Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 Next
Comments 114001 to 114050:
-
CBDunkerson at 21:43 PM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
GeoGuy #71, the paleoclimate CO2 record is established by multiple lines of proxy evidence in addition to DIRECT measurements from the ice core samples. For instance isotope analysis of pedogenic minerals, long-chained alkenones in haptophytic algae, marine carbonate, and liverworts are all CO2 proxies which match the ice core results. The stomata proxy you cite assumes that CO2 levels are the only factor which can have a significant impact on the plants. Given the disparity between those results and the other sources I'd have to doubt that. It seems plausible that airborne particulates (from volcanoes or humans), insolation, humidity, rainfall, soil quality, and any number of other things could play a part. There are also several stomata studies which AGREE with the prevailing CO2 record (e.g. Van der Burgh et al., 1993; McElwain and Chaloner, 1995). Thus, this is not a question of one CO2 proxy vs another. It is one dubious writeup on a WEB-SITE vs overwhelming evidence to the contrary. -
CBDunkerson at 21:16 PM on 30 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
How about another analogy? Imagine a pool table (the Earth's atmosphere) where all the pool balls (IR photons) move of their own accord and bounce around until they hit one of the pockets and leave the table (escape to space). Now, say that on average it takes 30 seconds for a pool ball to leave the table... but every 30 seconds another pool ball (photons from sunlight, waste heat, et cetera) is added. Thus the system is in equilibrium and will continue that way indefinitely with a relatively fixed number of balls (stable temperature) on the table. However, if we then block off one of the pockets (add GHGs to the atmosphere) the pool balls cannot escape as fast and the number on the table begins to increase (it gets hotter). These extra pool balls mean extra collisions and more kinetic energy and thus result in balls hitting the remaining pockets more often... until eventually the average time for a ball to leave the table again reaches 30 seconds and the table returns to equilibrium... just with more balls on it (a higher average temperature). An even closer analogy would be if the pool table were three dimensional and different parts of it caused the balls to travel at different speeds (conductivity of solids, liquids and gases the heat is passing through), but essentially that's how it works. There is no great and impenetrable mystery here... and the one white cue ball from waste heat does not behave any differently than all the other balls from solar energy. -
Hoskibui at 20:46 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
#13 thingadonta AGW observer also has a good resource on the non-significant role of cosmic rays in climate. It's actually a very good resource on many aspects of climate science - highly reccomended. -
thingadonta at 20:10 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
#12 Hoskibui Thanks, this is a good resource of solar science. Thinking laterally, I would say if you want to convince the skeptics that it isn't the sun causing recent global warming, do more research on the sun. It's easy to get a research grant to see how c02 might affect marmots or lizards, but get a grant on how solar magnetics affect cosmic rays and the skeptics will be more easily convinced. -
Hoskibui at 19:11 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
#8 thingadonta Why not read the peer review? Papers on minor role of the Sun in recent climate change -
JMurphy at 18:36 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
thingadonta wrote : "The Earth's magnetic field is also slowly declining, and is expected to once again flip poles in a geologically relatively short time-within the next few hundred thousand years, or so, apparently." They come at irregular intervals averaging about 300,000 years; the last one was 780,000 years ago. Are we overdue for another? No one knows. -
Joe Blog at 18:31 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Dappledwater at 18:05 Thanks for the response, i did follow the link in the article on it, and it has the same reason stated as for the stratospheric cooling. Which is basically that co2 acts as an emitter at those molecular densities. It just seemed counter intuitive in the extreme upper atmosphere, because co2 is a relatively heavy molecule, and this is basically talking space, where i would have thought we would be looking more at atomic N and O. And i did read a something on the thermosphere, not that long ago, from nasa... and they had a different hypothesis. These things have a way o sorting themselves out with time though. -
Jesús Rosino at 18:28 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
#8 thingadonta, I think that all solar parameters vary in phase with solar activity (at least cosmic rays do), so we can say that there's no significant solar trend in the last 50 years. In any case, I find your points are pure speculation without any real evidence. You cannot base a hypothesis on what we don't know. What we know shows that the sun hasn't done it. I compare evidence in John's article and evidence in your comment and my conclusion is that that it is highly unlikely that the sun played a role and it is highly likely that the greenhouse gases have. Cheers -
thingadonta at 18:07 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
re: Response to #2: "The fact that the sun has been cooling in recent decades coupled with the observations of all this heat trapped by greenhouse gases puts the matter beyond any doubt in my mind." Solar irradiance/solar heat output is almost certainly not the only solar variable that effects earth temperature. 1) We already have the idea about the increased solar wind, less cosmic rays reaching the earth, and lower cloud formation. Even if the theory is wrong, the concept itself is valid: less clouds due to solar effects other than heat, would mean higher earth temperatures. It would be difficult to distinguish this effect without longer term data on clouds, which is not available. So how could the issue be beyond doubt? 2) Another idea relates to the Sun's magnetic field, which has increased substantially over the 20th century (perhaps doubled). We don't know what effect this has had on Earth climate dynamics. (The Earth's magnetic field is also slowly declining, and is expected to once again flip poles in a geologically relatively short time-within the next few hundred thousand years, or so, apparently). 3) Recently, is was also widely reported that the earth's upper atmosphere had shrunk markedly more than was expected, associated with the last few years decrease in solar output. This suggests that perhaps the effects of solar variation is greater than we know, and also within current climate modelling. #4 and #5 The scientists who are stating this can be found on the net. Here is one: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/05/19/lawrence-solomon-solar-scientists-worldwide-working-to-counter-global-warming-hypothesis/. Another: "The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years. That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed." http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/scientists-blame-sun-for-global-warming/ Of course, one can cherry pick the net to say anything, but I'm not personally convinced we know enough about the sun to draw the conclusions of J.Cook above. -
Rob Painting at 18:05 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Joe Blog @3 - the increased Greenhouse Effect should trap more heat in the lower layers of the Earth's atmosphere, meaning less is reaching the upper atmosphere. This cooling effect in the upper layers causes the Thermosphere to contract. Some climate models predict quite severe cooling in the Thermosphere for a doubling of CO2 (40-60k) -
Jesús Rosino at 17:54 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Great summary, John, many thanks! This is very interesting because the A in AGW is usually the crux of the social debate (there's no scientific debate). I guess that models should also be added as another evidence: models are able to replicate recent climate if anthropogenic forcings are included. Excellent inline answer in #2 too. I would add that, in any case, if the judge is to condemn a suspect, he doesn't need evidence that no other person could have possibly done it. He just needs enough evidence that this specific subject did it. The demand to show that no other thing could have done it is always unachievable (you never know whether we live in The Matrix and tomorroy the machines will just change the code of physic laws). The demand to show that everithing else didn't do it is just an inquisitorial probatio diabolica. -
RSVP at 17:52 PM on 30 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
To EliRabett #129 If not ocean water, it will be rivers or lakes. What difference does it make? -
kdkd at 16:39 PM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
chriscanaris #82 "This paper has been posted on this site before. Basically, it says it's all very hard to predict." Nope. Basically it says that things are somewhat unpredictable, but expect perturbations cyclic behaviour during the transitional stage, just like the kinds of things we're observing with the sea ice extent measurements in the antarctic. It's a fascinating paper, and well worth a read. Google scholar tells me that pdfs are accessable without a subscription. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:22 PM on 30 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
What do you get when you put 1 climate scientist in a room with 99 not-climate-scientists? This. Roy Spencer attempts to explain back radiation. He's a -really- patient guy. -
Marcus at 16:15 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
You're dead right Matt. Claiming that you've read "solar scientists" making these claims-without attribution-just doesn't wash. John has been kind enough to cite about a dozen references which all essentially say the same thing-current warming *cannot* be explained by changes in the heliosphere. -
chris1204 at 16:13 PM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
kdkd @ 82 Early-warning signals for critical transitions in Nature This paper has been posted on this site before. Basically, it says it's all very hard to predict. Isn't that the problem we're currently grappling with? I think a teeny weeny bit of humility is called for when looking at extraordinarily complex systems. -
Rob Painting at 15:54 PM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Humanity Rules @ 78 - If both poles were similar in geography, I'd expect sea ice trends would be similar, however they're not, and the situation in the Antarctic is exacerbated by the ozone hole. And yes, with continued global warming the sea ice trend will eventually reverse and begin to decline. -
kdkd at 15:32 PM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
HR #81 The behaviour of complex systems is less linearly predictable than you might suppose from thinking about it intuitively. Have a look at this paper from Nature on Early-warning signals for critical transitions for a detailed exposition. As well as this, the sheer amount of ice at the Antarctic, dampens the effect of global warming on the weather systems around the continent, and the sheer amount of ice and its high enthalpy of melting means that we can expect rather counterintuitive weather around Antarctica for quite some time to come. -
HumanityRules at 15:00 PM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
I know I'll get accused of straw men or cherry-picking or evading the issue or whatever but I think it's still worth focussing on the antarctic just because many aren't and also because I also think it goes some way to explaining what we are seeing in the arctic as well. The melt season section of the 2009 report (page S129) is interesting. This year show's a melt season in the antarctic 50% shorter than the long term average, a continuation of the recent declining trend. When highlighting extreme climate metrics I wonder why that particular one is ignored? The seesaw nature of the poles seems un-avoidable. As does the natural variability associated with that. -
gallopingcamel at 14:43 PM on 30 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
John, I forgot to thank you for telling me about Barry Brook's blog! -
gallopingcamel at 14:38 PM on 30 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
John Cook, Thanks for your comment. Barry Brook may have what it takes to lead a broad alliance that will promote a future where cheap electricity from NPPs powers our civilisation. As an admitted "Sceptic" I have no problem marching under Barry's banner. -
MattJ at 14:37 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
thingadonta- There is another problem with your claim: it is "hearsay evidence". WHAT "solar scientists" are saying this? I haven't heard any. And there are certainly enough of them who agree with the conclusions of the IPCC and ALL the Science Academies of ALL the major developed nations: global warming aka "climate change" is real, and manmade CO2 is the major cause of it. -
HumanityRules at 14:06 PM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
55.villabolo at 01:32 AM on 30 July, 2010 I live in Melbourne, weather affected by antarctic conditions. If you're going to take that position then I'm happy not to give a stuff about what's occuring in the Arctic :) -
HumanityRules at 14:03 PM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
49.CBDunkerson at 22:51 PM on 29 July, 2010 A new study says that phytoplankton in the oceans have decreased by 40% since 1950. We'd better pray this is erroneous because if it isn't we're looking at a massive decrease in human population within this century. It doesn't seem to be the way the data is moving in this report! -
HumanityRules at 13:55 PM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
39.Dappledwater at 21:29 PM on 29 July, 2010 It always strikes me there is no real point arguing about SH sea ice. If it's increasing it's AGW. The year it starts to shrink it will be AGW. Having all the bases covered means there is no room for anything else.Response: You don't need to be so cynical. There's been a number of peer-reviewed examinations of southern sea ice which carefully and meticulously account for the various regional trends in sea ice across the Southern Ocean. -
HumanityRules at 13:51 PM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
36.CBDunkerson at 21:18 PM on 29 July, 2010 To be clear those aren't measurements you're talking about they are modelled data. -
Joe Blog at 13:24 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Just another random query from me in regards to the graphic in the article... how is the shrinking thermosphere related to greenhouse warming? I would assume this would far more likely be due to variable space "weather"(variable UV through solar cycle etc) What is the proposed mechanism through co2? -
thingadonta at 12:27 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
"many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning" Many solar scientists I have read state that we don't know enough about the sun to make that conclusion. Solar radiation, on all levels and cycles, and its effects on Earth, are multiple and diverse, and poorly understood. This means one can't definitely distinguish between these two processes relating to global warming -greenhouse gases and solar variables, and therefore all of your above fingerprints could still be correct and yet greenhouse gases may still not be the main driver of global warming in the last several decades. I didn't say this, solar scientists are saying it.Response: When I was putting together the various human fingerprints on climate change, I came up with nearly 20 different fingerprints. I ended up choosing the ones that were distinct to fossil fuels and greenhouse warming. For example, if the sun was causing global warming, we would see days warming faster than nights. We see the opposite - nights warming faster than days - a characteristic of greenhouse warming. Similarly, if the sun was causing global warming, we would see the upper atmosphere warming as well as the lower atmosphere. Instead, we see the upper atmosphere cooling as the lower atmosphere warms. Again, a distinct signature of greenhouse warming. The unique signatures we'd expect from solar warming are strikingly absent.
I must confess, it still surprises me that people cling to the "sun is causing global warming" hypothesis. The fact that the sun has been cooling in recent decades coupled with the observations of all this heat trapped by greenhouse gases puts the matter beyond any doubt in my mind. -
Bern at 12:23 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Thanks, John, that's the other half of the story that needs to be told (and it answers many of the questions that came up as a result of the NOAA report). I will, indeed, use your graphic in a powerpoint slide! :-D -
EliRabett at 12:01 PM on 30 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Somewhere up above the statement was made that heat from power plants flows into the ocean from heat exchangers. Since only a fraction of power plants are located on the ocean (Eli is too lazy to look this up) the claim is on thin ice. -
muoncounter at 11:37 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#71 "premise of the stomata studies is that the calculated atmospheric CO2 is determined to be significantly higher than that determined from ice core data." See a nice debunking of said premise. Also see another and yet another. "I am not sure what you mean by "the plot" as I posted several plots." Go back to your post where this is labeled as "The Plot"
What bothered me in this 'geocraft.com' plot was the conspicuous absence of the CO2 lows mentioned by Kouwenberg etal in the 2005 paper, as shown below in their Figure 3.
The geocraft.com plot cites Kouwenberg and Ria (?) from the same year; did anyone check for other work by Kouwenberg's group? So my statement was simply that whoever put together 'The Plot' used only a portion of the available data. And that the conclusion reached by Kouwenberg etal. is the polar opposite of that reached by geocraft.
"studies exist that have conclusions that conflict with one another - that is a part of science"
I couldn't agree more. But it is also a part of science to follow all available data trails.
Unfortunately, this stomata business was picked up by the usual suspects, notably WUWT; I've already found 5 others that I won't give free publicity. And of course, WUWT gives a link back to the article at geocraft.com.
This is a great illustration of the denial machine at work.
-
Tom Dayton at 11:22 AM on 30 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP asked "It sounds like CO2's ability to transfers energy to non GHGs is extremely efficient, if not 100% efficient. Why then does concentration matter, (i.e., the basis of AGW)?" Answer: Because the higher the CO2 concentration, the more CO2 molecules get in the way of IR photons that are emitted from other CO2 molecules. That causes a longer delay in the energy escaping to space. If the concentration is "low," nearly all the energy from the surface still is absorbed by the atmosphere, but the delay of that energy escaping to space is shorter, meaning the bottleneck of energy escaping to space is wider, so less energy accumulates before the rush of energy trying to escape increases enough to reach equilibrium again. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:11 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
John: In light of the stir Judith Curry has created over at Real Climate and at Climate Progress (see this post here: Consensus on a scientific issue is established as science evolves through the following successive stages (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990) ), perhaps this would be a good time for Skeptical Science to weigh in with a post on the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming today in those same terms. The National Academy of Science recently touched on this back in May in their report Advancing the Science of Climate Change - Settled Facts. But as usual, the media failed to follow up on it. Such a post would go a long way towards reducing the noise level being generated here at Skeptical Science by the usual denialist sites and their denizens. Cross-posted this at RC as well, in case you want to touch with Gavin et al to avoid duplication of effort. The Yooper -
chris1204 at 10:43 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
muoncounter @ 59: By reiterating that the SH and NH show different trends, as if that somehow alters the alarming problem in the Arctic, you just did. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. There are different trends in the two hemispheres which warrant scrutiny. Pointing this out is not cherrypicking - just statainbg a fact which is then open to a range of intepretations. Dappledwater @ 70: So inolation can matter an awful lot. I'm aware we are currently at a periood of relatively low insolation. I have never suggested that any of these phenomena negate AGW - merely that the picture is more complicated than it may appear at first sight. dhogaza @ 62: So which of the various extent metrics should we rely on? The point is that there are several of which JAXA happens to give the most pessimistic view (yet not without grouinds for optimism). New ice may eventually become old ice. -
michael sweet at 10:28 AM on 30 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP @115: Congratulations! You have learned that the heat transfer in the atmosphere is efficient. The last 200+ posts have not been completely in vain. Now one more point: the CO2 in the atmosphere ABSORBS almost ALL of the energy from the surface before it escapes into space. If you want to continue to insist that only 3% is captured you must provide a reference that shows that. -
kdkd at 08:08 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP #50 I see that you have continued with off topic posting, and that you have chosen to completely ignore the substantitive parts of my argument. I can only assume that this means that you are conceding that your attitude to the analysis of the scientific big picture is lacking in logical rigour, preferring as you to to focus on isoloated bits of information where you can magnify all perceived uncertainty out of all proportion to its importance. -
KR at 07:52 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
GeoGuy - regarding manmade CO2 causing the warming: Are you familiar with the following: - Isotope evidence for human driven CO2 increases in the last 150 years? - The many records indicating high CO2 concentrations now, and correlations between CO2, solar output, and temperature in the past, since CO2 isn't the only driver of climate? The 'warming sun', incidentally, is determined by not only proxy records but by clean-slate physics of fusion reactions and fusion by-products in the sun. - Correlation between CO2 and temperature in the current era? - Measured entrapment of IR at CO2 and H2O (feedback) wavelengths, with accompanying energy imbalances? Given these, it's difficult for me to see how you could come to the conclusion that manmade CO2 isn't causing the current warming. As to Monte Heib - I would take his statements with a large block of salt (or more properly coal). His website contains lots of mis-information; he seems more than a bit biased, and doesn't provide numeric support for his statements. -
Geo Guy at 07:22 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Muoncounter # 9 - The premise of the stomata studies is that the calculated atmospheric CO2 is determined to be significantly higher than that determined from ice core data. What this discrepancy says is the historical amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere are subject to debate and until a more accurate determination can be made, we should not soley rely on just one method. In addition, the assessment of atmospheric CO2 over geological time gives a more accurate picture of the temp-CO2 relationship. Climate had changed regularly over time (geological time) and so studies that address those changes over such a time scale give us a more comprehensive picture than taking data that reflects a smaller time period. For instance if you were to focus on the Permian-Triassic period, one could easily surmise a positive correlation between CO2 and temperature. On the other hand, data from a 150 million year time frame (Cretaceous-Tertiary) reveals an inverse relationship with atmospheric CO2 on a clear downslope while temperatures rise and then stay steady. Also note that the CO2 content of the atmosphere over geological time has been well above the current levels, rising as high as 7,000 ppm in the Cambrian and falling to current levels only once before during the carboniferous. As for including plate tectonic events, while they do play a role in climate, the main periods of such activity were the upper cretaceous lasting for about 100 my. Since volcanoes contribute to cooling (due to a air), one might surmise that period of volcanic activity actually prevented the temperature from increasing further than data suggests, at a time when CO2 was on a sharp decrease. Canbanj # 14 - No I do not. You can contact Sootese directly and I am sure he will enlighten you. . Dan Olner # 27 - I agree to a certain extent. Many people seem to be convinced that since the global temperatures appear to be warming, that is a direct result of man-made CO2. To be there is a wide leap of faith between one (global warming) and two (it is due to man-made CO2). While science may be somewhat exact, the application of Science is where things tend to fall apart - something many people posting to this blog seem to be unable to comprehend. Glenn Tamblyn # 29 - my point for the post was to present a view that extends over the geological time scale. As you can see, in the diagram there are periods where CO2 and temperatures appear to correlate with one another (late Permian to early Triassic) and there are times when they have a negative relationship (early Cretaceous to about 1 million years ago. To fully assess the relationship, we need to see how it was over geological time and not during very small time periods. muoncounter # 21 - I am not sure what you mean by "the plot" as I posted several plots. If you are referring to the Stomata studies, the analysis is different from the one you lists which dealt with a specific plant species. Instead of accusing a person of cherry picking, step back and realize studies exist that have conclusions that conflict with one another - that is a part of science. To understand the way in which stomata are studied from a climate perspective, read this brief article on the method used: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mcelwain_03 Glenn Tamblyn # 29 - It is hard to determine exactly what the sun's output has been over geological time given that we have only developed the methods to measure solar output. in the past 40 years or so. While there may be proxies used, as with all proxies there is a significant margin of error with any such data. As for Monte Heib's site, I feel he has some good arguments that need to be addressed instead of being discounted as frivolous. The focus on man made CO2 causing the warming trend many people go to great lengths to argue (notwithstanding they tend to prove that the earth is warming and not prove that the warming is attributable to man made CO2.) As a geologist I have spent my life assessing past environments and as such those who say the current warming trend is solely due to man made CO2, have to, in my mind, come up with stronger arguments to disprove that the warming is not linked to some of the many natural phenomenons that contribute to climate change. davidpalermo # 60 - I fully agree. I wonder if they have tried and not been able to come up with the answer they would like to have? -
Rob Painting at 06:58 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Chriscanaris - "Phew! It was pretty torrid 125,00 years ago with a lot of CO2 in the air - well within the span of human habiation" Sure, if you consider less than 300ppm of atmospheric CO2 a lot. Aren't we near 390ppm now?. Chriscanaris - "and ceratinly not a young sun phenomenon." Certainly not, more like a greater insolation due to orbital eccentricity of the Earth phenomemon. -
barry1487 at 04:37 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
@Berényi Péte Do you not realize that over the past year skeptics and others have taken the raw, unadjusted data and found that the results closely fit the formal records closely. You can switch out airports, or cities or rural areas and you get the same results. The satellite records are close to the surface records for the last 30 years. Anyone who has actually crunched the numbers, replicating GISS/CRU methods, or making up their own, is finding that the adjusted records are not significantly different from that produced with raw data. To return to the point of the post here, 8 or 9 other indicators corroborate the conclusion. There really is no wiggle room left for a rational mind. The planet has been warming. -
gallopingcamel at 04:24 AM on 30 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
Pete Ridley, (#136) Barry Brook strikes me as someone who Flanders and Swann would have called a "general all round egg-head". I mean that in the nicest possible way even though he is a committed CAGW alarmist. His blog (Brave New Climate) is far and away the best I have seen when it comes to energy policy. Those of you who want to do move beyond a futile debate about global warming should consider spending some time at BNC discussing "solutions".Response: Barry is great. I met him at the Brook/Readfern vs Plimer/Monckton debate. The other three turned up for a sleeves rolled up, bare knuckles brawl. Barry's talk had the calm, dispassionate air that had me going back to my university lecture days. The main theme of his blog is that both sides of the debate have many points of agreement on how we should produce energy. -
DarkSkywise at 04:15 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
I just went through some of the comments @ the CNN piece... nice to see so many people taking issue with the fact that the interviewed skeptics were: 1. someone from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2. someone from the Cato Institute, 3. "a blogger" and 4. "a financier who follows climate science as a hobby" instead of some, well, real climate scientists. ;) -
KR at 03:35 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
This story is linked off the front page of today's CNN, which is good to see. It also made yesterday's Fox News, including the fact that the 80's, 90's, and last 10 years are, in order, the three hottest decades on record. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:19 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Further to John Russell's remarks, it seems to this layperson that where there is no ice visible there can be no ice volume. Unless the subsurface arrangement of ice is remarkably plastic and/or ice volume can increase and decline with amazing speed, steadily larger annually periodic swings in visibility of ice by us air-breathers seem to me a reasonable hint as to ice volume. -
dhogaza at 03:19 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
It's true, however, that extent is declining much more slowly DURING JULY than over the last few years.
Added two crucial words ... -
dhogaza at 03:15 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
chriscanaris: Antarctic sea ice is behaving about as predicted by the scientific community. Most people, when confronted with predictions borne out by future observations, understand that this *strengthens* the scientific case (in this case, climate science). WUWTians and the like say "antarctic sea ice isn't melting, climate science is a fraud!", in other words, a system behaving as predicted means that the science underlying the prediction is fraudulent. Kinda weird, no? -
DarkSkywise at 03:13 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Tony O at 23:07 PM on 29 July, 2010: "Thirteen; Flowering dates are changing. Poor little flowers do not know what season it is." Flowers shouldn't be trusted. Remember what they made us do in the Sixties? Surely proves they're part of the AGW-conspiracy! :P *wonders how long it will take until this'll show up in the Skeptic Arguments list* -
dhogaza at 03:11 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
chriscanaris's claims "recovery of NH ice", and is nicely skewered by the inclusion of the current NSIDC sea ice extent plot. It's true, however, that extent is declining much more slowly than over the last few years. That's due largely to thin ice being blown around - increased extent, lower concentration. You can get a feel for that by looking at the JAXA area graph, which shows arctic sea ice area now dropping very sharply:
-
KR at 02:41 AM on 30 July 2010Models are unreliable
Pete Ridley - Regarding temperature data, I must apologize; apparently there are three independent data sets, not four. The two satellite sets are derived from the same sensors, albeit with very different data processing. So, the independent data sets are: satellite data (two major statistical analyses), the GHCN database data (currently 1500-2000 stations, many many analyses), and the Global Summary of the Day (GSOD) database (9000 stations, fewer analyses). You can add to that the increasing Ocean Heat Content, sea level rises, longer growing seasons, and a ton of other data, as per the recent NOAA State of the Climate 2009 All raw data indicates rising temperatures, including the last 10 years. All analyses except short term runs with start dates chosen to be 2-sigma events like the 1998 spike indicate rising temperatures, including the last 10 years. I will stand by my statements on the surface temps, and the lack of a decline in recent years. -
Pete Ridley at 02:35 AM on 30 July 2010The nature of authority
Ned, ref.#169, I appreciate that at least this time you quote me accurately, unlike on the “How reliable are climate models?” thread at #220 (although you persist in spinning what I say to suit your own agenda). Your suggestion that “If you can't make your point without wildly exaggerating you're probably better off not making it at all” is perfectly valid. I trust that supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis will respond positively to it. Let me assure you that I make no suggestion “ .. that anything that falls short of "the destruction of life as we know it" should be ignored”, however, I do suggest that supporters of The Hypothesis are grossly over-reacting to speculation about what the impact of our use of fossil fuels is going to be on global climates. It pays to be reasonably cautious where risks exist but being excessively cautious can be as damaging as ignoring them altogether. You say that discussing religion is off-topic but the topic is “The Nature of Authority”. John says of his blog’s comment policy “However, I now delete any comments containing the following: * Rants about politics, ideology or one world governments .. ”. If John deletes one of my comments then I know that he considers me to have fallen foul of his policy. Perhaps you need to be a bit more careful when ranting on comparing different religions and science. Regarding my comments about confidence tricks, these were directed at anyone having a vested interest in promoting a myth in order to enhance their authority. Anyone who denies that there are those who promote The Hypothesis for reasons of vested interest beyond concern about the impact of our use of fossil fuels is in my opinion either gullible or dishonest. I invite you to consider the words of two sadly departed individuals who were prominent in the debate about The Hypothesis, supporter Professor Stephen Schneider and sceptic John Daly (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm). Best regards, Pete RidleyModerator Response: The impact of global climate change is covered in these posts: It’s not bad and CO2 is not a pollutant. Comments about those topics belong on those threads.
Prev 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 Next
