Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 Next
Comments 110351 to 110400:
-
Paul D at 00:07 AM on 14 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
What about the release of methane? -
John Cook at 00:04 AM on 14 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
Let me speak for Neal and explain that this article is meant to address the sentiment often expressed in comments here on Skeptical Science: if our climate has net positive feedback, why haven't we experienced runaway warming? So this rebuttal establishes one very simple point - you can have net positive feedback without experiencing runaway warming. So the rebuttal is not saying runaway warming is impossible. Given a strong enough positive feedback or a strong enough warming, it may be possible. But that's not the point of this rebuttal. -
MrAce at 00:02 AM on 14 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
If the limit is above 100C, we will end up like Venus, because we will cook the oceans. -
CBDunkerson at 23:59 PM on 13 September 2010Positive feedback means runaway warming
I believe Hansen has said that it might be possible for Earth to get to runaway greenhouse warming if we burned all fossil fuels on the planet. Nothing in the article above speaks to such a scenario. -
Riccardo at 23:58 PM on 13 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
beam me up scotty, he's not. Or at least, it depends on what you mean by alarmist. Hansen did not say that runaway warming is the most likely outcome. Here are his words (p. 24): "In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect." His sentence begins with a caveat, a big if. -
Paul D at 23:50 PM on 13 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
re bmus: Has Hansen said there is no limit? If he says the limit is greater than what others are saying, it wouldn't suggest he has deviated from what this article has pointed out, since he would be suggesting a limit. 'Alarmism' is meaningless in the context of this article. -
huntjanin at 23:48 PM on 13 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
This is off-topic but, as usual, I don't know where to post it. For my book-in-progress on sea level rise, I'm making New Orleans one of my "poster children of sea level rise" and have just written a few pages on it. If anyone is interested in reading this draft, please contact me off-list at huntjanin@aol.com. -
beam me up scotty at 23:46 PM on 13 September 2010Industrial CO2: Relentless warming taskmaster
Arkadiusz Semczyszak Do you think we can supply the worlds population with the energy it needs using only renewables, and do it in time to prevent the worst case scenarios of climate change? http://growthisnotsustainable.blogspot.com/2010/09/energy-reducing-co2-emissions-will-be.html -
beam me up scotty at 23:42 PM on 13 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
So Dr. Hansen is an alarmist? -
Riccardo at 23:40 PM on 13 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Congrats Ann #109, in just one paragraph you correctly put this complex problem in the right context: "I would stop believing in AGW if for a significant period of time (in the range of 15-20 years) global temperatures would not rise, [...], and if no other explanation could be found for this phenomenon." It should be as easy as this. -
beam me up scotty at 23:37 PM on 13 September 2010Positive feedback means runaway warming
So Dr. Hansen is wrong? -
Roger A Pielke Sr at 23:34 PM on 13 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
VeryTallGuy Thank you for an excellent question. Regarding the uncertainty estimates of the upper ocean heat content on a monthly basis, Josh Willis presented this in the figure in Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf There are several interesting issues with this plot. First, the uncertainty is reduced later in the time period. Second, a test of the null hypothesis (i.e. no trend) cannot be refuted using this data. While on this weblog, there has been an emphasis on claiming warming over this time period. In other venues, however, there have been claims of cooling as the actual linear fit is slightly negative. Neither of these conclusions, however, are justified using this analysis. As I have written, however, my main recommendation is the adoption of the upper pcean heat content changes as the primary metric to assess global warming and cooling. I have further comments on this in my posts A Short Explanantion Of Why The Monitoring Of Global Average Ocean Heat Content Is The Appropriate Metric to Assess Global Warming. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/a-short-explanantion-of-why-the-monitoring-of-global-average-ocean-heat-content-is-the-appropriate-metric-to-assess-global-warming-2/ Further Discussion Of Global Warming http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/global-warming-101-part-ii/ -
barry1487 at 23:30 PM on 13 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
caerbannog, If Watts and Co. were serious, they would have been crunching numbers from the get-go, adding data from each new surface temperature station as as soon as it was surveyed. There is simply no good reason to procrastinate on the data crunching until their "survey" is entirely complete. You prolly know this,but a few people were doing exactly this in 2007/8, I think, at climateaudit. John V was one, and IIRC Steve Mosher was another. Over a period of months they had four threads done with a few hundred posts in each. They had (13 or 17) good stations (can't remember which) at that early stage, and the fit was extremely close to the official record at that time. But then it just stopped, and I've been asking around to find out why - having learned from Watts that the public, real-time project would not be continued. The temperature gridding/averaging process is not all that difficult conceptually -- basically it's a tedious programming slog. It's a straightforward task that any reasonably talented science/compsci/engineering undergraduate student could tackle. I read somewhere that these guys could do it in a day. John V has a website called 'opentemp', where I think one could crunch the numbers - if Anthony would release them. But he felt stiffed by NOAA over Mene et al, and won't part with any more data until the paper is published. I allow myself this one obsession. so here's a few links to that project. These are the four threads: First | Second | Third | Fourth This is a post from there where John V crunched the numbers (graphs went missing after CA crashed a while back). Watts' in-line reply saying he'll do the number crunching when 75% of stations are in. That was november 2008, and Anthony said there were 'a few months to go'. Announcement at WUWT declaring 80% of stations rated - June 2009. A year after that I politely asked Anthony about an update. His reply came with a free insult. I could link to the series of posts late last year where John V asked Anthony about releasing the data, but I've exorcised my demons for this year. -
Riccardo at 23:28 PM on 13 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Ken, I do not have any number by myself but I do know that those calculations do not consider the net clouds effect. More specifically, clouds block outgoing IR radiation too and emit (and reflect) electromagnetic waves differently depending on the type of cloud and altitude. Any discussion on the energy balance has to consider all these terms. I find those trivial calculations almost completely meaningless. -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Hi Baz, A question for you: In 2005 you concluded that global warming wasn’t happening because the warming didn’t continue at the same pace ? How many years did you take into consideration to conclude that global warming has stopped/never happened ? To answer your question: I would stop believing in AGW if for a significant period of time (in the range of 15-20 years) global temperatures would not rise, or even show a slight cooling, in short if there was a statistically significant dataset that rejects the AGW hypothesis – and if no other explanation could be found for this phenomenon. By the way, It’s not just the man-made warming theory that would be in trouble. Unless a cause could be found for this cooling (like for instance: a marked increase in volcanic activity),the whole climate model and surrounding science would prove to be invalid, and a new climate theory would have to be built from scratch. It is unlikely that this will happen. Climate models have been used to explain past climate changes, and have been successfully used to predict future climate changes. This gives climate scientists some confidence that they understand what is happening. -
John Brookes at 23:22 PM on 13 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Well put, les@103. You address very clearly why Baz should not be "losing his faith" over a blip in the temperatures. The rise of temperatures in the 90's was quite spectacular - much faster than models predicted. That this was followed with a slow-down is not surprising. Has any work been done on quantifying the period of time that global atmospheric temperatures might deviate from the trend? For example, if you look at the Dow Jones over the 20th century, you will find a couple of 10 year periods where stock prices stalled. So what is it, 10, 20, 30 years? -
European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
Arkadiusz - The "Rate of change" graph is interesting, although I always find it confusing to look at a derivative (rate of change) chart right after an anomaly (total change) chart. I prefer total change as more useful for state (how far we've gone), but derivative rate charts as more useful for examining any underlying process changes. -
Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
johnd - I perhaps have been reading to quickly with regards to that chart, myself. That said, it's an agricultural data product, and not specifically intended as a measure of back radiation; hence the lack of back radiation data on it is rather unsurprising. However: My basic confusion (still unresolved) on your question is as to what, exactly, you feel this particular data set shows as issues with back radiation amounts? Back radiation measured, repeatedly, with different instrument sets, since the 1950's? It's definitely there, and in the amounts predicted by theory. -
Ken Lambert at 22:58 PM on 13 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Riccardo #48,49 Do you have a different number of W/sq.m for incoming solar than 239-240? Pray tell us what it is? -
Yvan Dutil at 22:46 PM on 13 September 2010European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
I dont want to be pedantic but focussing on the extratropical northern hemisphere largely increase the global warming signal compare to a true world average temperature. -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Hello JMurphy. Happy to answer your questions (even though you and others haven't answered mine): "How can "that blue line" (that has been trending upwards since 1850) have turned you into a so-called skeptic and ex-member of Greenpeace ?" Because when warming didn't continue at the same pace (around 2005) I began to question if I was right about my beliefe in warming. "How could you have been a "believer in warming" rather than an accepter of the facts ? Why do you deny the facts now ?" That's a problem if mis-reading you have there which seems to have affected a number of people here. Is it common? As I have said on here, I don't deny the facts - the physics of GHGs, but what I do deny is that we 'know' what the overall result will be (pos/neg feedbacks). "How can you be sceptical of warming temperatures when the graph you give a link to shows warming temperatures since 1850 ?" AGAIN(!) I'm not sceptical of warming thus far. I'm sceptical that warming will continue - that there will be a postive feedback from contuing with our release of CO2 etc. "What ("a few years back") was so damning in your eyes ? Can you give the details ? What was the trend, and over how long a period ?" As I said, I re-looked at the issue around 2005. Up until around then I was a believer. I'm not fully in the sceptic camp apparently, but have pitched a tent outside. The HadCRUt global series shows remarkable stability over the past 10 years despite an ever-increasing CO2 release. So five years ago I questioned if my belief was correct. My question (again) to you and others is when will you question your belief: 10 years? 20 years? Only 'VeryTallGuy' has answered! -
European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
Where are the plots for global heat content anomaly and global dew point anomaly? -
CBDunkerson at 22:14 PM on 13 September 2010A history of satellite measurements of global warming
wingding #7, I disagree that criticisms of Spencer and Christy as scientists are baseless. I had linked to articles quoting them making what I consider blatantly unscientific / biased / false statements as evidence of this, but it was apparently deleted. Which seems somewhat overzealous to me. It was certainly no less polite than, for instance, comparing people who denounce Spencer and Christy to the "behavior seen at WUWT". -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
VeryTallGuy, many thanks for that, it's much sppreciated. So for you, it would be 20 years, that's fair enough. kdkd. No, it's not any approach at misdirection at all, it was simply a question! VeryTallGuy answers it, why not give it a try yourself? I wasn't actually referring to any previous bumps, as that would be prior to Tamino's 1975 start. But I wasn't referring to bumps at all, but prolonged stability or decline. -
CBDunkerson at 22:08 PM on 13 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Baz, in addition to all the other answers pointing out the statistical fallacy of your argument it also requires acceptance of something we already know to be false... "Just suppose, for a minute, that this blue line carries on reasonably straight, or even heads down" Why would I do that... when we've already got eight months worth of data for 2010 showing it to be thus far the hottest year ever recorded? Your 'just suppose' scenario has already been contradicted by the actual facts. That said, the question, 'how long would it have to be flat or negative to disprove man made global warming', is inherently flawed. If you look at it at all logically you should be able to see that the duration of fluctuations depends on what causes them. That chart shows temperatures dropping from ~1880 to 1910... so obviously 30 years of declining temperatures didn't 'disprove man made warming'. If we started releasing all the particulate pollution we could and blotted out the Sun for 50 years the cooling from that wouldn't 'disprove man made warming' either. BTW, you should also work on your phrasing. The idea of 'disproving AGW' is ridiculous. AGW is an observed fact. In some of your posts you have specified that you question the extent of positive feedbacks. That is not wholly unfounded, but describing it as 'disproving mad made warming' is just nonsense. Extensive research has narrowed current 'climate sensitivity' to a range between roughly doubling warming from a forcing (in this case human CO2 emissions) to multiplying it by as much as a factor of five (with higher values considered very unlikely, but not completely ruled out). To 'disprove' that with a lower climate sensitivity you'd have to show some climate process which all that prior research overlooked or miscalculated. In the mean time, ponder this... climate science says a doubling of CO2 from the historical ~280 ppm to 560 ppm would produce about 1 C of warming and that feedbacks would increase this to at least 2 C or more (best estimate is currently about 3 C). We are presently at about 390 ppm... a 40% increase. Yet we have already seen over 0.8 C of warming. We're at nearly 1 C warming with less than half the CO2 increase needed (by itself) to get us to that point. How does that NOT indicate that net feedbacks are positive and significant? Especially since it is right in line with the projections of 3 C for doubling of CO2? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:38 PM on 13 September 2010The Little Ice Age: Skeptics skating on thin ice
”Volcanic activity was high during this period of history ...” However, it appears that the high volcanic activity may be warming rather than cool. Sulphur aerosols act (higher albedo), a relatively short time - causing the cooling. Volcanoes “stratospheric” would erupt every year - as was the case during the Triassic. Volcanoes as an ozone-destructive - act in a very long period of time. Example: LIA - Tambora eruption in 1815 - "year without summer" in Europe - but the years 1818-3? was warmer or much warmer than before the eruption of the volcano. Ozone - the thinner the layer - the higher the mortality of marine phytoplankton. Phytoplankton and Cloudiness in the Southern Ocean: “The effect of ocean biological productivity on marine clouds is explored over a large phytoplankton bloom in the Southern Ocean (SO) using remotely sensed data. Cloud droplet number concentration over the bloom was twice what it was away from the bloom, and cloud effective radius was reduced by 30%. The resulting change in the shortwave radiative flux at the top-of-the-atmosphere was -15W m-2 ... ” Positive feedback - the more ULV = the less phytoplankton = the lower the cloud cover = more ULV ... -
Daniel Bailey at 20:51 PM on 13 September 2010European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
Re: Johngee (9) Figure 1 is for land areas north of 20 degrees north for May-June only. Figure 2 is for combined global land + sea areas. Both use a baseline of 1989-2001 and use anomalies instead of temperatures to reduce weather-related noise in the data. Both are surface-layer (2-meter) data instead of something like satellite-obtained data, which can also measure various layers of the atmosphere (the Earth's atmosphere is layered like an onion; because of this, it heats and cools differentially. The addition of CO2 essentially causes a differential accumulation of heat in the lower layers by slowing the transfer of heat to upper layers. Hence stratospheric cooling and tropospheric heating). Figure 1 shows that, in the 40 years of data shown, land temps away from the tropics have warmed in the last 10 years relative to the other 30 years of data. Figure 2 shows that global (land + sea) temps have been rising fairly linearly across the entire range of the data (if you were to put a ruler on the graph and draw a straight line through the midpoint of each year of the data, you'd get a line rising from the left side of the figure to the right side. This line is said to have a positive slope, showing the upward overall "trend" of temperatures in the data). Both figures show an essentially noisy dataset (even using anomalies to reduce the noise), but one in which a clear signal can be seen. It's getting hotter. And there is no indication of slowing in the rise of temperatures. Hope that's more clear! If you have more questions, let me know. The Yooper -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:09 PM on 13 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
I have only one question: Is it because Anthony Watts has published two posts (05 and 20.082010 - WUWT) by Ferdinad Engelbeen (He is "hot advocate” of the theory AGW - - Why the CO2 increase is man made (part 1) and part 2) - Anthony Watts publishing these posts has been "a follower” of the theory of AGW? -
kdkd at 20:08 PM on 13 September 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
BP #46 I am trying to understand what's going on. Sorry but the evidence suggests that this is not the case. If it was, you would have dealt with the serious deficiency in a prior analysis or allowed someone else to do so. Fixing this problem is simple (I can do it for you if you don't know how to do it yourself), yet despite repeated requests you have not done so. I suggest you fix the problem so that you are not continually nagged about it, as it reflects very badly on your credibility at present -
Esop at 19:45 PM on 13 September 2010European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
Last (NH) winter was the warmest on record (average global temp) -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Baz #98 I think that's a fascinating question because it clearly illustrates the Real hockey-stick illusion. Not the McIntyre/Mann "debate"; but the focus on Temperature alone produces an illusion in itself. What is happening, in fact, is AG-Energizing. Energy is being pumped in faster than it is escaping. Energy goes to a number of places: it can warm up air, melt ice, warm up water, vaporise water, generate strong winds and waves. Schematically: Air has twice the specific heat capacity of Ice which is twice that of water: and the latent heat of water is almost 100 times its heat capacity... So, consider a system with for equal weights of water/air/ice close to equilibrium into which energy is pumped. An increase of 1° in air temperature represents a fraction of the total energy absorbed by the system. Of course there are details, e.g. is the ice just below 0° or is the core -20°? Water cannot always vaporise, that depends on partial pressures. If there's significant humidity, for example, than the air temperature rise will be different for the same increase in total input energy (i.e. it depends on the initial temperature). Of course the world has vastly different amounts of air, ice and water, they are nowhere near in equilibrium - so that some energy goes into dynamics caused by disequilibrium (waves, wind etc.). It may be hard to work out exactly where all the energy might go and in what proportions... but, empirically, if more energy is going into the system, one would expect all these system to respond in a generally obvious way; maybe a little more melting here, a little less there - but more snowfall... But, for me, the killer argument for AGW (really AGE) is that everywhere we look there's, generally, more energy. -
Eric (skeptic) at 19:27 PM on 13 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
archiesteel (#96), in laymen forums I always ask the same question: what is the catastrophe? I pointed out the hunting of polar bears here on the polar bear thread and got no answer. I asked here what temperature was required in the model that melted Greenland's ice in a few hundred years, again no answer. Then in many of the rainfall = catastrophe threads I point out that the sensitivity is directly lowered as water vapor becomes more uneven. So far I can safely say there is no catastrophe, not now and not for a long time, so speculating on high sensitivity without support is not prudent or cautious, but rather reckless. All that said (much too abbreviated to be convincing), a substantial change to the earth like CO2 increases should not done without any consideration of possible negative outcomes. I want to see more science in that area and less hype (e.g. my first quote in this thread, as well as research on positive outcomes. -
JMurphy at 19:22 PM on 13 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Baz wrote : "As I've said, I'm sceptical that what we're doing (our experiment with the atmosphere) will result in warming temperatures - and I'll tell you why. It's that blue line. Oh yes, I used to be a believer in warming. Hell, I used to be a member of Greenpeace. But just a few years back I couldn't equate that with that blue line. Admittedly, I came off the warming horse early, but what of some of you? For how long does that blue line have to go straight or fall, for you to question the very subject this site is based on?" How can "that blue line" (that has been trending upwards since 1850) have turned you into a so-called skeptic and ex-member of Greenpeace ? How could you have been a "believer in warming" rather than an accepter of the facts ? Why do you deny the facts now ? How can you be sceptical of warming temperatures when the graph you give a link to shows warming temperatures since 1850 ? What ("a few years back") was so damning in your eyes ? Can you give the details ? What was the trend, and over how long a period ? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:14 PM on 13 September 2010Industrial CO2: Relentless warming taskmaster
“The central issue is TIME.” “... so we'll SUDDENLY kick CC into overdrive.” - Full consent Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate, Frank et al. 2010, Nature : „But themagnitudeof theclimate sensitivityof theglobal carboncycle (termed c), and thus of its positive feedback strength, is under debate, giving rise to large uncertainties in global warming projections.” Here we quantify the median c as 7.7 p.p.m.v. CO2 per 6C warming, with a likely range of 1.7–21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per 6C. “, “Our results are incompatibly lower (P,0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per 6C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest 80%LESS [!!!] POTENTIAL AMPLIFICATION OF ONGOING GLOBAL WARMING.” So we have more time than we have - not so long ago - it seemed ... “We will need to invest in carbon capture technologies.” Absolutely not! It is extremely costly and will earn in that only Exxon and other fuels consortium . We need to invest in renewable energy ONLY. -
michael sweet at 18:14 PM on 13 September 2010European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
cruzn24, As you can see from the above graph, the temperatures never were below the average from 1989-2001. The recent cold was localized in area and not that cold. Most of the world was hot last Dec-Jan-Feb while the cold areas were genreally the USA and parts of northern Europe. It is a denier fantasy that it was cold last winter. The data does not support that fantasy. -
Berényi Péter at 18:08 PM on 13 September 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
#45 scaddenp at 09:08 AM on 13 September, 2010 So are you really looking to understand limits and skill of models, or looking for excuses to dismiss them as fits another agenda? I am trying to understand what's going on. Have a look at this review article, please. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2005) 363, 2931–2946 doi:10.1098/rsta.2005.1676 Published online 24 October 2005 Modelling climate change: the role of unresolved processes BY PAUL D. WILLIAMS "In climate models, too, it is tacitly assumed that the effectively random subgrid-scale events are so large in number that their integrated effect on the resolved scales is predictable, allowing it to be included in models. However, in fluids there is an enormous separation of scales between the microscale and the macroscale. There is no such ‘thermodynamic limit’ in the climate system, as suggested by figure 1. Phrased differently, if there were a billion clouds, gravity waves or ocean eddies in a GCM grid box then their impacts on the resolved flow would be predictable, like the temperature of a gas, and the current treatment of unresolved scales in climate models would be defensible. But such a separation of scales between the resolved and unresolved dynamics simply does not exist. The number of sub-grid-scale events per grid box is not large enough to permit the existence of a meaningful statistical equilibrium." But simply adding random noise to climate variables as the author insists is not a panacea either. As the climate system is not an ergodic process, it is a bit difficult to collect reliable empirical data on statistics of the noise to be added, although as we have seen above, in some cases the statistics alone can determine the outcome. These are all pretty fascinating stuff, I just wonder why this side of the coin is left out from climate communication entirely including research press releases and this fine science blog itself. -
VeryTallGuy at 17:59 PM on 13 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Baz, I suggested a way for you to do this analysis up the thread #38. As you've obviously not done that, here's the results. According this method, with heating on a trend of 0.2 degrees per decade and noise with a standard deviation of 0.2 degrees on the annual data, you can expect: 1) 18% of decades will have a negative slope 2) 5% of 15 year time slices will have a negative slope 3) 0.2% of 20 year timeslices will have a negative slope So, a decreasing trend over ten years is reasonably likely and can be expected. A decreasing trend over 15 years can be expected one year in twenty. A decreasing trend over twenty years is very unlikely and would, for me, falisfy AGW unless there are known reasons for the decline eg major vulcanism. Why not repeat this simple analysis yourself? You'd find it far more convincing than reading blogs. -
Mikemcc at 17:53 PM on 13 September 2010European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
Johngee - It's a plot of the difference between the calculated global average and an average of those temperatures recorded from 1989 to 2001 (if you look at the 'area under the graph' for that period it will average out at 0.0 anomaly). It's showing how the calculated global temperature has changed with respect to that period. The period chosen is arbitrary, though it helps to use the same comparison period as everyone else to make comparisons easier. -
kdkd at 17:51 PM on 13 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Baz #98 There's nothing a priori which distinguishes the terminal bump in that graph from the 4 other bumps since 1950. Claiming otherwise is wishful thinking, not based on any logically derived scientific or mathematical theory. I wonder what the effect the recent solar minimum which corresponds to the terminal would have had if it weren't for the counterbalancing effect of industrial CO2 emissions? Nice try, but it looks to me like your post is the standard so-called sceptic approach of misdirection, and failure to consider all of the available evidence. -
Susanne at 17:49 PM on 13 September 2010A history of satellite measurements of global warming
Further to the acronym comment, can we have the expansion of MSU please. It's really hard to cover the enormous range of knowledge and background that comments to this and other climate change sites reveal. Thanks very much to all who are working at it. -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Perhaps I can re-hash the point. What if this blue line http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/ doesn't continue upward? Just suppose, for a minute, that this blue line carries on reasonably straight, or even heads down - just suppose. For how long would it have to go straight (or down) for man-made warming to be falsified? As I've said, I'm sceptical that what we're doing (our experiment with the atmosphere) will result in warming temperatures - and I'll tell you why. It's that blue line. Oh yes, I used to be a believer in warming. Hell, I used to be a member of Greenpeace. But just a few years back I couldn't equate that with that blue line. Admittedly, I came off the warming horse early, but what of some of you? For how long does that blue line have to go straight or fall, for you to question the very subject this site is based on? -
VeryTallGuy at 17:37 PM on 13 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Dr Pielke Any chance of a response to #159 ? thanks VTG -
johnd at 17:13 PM on 13 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
KR, I see I did make a mistake in one post by mixing up higher and lower when referring to the relative temperatures, terrestrial and soil. My apologies. However it would have been obvious it was a simple mistake by reading the table referred to where the differences are obvious, and my other posts where I had referred to the differences correctly. -
johnd at 16:59 PM on 13 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Correction, you are getting me confused now. It is the SOIL temperatures which are ALWAYS HIGHER than the MINIMUM air or terrestrial temperatures, anyway this is clear from the BOM tables irrespective of what I might have written. The terrestrial minimum temperature is always lower than the minimum air temperature, which I believe is what I asked you originally to explain as to why this is so if back radiation warms the surface. -
johnd at 16:44 PM on 13 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
KR at 14:18 PM, I trying very hard not to break into uncontrollable laughter, you are making it very hard not to. I have made it abundantly clear that the terrestrial temperature is measured at ground level, as does the BOM notes. I also pointed out that it is always lower than the air temperature which is measured 1.2m above ground level, and always higher than the soil temperature, which obviously is the temperature IN the soil, so I cannot understand what you are confused about as I have well made the distinction. Go back and read the relevant posts again, carefully. With regards to the minimum temperatures, whilst the readings are taken at 0900hrs, all this does is mark the end and beginning of each day. The minimum temperatures whether air or terrestrial will have occurred at some point within the preceding 24 hours, most likely during the night, not long before sunrise, in both cases each will be at the coldest point of the night. I repeat, the ground temperature is not the soil temperature, it is the AIR temperature taken AT ground level, not in the ground. In the ground measurements are identified as soil temperatures. What we call surface temperature as recorded by weather stations is the temperature at a standard height 1.2m above ground level, and if you don't know there generally is considerable variation in air temperatures in the first few metres above ground level. -
Johngee at 16:24 PM on 13 September 2010European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
I'm struggling with anomaly graphs in the above formats. I undestand the ones that NOAA produce - the one with the world map covered in blue and red dots. Could someone walk me through the above if if you were talking to a child please!! -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 16:19 PM on 13 September 2010European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
“or at least combine with hadley...” - if You please ... ... with ‘Global and European temperature (CSI 012) - Assessment published Jun 2010’ Here it looks a little "interesting", right? Especially before the year 1970 ... -
scaddenp at 14:40 PM on 13 September 2010European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
cruzn246 - its an anomaly plot. The temperatures are shown wrt to average for 1989-2001. This is an arbitrary level, not "normal". If temperatures are trending up, then anomaly plots based on average of mid-temp will show left down and right up. Its "averaging out", it is trending up. -
cruzn246 at 14:32 PM on 13 September 2010European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
These temps are almost as far above normal as they were below normal not that long ago. I guess they are just averaging things out. -
Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Note to johnd - according to the chart you pointed to, the 'Terr min' is the temperature at ground level, not the ground (soil) temperature.
Prev 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 Next
