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:
-
John Russell at 22:08 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
CBDunkerson & Chriscanaris An obeservation. It seems to me, from a layman's viewpoint, that sea ice EXTENT is a function/indicator of WEATHER -- thin ice forms and melts relatively quickly due to the ambient temperatures in an area over quite a short time period. On the other hand sea ice THICKNESS is a function/indicator of CLIMATE -- thick ice hangs around for a long time with its thickness changing by only a relatively small amount due to the weather it experiences. Overall though it's only variations in ice VOLUME that can evidence the trend to a colder or warmer climate. That's not to say that sea ice extent is not useful -- when averaged over years, its variations are the most easily-observed sign that the climate might be warming (or indeed, at other times, cooling) -- but to give any priority to extent data over volume data would be illogical ('cos it's only half the story). I'm also bearing in mind that (I think I'm correct in saying) it's also only recently that reliable volume data has been available, which might explain why it could appear that scientists are now shifting their position. Any views? -
drabikmr at 22:04 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Thanks for this fine graphic. But gosh how I wish I could share this with all the naysayers I know. I used to post comments on global warming at my Facebook page, but sooooo many there just refuse to admit that it's happening that I stopped posting anything on GW there altogether. But I am grateful for what I see here - at least I stay informed. I hope the naysayers will come 'round some day though I fear that won't happen until it's far too late for them to do anything but suffer through they helped to cause - or even worse to know what they did will adversely affect the lives of their kids, grandkids and great-kids, etc . . . -
CBDunkerson at 21:58 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP #121: "The world is not flat" Hooray! Finally, an aspect of basic scientific reality upon which we can agree. -
CBDunkerson at 21:53 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP, the GHCN temperature data are in close agreement with a separate surface data set AND the satellite temperature data AND proxy temperature data sets. In short, if you really must go on with the conspiracy theories about how the three GHCN based temperature sets have all been faked then you're going to need to explain how those other sources have ALSO been faked. -
kdkd at 21:38 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP #31 I'm not really interested in quibbling about the the surface temperature record. As far as I can see as an interested observer there is no significant difference between the independently derived temperature records. What I am interested in is the logical contortions that you have to use to ignore the big picture, choosing instead to focus on, and magnify out of all proportions, the perceived uncertainties. The key point I made that you have chosen not to address (I detect a pattern here) is: "The way you put it you think we'd expect to see lots of contradictory evidence that as a whole could be misinterpreted to show spurious alarming anthropogenic global warming" The way you present your position that the big picture is unimportant, this is the only logical interpretation I can think of as to why you would take this view. It is also interesting that you chose not to address this aspect of my attack on your position. -
Tony Noerpel at 21:37 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#32 Mauri Thanks for your effort. Great report. Tony -
Ned at 21:36 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP writes: You should ask several questions first. I agree, one should ask questions first rather than leaping to conclusions. One should also be very precise in the formulation of one's questions and answers, to prevent needless confusion. 1. Is there a difference? (yes) 2. Is it documented? (no) We don't know that. You initially claimed that the difference in adjustments between US and non-US stations in GHCN was "undocumented" when in fact a few seconds with Google revealed that the difference is widely discussed, including in the primary paper about GHCN (Peterson & Vose 1997). 3. Does GHCN v2 have the original METAR records? (no) GHCN-Monthly is not derived from METAR records, it's derived from CLIMAT records. 4. Does Weather Underground have them? (yes) Yes, the daily data at WUnderground are derived from METAR. This suggests that you're launching into a comparison of, if not apples and oranges, perhaps granny smiths and macouns. 7. Are the magnitude of adjustments comparable to the trend? (yes) That's not really a relevant question, now is it? Assuming for the moment your claim that there is an "adjustment" (proof of which is not in evidence) ... as long as there isn't a trend in the adjustments the adjustments won't affect the trend (over long enough periods of time). 8. Are adjustments supposed to be done to raw data in GHCN? (no) Note that you haven't yet actually established the existence of an adjustment by GHCN. -
Rob Painting at 21:29 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Chriscanaris - " Meanwhile, sea ice extent has continued its increase in the SH." See argument 105. It's a logical fallacy that the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice would behave the same in a warming world, as indeed some early climate modeling predicted the asymmetry. Chriscanris - "And yes, I'm aware that the Greenland ice cap and Antarctic ice cap may be losing mass. I do my best not to cherrypick." Cherry picking is what one does in order to mislead. Notice how the contributors here put it all into context?. And the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets "are" losing mass, not "may be", that sounds is bit misleading don't you think?. -
Paul D at 21:26 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Miekol... You are quick to criticise but openly made an opening comment which statistically is poor judgement of the facts. You asked for 10 apparently separate reasons why 10 global warming indicators were happening. Taken literally and if someone wanted to waste a lot of time going over existing science, then your comment might be valid. However statistically it would be very unusual to have different reasons for all 10. That is the point of publishing them. The hypothesis is validated by all 10 occurring at the same time. What you should be doing is putting together a hypothesis to explain why all 10 are happening and submit it. It isn't the onus of scientists to come up with an alternative theory if they don't think there is one. -
Ned at 21:20 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
FWIW, I have close to zero interest in spending my time today trying to track down the cause of a difference between the reported GHCN monthly mean for a particular station and the average of the Weather Underground daily means for that station. That will be a complicated project because the WUnderground data come from daily METAR reports while the GHCN monthly data come from monthly CLIMAT reports. I do find it interesting that out of the universe of possible explanations, BP jumps immediately to the conclusion that it must be malfeasance ("undocumented fiddling") by GHCN. -
CBDunkerson at 21:18 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Chriscanaris #28 wrote: "Now that NH ice seems to be holding up (indeed firmly back within two standard deviations of the mean over the last thirty years)" That doesn't match up with the data I'm seeing;
Extent is a little above the 2007 results, which were the lowest ever recorded, but still well below two standard deviations from the average (the grey shaded region). The ice is also both thinner and less concentrated than it was in 2007... making it still entirely possible that we could see a new low extent this year depending on weather over the next month and a half.
In any case, focusing on volume isn't some 'dodge'. Volume is the amount of ice. If we want to know whether the ice is increasing or decreasing what we are looking for is the change in volume. Unfortunately, we don't have precise data on the total volume right now because IceSAT went offline and Cryosat II data is still being analyzed. Which is where proxies like extent get pulled in.
Volume = Ice Area * Ice Thickness
Extent = Ice Area / Ice concentration (0.15 to 1.00)
From these simple formulas it can be seen that Extent differs from Volume by two variables, and thus is not a particularly accurate proxy. It's just comparatively easy to measure.
BTW, even though Cryosat II data hasn't been released yet the less precise measurements of sea ice area, concentration, and thickness from other satellites show steep declines this year. Thickness and concentration are both well below where they were in 2007 and as a result ice volume is clearly at an all time low, well beyond the uncertainty range of the estimates.
-
Berényi Péter at 21:14 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#33 Ned at 20:53 PM on 29 July, 2010 let me get this straight You should ask several questions first.- Is there a difference? (yes)
- Is it documented? (no)
- Does GHCN v2 have the original METAR records? (no)
- Does Weather Underground have them? (yes)
- Is the difference random? (no)
- Is it centered at zero? (no)
- Are the magnitude of adjustments comparable to the trend? (yes)
- Are adjustments supposed to be done to raw data in GHCN? (no)
-
JMurphy at 21:06 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
chriscanaris wrote : "Earlier this year, we were hearing about the record ice melt in the Northern Hemisphere. Now that NH ice seems to be holding up (indeed firmly back within two standard deviations of the mean over the last thirty years), we're told that it's not sea ice extent but rather sea ice volume, quality, or whatever metric comes to hand. Meanwhile, sea ice extent has continued its increase in the SH." Where are you getting all that information from ? Some of it sounds as if you are getting it from NSIDC, but anyone looking there would not see "NH ice...holding up (indeed firmly back within two standard deviations of the mean over the last thirty years)". Have a look at the blue line there. Also have a look at these comments there : Ice extent remained lower than normal in all regions of the Arctic, with open water developing along the coasts of northwest Canada, Alaska and Siberia. As of July 15, total extent was 8.37 million square kilometers (3.23 million square miles), which is 1.62 million square kilometers (625,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the same date... None of the NH graphs at Cryosphere Today seem to back you up either. Where did you get your information from ? As for the SH, what do you mean "sea ice extent has continued its increase" ? 'Continued' from when, to what sort of 'increase' ? -
RSVP at 21:03 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
The Ville #120 The world is not flat, and I dont think I specified how high this mirror is etc. It was a bad choice on my part to focus on the idea of what would happen if absolutely all the IR was reflected back to Earth's surface. I assume you would agree that surface warming would be readily detect, yet in the next chapter, of the 10 items, I did not see this one. It is better that I admit my error. I do. Thanks. -
Ned at 20:53 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP, let me get this straight. You see a difference in reported temperatures for a NYC station between GHCN and Weather Underground. You then conclude that this must be "undocumented fiddling" by GHCN. Do I have that right, or am I missing something? -
Ned at 20:46 PM on 29 July 2010It's cooling
Thanks for the reminder, Theodore. Yes, "global dimming" does exist. John Cook talks about it in a related thread called Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?. He's got a reference to Wild et al. 2007, which discusses global dimming in some detail. -
mspelto at 20:37 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
I have been waiting for this material to be released for six months. The graph I prefer is the one on page 26-27 of the report. I can tell you having written the glaciers chapter Page 49, and provided the glacier data for the graph 26-27, that there is an immense amount of peer review of this material.Response: I presume this is the graph you're talking about:
That page showing time series of eleven different indicators is a great resource. I may do a follow-up post focusing on the content from that page. Thanks for your comment (and your work on the NOAA report). -
Theodore at 20:30 PM on 29 July 2010It's cooling
Is "Global dimming" an issue here at all? Or does it exist? -
Ned at 20:15 PM on 29 July 2010The nature of authority
Pete Ridley writes: There is a hypothesis that our use of fossil fuels may be causing significant global warming which, if assumed positive feedback effects occurred, might lead to a catastrophic tipping point at which point the globe may heat up drastically and possibly destroy life as we know it. This hypothesis is supported not by evidence but by a claimed scientific consensus. I am aware of no scientific consensus around a hypothesis that AGW would "destroy life as we know it." If you can't make your point without wildly exaggerating you're probably better off not making it at all. Furthermore, is "the destruction of life as we know it" the new bar to which a potential problem must rise before which we can address it? Do you suggest that anything that falls short of "the destruction of life as we know it" should be ignored? PR continues: There are also a hypothesis that there exists a benevolent (and vengeful according to the Jehovah's Witnesses) superpower that is keeping an eye on our earthly activities. This hypothesis is also supported not by evidence but by a claimed consensus. Discussion of religion is off-topic, and the use of religion as a mechanism for smearing your rhetorical opponents is particularly inappropriate. Your point is also completely illogical. Does the fact that some people are religious inherently invalidate all scientific consensus? Does the existence of the Vatican cause to to disbelieve in plate tectonics, and the fact that there are lots of Hindus in South Asia make you question Maxwell's equations? PR continues: In my opinion both of these hypotheses are unacceptable confidence tricks supported by those in authority for the purpose of exerting their will. As one of the greatest physicists, mathematicians, astronomers and philosophers ever, Gallileo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei), demonstrated, consensus has little part to play in science. Pete, would you please stop testing the boundaries to see how close you can skate to the edge of the Comments Policy before your comments get deleted? Accusing those who disagree with you of playing "confidence tricks" is completely inappropriate. You are free to believe that, but please keep such beliefs to yourself when commenting here. As for Galileo, it's very common to see people who disagree with any scientific consensus (vaccination, UFOs, the link between smoking and cancer, whatever) trying to claim the mantle of Galileo. Unfortunately, as Carl Sagan said, "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Being an outlier on some scientific issue does not guarantee that you're right. In any given century, there are far more crackpots than Galileos. I would also particularly disagree with the Galileo analogy in this case, and in fact suggest that you have it exactly backwards -- it's the Moranos and Cuccinellis and Bartons and Inhofes who are busily playing the part of Galileo's persecutors. PR concludes: I brought up my children to question what they are told. That sounds nice, like most platitudes. I also believe in questioning what I'm told. I think on scientific questions it's important to examine the evidence for a proposition. Fortunately in the case of AGW the evidence (as summarized on this site) is pretty conclusive. -
Pete Ridley at 20:10 PM on 29 July 2010The nature of authority
JMurphy, sorry, I should have said 136. -
Berényi Péter at 19:48 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#25 kdkd at 18:17 PM on 29 July, 2010 your argument elevates the contrarian practice of cherry picking as more valid. Incredible It's not cherry picking, it is called reality check. A very different kind of activity. We have 67 overlapping months between GHCN and Weather Underground for Central Park. After September, 2006 GHCN has dropped this station and before March, 2000 Weather Underground has only fractional data for the site. Anyway, adjustment statistics with 0.1°C bins looks like this for the period:
Remember. It is not proper adjustment (if it were, it would have supposed to go into v2.mean_adj), it's just some undocumented fiddling. The statistics does not look like measurement error for sure.
If things like this are allowed to be done to the raw dataset even at a single station, a full scale audit is warranted indeed. You can't deny that in good faith.
On the other hand, you can't expect me to do the full job either in my spare time when there are payed government employees for this very purpose.
Anyway, I'll do my best, but any help would be appreciated. As far as I know no one has looked into the adjustments done to raw GHCN values yet.
I have already downloaded data from Weather Underground for Canada and Alaska the other day. As time permits, I'll run the check for those sets and report back with the results.
-
chris1204 at 19:43 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
JMurphy @ 26: I know all too many people who have reported precisely these symptoms and after about ten or so visits to the emergency room resulting in normal ECG, cardiologist reviews with normal findings, and normal stress test results eventually find their way to my office. Panic attacks and generalised anxiety disorders are also very common and require a different line of treatment to ischaemic heart disease. Indeed, repeated visits to emergency rooms in such circumstances can reinforce panic symptoms. Moreover, you can have both panic disorder and ischaemic heart disease at the same time. It's important to work out whether a patient's symptoms are due to one or the other (or possibly both). I would certainly be urging someone who reported these symptoms for the first time particularly after exertion to be going to the emergency room. However, to bring this back on topic (ie, AGW), I'd be suggesting that while there's lots of evidence the world is warming and that human caused CO2 emissions contribute substantially, the questions around the robustness of the paleoclimate record and the reliability of the current instrumental record are important in determining our response. To go back to the medical analogy, do you take a Valium and practice deep breathing/ relaxation or do you give sublingual glyceryl trinitrate and put the patient on the urgent list for a stent? Indeed you might do both. And yes, you'd be encouraging your panic disorder patient to watch his/her diet, lose weight, get exercise, get their cholesterol down (cf mitigation strategies for possible comorbid ischaemic heart disease)whilst educating him/her about panic disorder (paradoxically very much a disease of positive feedbacks in which anxiety -> symptoms -> increased anxiety). -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:25 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Geo Guy @ 6 Two questions. Firstly, what is the fascination with GeoCraft.com among Sceptics. I have had the last graph you refer to pushed at me dozens of times by sceptics. Always associated with the question, implied or not that if CO2 varies so differently with Temp well in the distant past well....? Addressing that in a moment, I would first like an answer to why Geocraft.com attracts sceptics like Pooh bear to Honey. The site is self-described as belonging to a Monte Hieb. www.takeonit.com lists Monte Hieb as: "Monte Hieb is the author of several popular web pages skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, serving as a evangelist for the viewpoint (he does not state his qualification in climatology or a related science). He is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training. " So what is the fascination with Monte Hieb? Now to the graph, yet again; I am getting tired of repeating this one. This graph, and better versions of it are available elsewhere, is not the full answer because it doesn't take into account the fact that Solar output was lower in the distant past. The world needed more CO2 to compensate for the cooler Sun. If your question was honestly meant then I suggest you read some of John's posts here. A Search for 'Royer' will turn up a number of them. One is here at http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-has-been-higher-in-the-past.html. Then you might like to look at Wiki, looking for the 'Faint Young Sun Problem' and working from there. However, if your 'question' was a little more disengenuous than that (and citing Monte Hieb implies that) then ScepticalScience was probably the wrong site to 'ask' that question. So please, Why Monte Hieb's site? -
chris1204 at 19:20 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
muoncounter @ 3 Saying someone who disagrees with you or with some aspect of what you are saying is a very comfortable argument - indeed, it's an argument to which no response is possible. Denial is not the sole province of the 'sceptical' community. All of us can go into denial. All of us cherrypick facts to suit our point of view. We sometimes call this selective recall. The AGW community is no exception to this universal human tendency. Earlier this year, we were hearing about the record ice melt in the Northern Hemisphere. Now that NH ice seems to be holding up (indeed firmly back within two standard deviations of the mean over the last thirty years), we're told that it's not sea ice extent but rather sea ice volume, quality, or whatever metric comes to hand. Meanwhile, sea ice extent has continued its increase in the SH. And yes, I'm aware that the Greenland ice cap and Antarctic ice cap may be losing mass. I do my best not to cherrypick. We frequently hear about record high Arctic temperatures in the Arctic when in fact our instrumental record for the Arctic is very slim and calls for enormous extrapolations. Could this just possibly mean that some negative feedbacks or forcing might be coming into play? It would be nice if this proved to be the case - certainly, a better outlook for the planet. I don't pretend to know who's right at least on the sea ice question. I've held off to date on commenting on the appropriateness of long range psychiatric diagnoses by unqualified practitioners. However, repeated references to 'denial' with references back to the psychiatric literature make me grumpy. -
Paul D at 19:11 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP You are way off topic. Then I suggest you don't use incorrect analogies! But in any case, I accept your answer as acknowledgement of your error. -
RSVP at 19:00 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
The Ville #117 You are way off topic. -
RSVP at 18:59 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
CBDunkerson #106 This thing about light dispersing is getting off topic as far as the thread is concerned. You are right, energy cannot be destroyed. Perhaps as far as the IR there could be scattering due to GHG.. why not? (this aside from energy absorption). Perhaps this explains some warming phenomenon. -
Paul D at 18:55 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Geez. Your scenario is radiated heat from the ocean. If you are going to use analogies, then keep to the one you started with. If your analogy is incorrect then accept the fact. -
RSVP at 18:51 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
The Ville #114 Yes but Sunlight is far from laser quality. -
RSVP at 18:48 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR 101 In this narrative, it sounds like CO2's ability to transfers energy to non GHGs is extrememly efficient, if not 100% efficient. Why then does concentration matter, (i.e., the basis of AGW)? CO2 only couples a small percentage of the Earth's surface heat, while nearly all of this energy gets out. So in your second case, it takes a lot more energy from the source to get the same air mass up 1 degree centigrade. Your reference to a magic electrode is unwarranted because in heating air only .03% of the energy (or thereabouts) goes into heating the CO2 it contains. So in case 1 you make it sound like CO2 is super heat sink, while for AGW a difference of 100 ppm makes all the difference in the world. -
Dan Olner at 18:48 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Looking at the finality of these combined data-sets, something occurs to me: those of us who spend any time commenting on these forums need to remember that the vast majority of people aren't interested in the sort of climate change arguments we have. There's a danger, I think, that we mistake the heat and noise of blog-science for what's happening out there in reality. Most people, I believe, would see the evidence presented here and conclude that, yes, the planet is warming. Obviously, undeniably. I worry that we need to find a better way to channel our energies: blog arguing can feel 'important' when perhaps it isn't. Question, then: given that, actually, most people would accept the overwhelming evidence, how might those of us accepting of the science best spend our finite time? We *could* spend an infinite amount of time arguing with contrarians, about the scientific equivalent of whether the data shows we're heading to winter or summer. Perhaps we need to not let ourselves get drawn into that quite as much any more. Contrarians have made quite enough rope to hang themselves with. We still need to argue, and amazing blogs like this will always be needed. But perhaps we need to withdraw some of the oxygen of attention contrarians still get. The battle is about doubt, not science. That battle isn't going to be won arguing with people still harping on about particular weather stations, months after that line of argument was shown to be nonsense. It'll be won convincing the wider public that any doubts they may have harboured are (sadly) misplaced. -
Paul D at 18:42 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP A point light source spreads out like a cone. Good thing too for the case of the Sun, otherwise we'd be toast. Quoting school boy text book physics doesn't help you much. You are deviating from the scenario you set up initially. Your scenario was an ocean radiating energy and a 'mirror' above it. The assumption was that the 'mirror' was a few miles at most above the ocean. That is NOT a point source scenario and your original scenario is different from a school text book concept. The energy from the ocean will 'radiate' in different directions from the surface (eg not a 'cone' or 'spherical' from the point). The only case in which your model would be true is once you leave the earths atmosphere and 'view' the ocean from a distance (so that the earth is a point/sphere). At that distance the radiation you see will be from the earths sphere and would have had a chance to disperse outwards along radiating lines. What you will 'see' at that point in space are all the photons that happened to have left the planet after a lot of interactions and ended up at your position. The issue here is scale and the POV of the observer. In the case of an 'atmospheric mirror' around the world. If it was a perfect 'mirror' then ALL the energy would be reflected back and there will be NO losses or dispersal. All the energy would return towards Earth, it might end up in a different place on the planet due to refection/incident angles, but it won't be attenuated globally. As I pointed out you may get hot spots and cool spots regionally if the mirror was imperfect. If the 'mirror' was 'lossy' then some would not be reflected back. -
JMurphy at 18:38 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
I wonder how the so-called skeptics would react to the following symptoms, all happening at/around the same time : Heartburn ("It's indigestion") Shoulder/arm pain ("It's muscle fatigue") Shortness of breath ("I'm unfit") Sweating ("It's hot in here") Nausea ("It's something I've eaten") Light-headedness ("I'd better sit down") Anxiety ("I'm worried about my taxes") For the rest of us, though, I think we would consider all the symptoms together and call for an ambulance. -
RSVP at 18:26 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
John Russell You are right. I was just checking to see if you were listening. -
JMurphy at 18:18 PM on 29 July 2010The nature of authority
Pete Ridley wrote : "My comment #134 on the “What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?” thread gives one prominent “climate” scientist’s opinion on this." Sorry, but no matter how many times you try to convince yourself of that, Denis Rancourt is NOT a Climate Scientist. Just in case you have forgotten the in-line response you got, here it is again : He wouldn't get in the room, he's not a climate scientist. He's a physicist, specialising primarily in spectroscopy and hasn't published any peer-reviewed research on climate science. If you prefer your 'climate scientists' to not actually publish anything about climate science, go right ahead, but don't expect to be taken seriously. -
kdkd at 18:17 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP #23 When doing science, details and facts do matter, while the big picture or independent, multiple lines of evidence can only serve as heuristic tools. So all these little pictures that go together to show a big picture of unequivocal warming, yet your argument elevates the contrarian practice of cherry picking as more valid. Incredible. The way you put it you think we'd expect to see lots of contradictory evidence that as a whole could be misinterpreted to show spurious alarming anthropogenic global warming. However the word spurious only makes it due to your logical contortions and one-eyed view of the supporting science, logic and philosophy. -
John Russell at 18:02 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP says: "A point light source spreads out like a cone." Not in my world it doesn't. A point light source sends out light in all directions. The only light source with the behaviour you describe is one with a parabolic reflector round it. -
miekol at 17:59 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
The Yooper (19) A great rebuttle. I enjoyed reading it. I think you are right. We're stuffed :-) As you say, "And unless that response is one of ZERO CO2 emissions for the next 30 years, our way of life is TOAST (no pun intended) anyway." And that ain't going to happen, ZERO CO2 I mean. We have to come up with something a lot better than what has been suggested so far, and that includes carbon Tax. -
Berényi Péter at 17:52 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Of course they are. And the reason behind it is surface temperature record being whacky. Let me show you a fine bit. You can download GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) version 2 data form NOAA NCDC (United States Department of Commerce - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Climatic Data Center). According to the documentation you'll find raw monthly mean temperatures for each GHCN station in the file v2.mean.Z. Now, in v2.temperature.inv there is a station 42572503001 NEW YORK CENTRAL PARK (it's close to Belvedere Castle). You can look up for example average temperature at this site for May, 2001 and find 17.6°C. So far so good. However, for this site and this month we also have data at Weather Underground. History for Central Park, NY, May, 2001 It says average mean temperature was 17°C. But we can go a little bit further. Down that page there is a mean temperature for each day of the month. Their sum divided by 31 (number of days in May) yields 16.84°C. The thing is Weather Underground also have all the individual METAR records for that place and period. You can look them up by clicking on a particular day in the list, e.g. May 19, 2001. Therefore the correct number is 16.84°C and not 17.6°C as claimed by the United States Department of Commerce. If even values in the raw dataset can be adjusted upward by up to 0.76°C (1.37°F), a century scale trend of the same order of magnitude is absolutely meaningless. When doing science, details and facts do matter, while the big picture or independent, multiple lines of evidence can only serve as heuristic tools. That is, they can help find true propositions, but they prove nothing. Each and every proposition found that way has to be subjected to a painstakingly detailed scientific verification process. That's how it is supposed to work.Response to #2 miekol at 11:20 AM on 29 July, 2010 The bulk of the skeptic arguments I encounter these days are actually attacks on the surface temperature record -
Pete Ridley at 17:44 PM on 29 July 2010The nature of authority
Ned, in #165 you invoked the words of Wallie Broecker in his 1975 paper “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” in which he said "[...] .. the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide". Your “That of course is exactly what happened” could be considered somewhat of an exaggeration. If the claims about global temperature increase are to be believed (which is, to say the least, questionable) the globe has experienced a “pronounced warming” of what – 0.5C! Terrifying, isn’t it, especially IF the trend during the past decade continues for another 30 years. Of course we must take into consideration the enormous uncertainty associated with that “if” word and the processes and drivers of global climates. In comment #33 Andrew Adams asked of me “what authority do you have for your claim regarding our very poor understanding of the drivers of global climate?”. My comment #134 on the “What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?” thread gives one prominent “climate” scientist’s opinion on this. Anyone who has read any scientific papers on human-made global climate change or even the IPCC reports will be aware of those numerous references to “uncertain”, “assume”, “if”, “may”, “could”, etc. all arising from uncertainty about those horrendously complicated global climate processes and drivers. There is a hypothesis that our use of fossil fuels may be causing significant global warming which, if assumed positive feedback effects occurred, might lead to a catastrophic tipping point at which point the globe may heat up drastically and possibly destroy life as we know it. This hypothesis is supported not by evidence but by a claimed scientific consensus. Those in authority would have us believe that such a consensus justifies taxing us in proportion to our emissions of CO2. There are also a hypothesis that there exists a benevolent (and vengeful according to the Jehovah's Witnesses) superpower that is keeping an eye on our earthly activities. This hypothesis is also supported not by evidence but by a claimed consensus. Those in authority would have us believe that this superpower will exert its ultimate authority in due course. Supporters of both of these hypotheses predict catastrophe if they are not accepted as truth. In my opinion both of these hypotheses are unacceptable confidence tricks supported by those in authority for the purpose of exerting their will. As one of the greatest physicists, mathematicians, astronomers and philosophers ever, Gallileo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei), demonstrated, consensus has little part to play in science. I (and I believe most people contributing here) have no significant scientific expertise in the poorly understood subject of global climate processes and drivers. Most here appear to me to pay unearned deference to the consensus and that’s their choice. My choice is to question it. I brought up my children to question what they are told. It made life hard for me on occasions but they have the sense not to blindly accept what those in authority tell them. Best regards, Pete Ridley -
tobyjoyce at 17:43 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
doug bostrom @8, +1 for your comments on the "global sea ice" graph - WUWT started using it when it became clear Arctic Sea Ice is not recovering. Despite the hype, it has an unmistakeable downward trend. There seems to be some dim form of theory behind it - ice that disappears from the Arctic reappears in the Southern Hemisphere. Magic! -
muoncounter at 17:38 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#6 again: One of the data sources for 'The Plot' is Kouwenberg etal, 2005 (abstract only, but I have the full pdf). Omitted from 'The Plot' are "four CO2 minima of 260–275 ppmv (ca. A.D. 860 and A.D. 1150, and less prominently, ca. A.D. 1600 and 1800)." That pre-industrial 305ppm average has a serious case of cherry-picking. Kouwenberg reaches the opposite conclusion vs. 'The Paper': "Because the CO2 variation also shows similarities with terrestrial air temperature trends in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere regions — which are the areas most sensitive to global warming — it may be hypothesized that throughout the last millennium, CO2 could have served as a forcing factor for terrestrial air temperature." There is even a graph (Figure 3) showing good correlation between these stomatal frequencies and ice core CO2! Interestingly, Kouwenberg shows up on denier blogs (here's one) as 'peer-reviewed evidence' against CO2 forcing -- which is exactly the opposite of paper's result. Makes you wonder how many other of their 'sources' are flat-out mistakes like this one. -
RSVP at 17:37 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
The Ville #98 A point light source spreads out like a cone. Good thing too for the case of the Sun, otherwise we'd be toast. doug_bostrom #105 Very funny. No one is paying me to turn any cranks, but it is sometimes hard not to think about these discussions when driving around town (i.e., helping global warming "one way or the other")... and at some point as I was doing this I did muse on a post that complained about metaphores and analogies. And "since there's nothing fundamental left to say about science here", it would be nice if you could explain what matter really is, that way we dont have to rely on these clumsy models. -
JMurphy at 17:14 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
miekol wrote : "There is lots of ways we can accommodate CO2 increase. Here’s one idea. Isn’t it a fact plants need CO2 and if you increase CO2 their growth becomes prolific. So why not green the Earth? As the Earth’s atmosphere and seas warm there will be lots more precipitation, all very condusive to turning the Earth into the fabled “Garden of Eden.”" You had better read a few pages on this site for more information on that, especially : Positives and negatives of global warming Can animals and plants adapt to global warming? CO2 is not a pollutant Also, don't forget that the fabled Garden of Eden was very sparsely populated (to say the least !) and forbidden for human habitation... -
Daniel Bailey at 16:46 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Miekol: We agree that the industrial world has indeed built its standard of living and society on the backs of CO2 emissions. But Business As Usual got us to where we are today and has Become the Problem. And cannot continue. Given the response lag time of both human nature (with its endless ability to procrastinate) and the lag built into the disequilibrium response of the climate to the forcings imposed upon it by CO2 (30-40 years; we are just now realizing the temperature response imposed by the carbon slug of the 70's and 80's injected into our carbon cycle) there is perhaps nothing mankind can do to avoid a severe coming disruption to our food production chain. Note the use of the word avoid. Opportunities still lie before us in terms of mitigating the future deleterious effects a warming world has in store for us. Michael Tobis, over at Collide-a-Scape (summarized by Lou Grinzo on his blog) summarized it best: "...carve out a “middle ground” where we spend some effort on a more or less inconsequential improvement on the carbon imbalance. Surely that’s better than nothing? Well, no. Not consequentially, no, it isn’t. The correct long-target for CO2 emissions is zero. The correct short-term target is negative. That’s not radicalism or idealism or romanticism or folly. That’s just the facts." It will take a comprehensive, worldwide, species-wide response to the crisis we find ourselves in. And unless that response is one of ZERO CO2 emissions for the next 30 years (at which point our climate should stabilize at about Another +1.8 to +2.4 degrees C relative to 2010 temperatures) our way of life is TOAST (no pun intended) anyway. Carbon Capture Sequestration and other discussed geoengineering options in the literature today hold various promises, but none to help us NOW. Reforestation efforts are a mixed bag. The literature abounds in studies on this. An attempt to summarize: Some short-term gains can be achieved, but once a forest reaches maturity it goes into a relative CO2 balance intake-vs-emission-wise. At the expense of planting most of the world's grasslands and a good portion of its croplands. Assuming the grasslands don't turn to dust in the face of unrelenting shifts in rainfall patterns...or washed away by an atmosphere now holding an extra 4% moisture in its fuel tanks (equivalent to the volume of Lake Superior on my doorsteps). And by itself, nothing to help us NOW. I'm not trying to be a nay-sayer wet blanket here. All this discussion of potential options has merit. But in terms of realizable, actionable near-term policies to implement (as a species), we've got nuttin'. Time is a more precious commodity than we realize. And we have little left. Above and beyond everything else, that is what scares me most. And I've no answers. The Yooper -
miekol at 16:45 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Re:doug_bostrom at 16:28 PM on 29 July, 2010 New Orleans is an example of how not to build levees. -
thingadonta at 16:40 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
'Global warming' happens all the time because the sun continually warms the Earth-so it is obvious that 'global warming' is unmistakeable', this has been going on since the sun started shining. (The question of natural versus human rate of temperature change, is a question which should at least be stated less ambiguously/more correctly). How's this for a theory: The way climate change terms often have multiple meanings half explains why they keep finding 'evidence' for their position. One only has to look at the sun and see evidence for 'global warming', so to speak, every day. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:28 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Miekol, New Orleans is nice and green, with mild winters, is at or even below sea level and has ample vacant properties available for little money. Perhaps you should put your hypothesis to the test and try moving there. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:24 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
I'm not sure why folks are using the graph HR points to as some sort of evidence of stability. Even by eyeball it's got a downward trend, and in any case as others have pointed out it's for global sea ice. As has been pointed out here on SkS, Antarctic sea ice has increased in extent according to expectations though it may seem counter-intuitive.. The fact that the graph -still- shows a declining trend is no cause for celebration, it only helps illustrate how dramatic loss has been in the Arctic. -
canbanjo at 16:12 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Geo Guy Do you know where the Sootese temperature record for the past 600 million years comes from? I am aware of the Hansen reconstruction of the past 65 million years: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Storms/Storms_Fig.18.pdf It does not corollate with the Soteese graph at all over this period.
Prev 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 Next
