If you tell people that they have to give up heating/cooling their homes, motor transportation etc. etc. in the hope of limiting global temperature rise to <2 degrees Kelvin, nothing is going to change. doug_bostrom, it is clear that you are familiar with BNC (Brave New Climate). Marxists can be found there but also plenty of free market folks (like me). Persuasion works much better than coercion (IMHO). I want people to drive electric cars (as I do) because it makes sense rather than because they have no choice. scaddenp, John Cook will (rightly) censor me if I respond to your question about the motivations of "Climate Science". All I am suggesting is that there are ways to get the energy our civilization needs at an affordable price without burning fossil fuels.
Prev 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 Next
