Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 Next
Comments 117551 to 117600:
-
Ned at 08:27 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
chris, your comments here are always worth reading but this one is far above and beyond the call of duty. You deserve some kind of a medal for this. (John, if people keep doing this kind of thing we're going to need to set up some kind of Skeptical Science commenter investigative journalism awards ....) -
Ned at 08:19 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
BP writes: Not so interesting, perhaps. Phase relation was messed up. Here is another try, this time against MSU/AMSU Ch. TLT (Lower Troposphere) Brightness Temperature History. OK, that looks more like what one would expect. For a moment there I thought you might have discovered some new unknown CO2 source at the South Pole ... but alas, 'tis not to be. What about the global argon thermometer? => #6 I've been looking for that. I can't find anything anywhere. Was it your own idea, or has someone else suggested this? The closest I've come is people using the O2/Ar ratio to study biological processes in seawater (O2 and Ar have similar temperature/solubility functions). But none of the global databases of atmospheric gases seems to have a time series of Ar. -
Ned at 08:14 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
NewYorkJ, that objection was raised over at WUWT, actually. Several people were upset about the implications for MWP. The response from Hocker's defenders was that the ice core records of CO2 must be unreliable. (Don't blame me, I'm just reporting what they said). -
snapple at 07:55 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
I have read some Russians say this. Inhofe's advised the Russian geographer Andrei Kapitsa reportedly claims: “It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round.”... http://www.hinduonnet.com/2008/07/10/stories/2008071055521000.htm -
Doug Bostrom at 06:53 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Unless I'm missing something there's also the matter of carbon isotopes as a means of fingerprinting the source of recently appearing C02, which Hocker does not address. Isotopes as a tracer of anthropogenic C02 are nicely covered in this article at Real Climate. -
Berényi Péter at 06:30 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
#11 Ned at 03:15 AM on 12 June, 2010 that's interesting Not so interesting, perhaps. Phase relation was messed up. Here is another try, this time against MSU/AMSU Ch. TLT (Lower Troposphere) Brightness Temperature History.
No lag.
Did you use the monthly or annual data?
Annual, last column.
----
What about the global argon thermometer? => #6
-
chris at 05:57 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Passing Wind at 14:57 PM on 11 June, 2010” ….you might as well ask for a copy of the correspondence with Schweingruber, and correspondence he may have received regarding Noon et at, and Huang et al.” and…. ”For example: Schweingruber said he has retired and passed him on to Frank. But Abraham does not show even a snippet of an email from Schweingruber. Perhaps, far fetched though it may sound, Schweingruber said, "Monckton is right, but don't quote me, you better ask Frank what he thinks."
O.K. we’ve already done Huang et al in detail, and I dom't mind scanning a few papers while watching World Cup football on TV. So let’s look at Esper and Schweingruber 2004. ONE: You are commenting on Schweingruber who arises in relation to the graph on Monckton's slide (reproduced as Figure 2 in Dr. Abraham's top article). This is the dataset in the lower right-hand corner of Monckton's slide labelled "Esper and Schweingruber (2004)", which he shows to support his assertion that the Medieval Warm Period “was real, was global, and was warmer than the present.” TWO: The first question to explore is what that data actually is. It's easy to determine that Jan Esper and Fritz Schweingruber published one paper together in 2004. This is: Esper, J., and F. H. Schweingruber (2004), Large-scale treeline changes recorded in Siberia Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L06202 abstract That paper doesn’t contain the Figure shown in Monckton’s slide or the data. Esper and Schweingruber (2004) analyze treeline data in Siberia during the period from around 1750 to around 1980. THREE: Clearly Monckton’s Figure labeled “Esper and Schweingruber (2004)” isn’t from Esper and Schweingruber (2004). Might it be from a different paper by these authors? [note that Monckton has mislabeled the data set designated “Huang et al (1998)” at the top left of Figure 2 of the intro article for this thread, so another mislabeling wouldn’t be surprising]. Esper and Schweingruber have published 4 other papers together since 2000. These are: Esper, J; Schweingruber, FH; Winiger, M (2002) 300 years of climatic history for Western Central Asia inferred from tree-rings Holocene12, 267-277. Esper, J; Cook, ER; Schweingruber, FH (2002) Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability Science 295, 2250-2253 Esper, J; Cook, ER; Krusic, PJ; et al. (2003) Tests of the RCS method for preserving low-frequency variability in long tree-ring chronologies Tree-Ring Res. 59 81-98 Neuwirth B, Esper J, Schweingruber FH, Winiger M (2004) Site ecological differences to the climatic forcing of spruce pointer years from the Lötschental, Switzerland. Dendrochronologia 21, 69-78. Perhaps the data is from one of those? Nope it isn’t; we can look at them and establish Monckton's figure doesn't come from any of these papers. FOUR: Even if we can’t locate the source of the data Monckton shows since he’s neglected to cite it properly, can we get a clue what it might be? Obviously we can’t determine whether it’s global, hemispheric or local. But presumably it’s a temperature vs time series (since Monckton is using it as part of a justification for his assertion that the MWP was warmer than now). Actually, it isn’t. The Y-axis has values encompassing the range 260 to 310. The data range from ~ “270” to ~ “305”. I can’t read the Y-axis label, but it’s unlikely to be temperature in Kelvins (-3 oC to 32 oC!?). Anyone have any ideas??? FIVE: O.K. Even if we can’t find the data in the place Monckton is supposed to have sourced it from, nor find it by assuming a citation error and looking more widely, nor determine what is actually being plotted, might we be able to assess what these authors considered their data to say about global temperatures during the MWP and now? The first answer is no, since Esper’s data only relates to extratropical N. hemisphere temperatures. What did they consider their data said about comparison of this region in the MWP and now? We can’t say for sure, regarding Esper and Schweingruber’s joint work, since none of the published papers fully address that. However, if we consider all of Esper’s work of the period (2004-ish) we can do a little better since Esper published a paper in 2004 that directly discusses current (NH extratropical) temperatures and those of the MWP. In this paper it is concluded that:The temperature signal in the ECS reconstruction is shown to be restricted to periods longer than 20 years in duration. After recalibration to take this property into account, annual temperatures up to AD 2000 over extra-tropical NH land areas have probably exceeded by about 0.3degreesC the warmest previous interval over the past 1162 years. This estimate is based on comparing instrumental temperature data available up to AD 2000 with the reconstruction that ends in AD 1992 and does not take into account the mutual uncertainties in those data sets.
Cook ER, Esper J, D'Arrigo RD (2004) Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere land temperature variability over the past 1000 years. Quat. Sci. Rev. 23, 2063-2074 Likewise in 2005, Esper’s analysis of proxy temperatures in the Alpine regions concluded:”The new central Alpine proxy suggests that summer temperatures during the last decade are unprecedented over the past millennium.”
Buntgen U, Esper J, Frank DC, Nicolussi K, Schmidhalter M (2005) A 1052-year tree-ring proxy for Alpine summer temperatures Climate Dynamics 25, 141-153 So even in 2004/5 Esper's analysis supported the conclusion that in his area of study (N hemisphere extratropics; Alps) current temperatures are warmer now than during the MWP in those regions. More recent analysis reinforces that conclusion. It’s very difficult to justify Monckton’s use of Esper (and Schweingruber’s) papers from 2004/2005 to support the assertion that “the Medieval Warm Period “was real, was global, and was warmer than the present.” Of course we'd really like to know what Monckton's Figure labelled "Esper and Schweingruber (2004)" actually is, and where it came from. Since Monckton is only using it as "eye-candy" to front scientifically-unjustified assertions about the nature of MWP temperatures it’s possible he doesn't know or care. -
NewYorkJ at 05:47 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Here's a possible simplification, which might help the WUWT readers who can't follow the ever-so-fancy math (folks here can point out if it's reasonable or too simplistic). Figures here are ballpark. The temperature change during a big el Nino event like 1998 is around 0.2 C. The additional PPM of concentration from such an event is perhaps 1.5-2 ppm. So the 0.8 C of warming would lead to a 6-8 ppm change. But using WUWT's alternate reality, we can also logically conclude there was negligible temperature change between MWP and LIA periods. 0.8 C leads to a change of 100 ppm of CO2, right? So why only about 5 ppm change of CO2 concentration between these periods? http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif -
CoalGeologist at 05:19 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Further to my previous post @#12, and in consideration of the comment by MarkR @#17 that the oceans are, in the long run, a net sink for atmospheric CO2. An increase in surface water temperatures will decrease the rate of uptake of atmospheric CO2. If humans keep cranking it out at the same rate, this would be manifested as a net increase in the accumulation rate in the atmosphere, as indicated by a positive anomaly in Fig. 2. This is discussed in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report in the Summary for Policymakers, section on "Projections of Future Climate Change":-
• Warming tends to reduce land and ocean uptake of
atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing the fraction of
anthropogenic emissions that remains in the atmosphere.
For the A2 scenario, for example, the climate-carbon
cycle feedback increases the corresponding global
average warming at 2100 by more than 1°C. Assessed
upper ranges for temperature projections are larger
than in the TAR (see Table SPM.3) mainly because
the broader range of models now available suggests
stronger climate-carbon cycle feedbacks. {7.3, 10.5}
-
Malachi at 05:17 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
I think a stronger argument could be made if the focus was on the scientists interpretation of their cited work. Getting their opinion on the current state of affairs is only parenthetically related to the science of the cited work. The best example would be if the scientist stated that his particular graph, data, etc did not show what Monckton claims it show. The next best would be if they said that the cited work did agree with Monckton, but they've since learned things that make them doubt their earlier work. The difference would teach us a great deal about Monckton's approach to science. Is he referencing (perhaps debunked) science honestly, or is he (likely willfully) distorting the available science on the subject. -
MarkR at 04:57 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Humans are emitting ~30bn tons/yr. The amount in the atmosphere is going up about ~15bn tons/yr. The pH of the oceans is falling. It takes truly remarkable mental acrobatics to perform and then believe a bit of mathematical sleight of hand and misinterpretation that in one swoop disproves conservation of particle number and the chemistry of carbon in seawater. -
CoalGeologist at 04:25 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Ned @#13 You are correct that Hocker used troposphere temperatures from satellite data. I should have been more clear. However, tropospheric temperature anomalies are very strongly correlated with SSTs. See: Su and Neelin, Slide #3 -
gp2 at 03:54 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
@Coalgeologist Actually the pacific ocean is a net co2 sink during el nino due to reduced upwelling of carbon rich deepwater(and the opposite for la nina), the strong correlation is due to land carbon fluxes; enso and oceanic co2 fluxes are anticorrelated:
Jones paper
-
Ned at 03:46 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
More from CoalGeologist: This indicates that the annual rate of increase of CO2 is itself increasing, which can also be seen by the slight concave upward shape in Figure 1. (I think the goal is to head in the other direction.) Indeed. The increase is actually faster than an exponential trend. -
Ned at 03:41 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
CoalGeologist writes: Given the strong correlation between the CO2 anomaly and ocean surface temperature [...] You might be referring to some other place where this correlation has been established ... but just for the sake of extreme clarity, we should note that Hocker actually used lower troposphere temperature over the oceans, rather than actual sea surface temperatures. He wasn't very clear about that, and a lot of people in the thread over at WUWT make that mistake. -
CoalGeologist at 03:22 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
By "first derivative", we mean the slope. Thus, by subtracting the measured CO2 content at 12 month intervals, we're measuring the annual rate of increase of CO2 per year (approximately 1.5 ppm/y). By normalizing this value using the equation, we generate an average anomaly of "0", over the 50 years of data represented. If the rate of change never varied, all the points would plot at "0". It's evident looking at Figure 2, that the majority of points on the right hand side of the graph fall above "0", while the majority of points plot below "0" on the left. This indicates that the annual rate of increase of CO2 is itself increasing, which can also be seen by the slight concave upward shape in Figure 1. (I think the goal is to head in the other direction.) Given the strong correlation between the CO2 anomaly and ocean surface temperature, it seems to me that deviations from this trend are related to temperature of the ocean water. In other word, when sea temperature goes up, CO2 goes up as well. For example, both CO2 and temperature take a slight jump during the warm El Nino year of 1998. Since CO2 solubility decreases with increasing (water) temperature, this would be expected. Thus, it seems to me that these minor deviations are, indeed, driven by temperature. This relationship is also reinforced by temperature changes slightly leading CO2 (as noted by Paul W @#8) If so, the title of Hocker's post would "technically" be correct for describing short-term trends caused by ENSO and other controls, but would be grossly misleading for describing long-term trends. (I don't see why we'd need to appeal to growth rates in the Amazon basin to explain this relationship, but I haven't checked out the magnitudes of the mass balance, so maybe I don't understand it correctly.) In any case, I suspect that many WUWT readers will learn everything they want to know about this topic by reading the title only. -
Ned at 03:20 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
thingadonta writes: Very large volcanic episodes which have released large amounts of c02 compared to contempory human history have not greatly affected either corals, or reef ecosystems. These volcanic episodes indicate that both oceans and coral reefs are resiliant to large scale changes in atmospheric c02 on short time scales. Which particular episodes do you have in mind? -
Ned at 03:15 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
BP, that's interesting. I would have thought that the CO2 data at South Pole would lag the CO2 data at Mauna Loa and thus your line ought to lag the red line on that graph. But it sure looks like it leads it. Did you use the monthly or annual data? Just curious .... -
thingadonta at 03:15 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
The geological record seems to indicate that oceans do not significantly alter pH (eg to the level of coral extinction) when large amounts of c02 are released into the atmosphere on very short time scales. Very large volcanic episodes which have released large amounts of c02 compared to contempory human history have not greatly affected either corals, or reef ecosystems. These volcanic episodes indicate that both oceans and coral reefs are resiliant to large scale changes in atmospheric c02 on short time scales. For longer time scales the situation may well be different. (eg >10,000 years). It generally takes tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years of relatively active volcanic activity to signficantly alter ocean chemistry. Coral ecosystmes may collapse on this sort of long time scale, not on the time scale of human c02 emissions of decades to centuries. Part of the reason for this is that the oceans appear to buffer global scale c02 changes with processes (sedimentary, biological, volcanic) not easily reproducible in the laboratory. Most coral reef researchers focus solely on modelled biological processes to modelled chemical changes, that do not take into account the large scale geochemical proceseses that eg occur in the subsurface oceanic environment (eg Mid Oceanic Rifts), and are not indicative of what the oceans actually do in the geological record. The response by some climate researchers to this is to shrug and say 'the distant geological past is not relevent to human history'. (ie only when it is convenient). That is the kind of thinking which results in absurd statements like "17% of coral reefs have already disappeared" and "coral reefs will become eroding structures in about 30 years" in some recent papers. These sort of statements are out by a factor of about 100. Statements such as those given in the papers above of the impending demise of coral ecosystems are not supported by the geological record. -
chris at 03:14 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Passing Wind at 16:12 PM on 11 June, 2010"I am saying with regard to the points I have raised is that Abraham has provided insufficient evidence with regard to Esper and Schweingruber, Keigwin, and Noon et al. "
In fact Passsing Wind, it's Mr Monckton who "has provided insufficient evidence with regard to Esper and Schweingruber". The graph that Monckton shows on his Powerpoint slide labelled "Esper and Schweingruber (2004)" [see Figure 2 of the top article; bottom right hand graph], isn't from Esper and Schweingruber (2004) at all, and neither is it a measure of temperatures, or temperature anomalies. So whatever it is and wherever it came from, it's unlikely to be justifiable as evidence to support Monckton's assertion that the MWP "was real, was global and was warmer than the present". Can anyone identify where this graph comes from (and what it actually shows)? If I have time I'll say a little more about this later. -
Berényi Péter at 03:01 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
I have pulled 1958-2007 atmospheric CO2-curve values (ppmv) derived from flask air samples collected at the South Pole from CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), computed 3 year moving derivative centered at middle year and overlayed the graph on Fig. 2 from Hocker 2010.
If anything, it should be noted that temperature actually lags CO2 derivative. Or temporal scale has an offset in the Hocker figure.
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:01 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Thingadonta, would you please elaborate on the integration you speak of and how it leads to the conclusion you mention? Failing that, I don't see how the remarks you make about Mann and Weart cannot better be applied to you yourself. -
thingadonta at 02:40 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
re yocta: "data from the Southern Hemisphere are too sparse to draw reliable conclusions about overall temperatures in Medieval time." I couldn't agree more. Data for MWP in the Southern Hemisphere is sparse, which eqautes to "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Moreover, the relative response of proxies to T change needs to be considered, ie: not all proxies are equal, yet they are generally treated that way by non-field based mathematicians such as M. Mann, and non-field based authors such as Spencer Weart. If you integrate the lack of data, the differential proxy response to T changes, and differential preservation and measureability/reliability of proxies through time, the MWP was probably global. People like Spencer Weart and M. Mann (2009 paper)can't understand such a simple thing as limitations of a dataset, they take everything as given, thinking that uncertainties average out in larger datasets. They don't, they just make things worse. -
Alexandre at 02:27 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
The many global temp reconstructions are accurate. No surprises there, after so many published works pointing to the same direction. It´s important to stress that past surface temperature is only a marginal evidence of AGW (despite all the attention the hockey stick has got). EVEN IF the MWP had been warmer than today for whatever reason, it would not disprove all the known atmospheric physics that explain the greenhouse effect and AGW. -
Doug Bostrom at 02:16 AM on 12 June 2010Collective Intelligence and climate change
I should add, the utility of analogy is controlled in part by the intentions or competence of the person forming and conveying an analogy. It is of course possible to -degrade- understanding by use of analogy, which is why Ned's point about their limitations is always worth remembering. Less ambiguity is better and analogies necessarily leave ambiguity hanging in the air. -
Doug Bostrom at 02:10 AM on 12 June 2010Collective Intelligence and climate change
Ned, agreed. There's actually been a lot of research done on the topic of mental models which often necessarily take the form of analogies but are at the end of the day not truly descriptive. A successful analogy improves the utility of our intuitions but does not allow us to actually characterize the subject of that intuition. -
Ned at 02:02 AM on 12 June 2010Collective Intelligence and climate change
Doug, there's a lot of very thought-provoking material in that comment. I see analogies as just one of an array of tools that can sometimes help people understand something they were having difficulty understanding more directly. It's impossible to prove anything by analogy, and offering an analogy as proof is generally unhelpful. But when I am genuinely trying to understand some process but am having trouble following other lines of reasoning, sometimes an analogy will help me over the "hump" of misunderstanding. Ultimately, though, understanding something via analogy isn't necessarily worth a whole lot unless that helps you to subsequently work it out using more direct methods. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:54 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
PW: The only reason to believe Abraham over Monckton is the evidence he provides. Actually, if we were to cut off all further "evidence" gathering at this point, we'd have Monckton on the one hand with an extensive and thoroughly documented history that is not conducive to assigning credence to his opinions, versus Abraham who is for all essential purposes sporting an unblemished record and has identified a number of additional reasons causing us to doubt the utility of Monckton's activities. So your equivocation is simply wrong, plainly so and I'm sure you're aware of that. My conclusion is that you are seeking to cast doubt on Abraham's critique of Monckton and that failing having any factual basis for supporting such doubts you are resorting to your imagination. The problem here is Monckton, not Abraham. It's clear that there are few folks who'd like to shift attention from Monckton to Abraham, to help Monckton recover from a defensive stance but that's an impossible task really because Monckton's credibility is extraordinarily poor when we look at the factual record of his own words, the pattern Monckton himself has meticulously created of his own volition. Abraham suffers no such deficit, he has not created a credibility problem for himself in the way Monckton has. Only one person can improve the reputation of Monckton and that's Monckton himself; others cannot amend Monckton's words for him but he's free to do so at any time. -
Berényi Péter at 01:46 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
#34 Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:30 PM on 11 June, 2010 which is unheard of in any other soil Terra preta do índio is the self-regenerating anthropogenic black soil of Amazonia (1-2 m deep, 15% organics). It rivals chernozem (чернозём) found in Europe and Canada in both fertility and carbon contents. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:40 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
To PW... I would highly suggest that you make the attempt to contact those scientists yourself. I think you will find that they are generally VERY busy people but that they will take the time to give short responses to succinct questions. I've done this a few times with success. When I look at the emails that Dr Abraham is getting they seem to be this. I don't think there is a lot to reveal that he's not already shown. In fact, he is including here the full headers to the email and only highlighting the relevant response. Again, I don't think there's a lot more to it. I think your request would be reasonable if there were any indications that Dr Abraham was having to go to strenuous lengths to come up with information that refutes Monckton. In fact, the opposite seems quite true. -
dhogaza at 01:39 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
" Nobody is accusing Abraham is being dishonest, but he may well be quoting out of context and cherry picking" Quote-mining and cherry picking are both dishonest. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:31 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
If anyone is interesting I found another detailed rebuttal (circa 2008) to a piece by Monckton's on climate sensitivity by Auther Smith from the Alternative Energy Action Network. -
Bernard J. at 00:55 AM on 12 June 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
As of five days ago, Watts himself said during an interview on the Australian ABC's Counterpoint program "we are very close to finishing [the surface stations paper], literally within days". I guess that means he will have submitted about now... Or will he change his mind and hold off until he has sampled 150% of the stations? -
gp2 at 00:44 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
@Paul W take a look at Jones 2001, basically el nino pattern cause a net co2 release from the biosphere particularly over the amazon basin, however the biosphere has been a net absorber over at least the last 2 decades so this is not the cause of long term co2 increase: http://eric.exeter.ac.uk/exeter/bitstream/10036/48597/1/Carbon%20Cycle%20Response%20to%20ENSO.pdf " Climatic changes over land during El Nino events lead to decreased gross primary productivity and increased plant and soil respiration, and hence the terrestrial biosphere becomes a source of CO2 to the atmosphere. Conversely, duringEl Nino events, the ocean becomes a sink of CO 2 because of reduction of equatorial Pacific outgassing a result of decreased upwelling of carbon-rich deep water. During La Nin events the opposite occurs; the land becomes a sink and the ocean a source of CO 2 . -
Marcus at 00:39 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
A list of papers summarising the likely forcings contributing to the Medieval Warm Period -
Doug Bostrom at 00:35 AM on 12 June 2010Collective Intelligence and climate change
Batsvensson, analogies are only useful for helping folks think of a subject in a different way, drawing on a mental model where one may not be in place for the topic being proxied. Analogies are helpful when the person for whom an analogy is constructed is seeking to understand a topic. Analogies are largely useless when employed in an argument. For instance, I've personally explained more directly at least two dozen times in various locales that looking at a two year increase in Arctic ice extent and forming a conclusion that ice is on the increase while failing to notice that such "increases" are regularly repeated while still being part of a steady decline is a mental instrumentation failure. Yet it's possible to explicitly point that out and have the point entirely missed, or rather simply ignored. I can't think of a single time the feature of noise versus signal has been acknowledged because in the cases where I make this point my interlocutor has been intent on not understanding what's going on but rather is fixed on defending the notion that Arctic ice has nothing to say about climate. I've learned that writing for the person making an argument against facts is pointless, but I do think it's helpful to explain things for those not directly engaged in the discussion. Those of us operating automobiles are familiar with some of the foibles of fuel gauges. So referring to that model may be a helpful way for some to picture the problem. Yes, I become sarcastic and that's not helpful. It's easy to forget, limitless patience is required when speaking of the topic of anthropogenic global warming. There are a lot of folks intent on confusing the public and they're quite successful. So you're right, I could have done better by eschewing sarcasm. Thanks for helping me to remember this. -
Marcus at 00:26 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
By the way, PW-you could have a look at the paper by Servonnat et al (2010) that modeled the likely effects of TSI & CO2 variability on the climate of the last 1000 years. They seem to conclude that solar variation accounts for 80% of the warming during the Medieval Climate Anomaly. There is also a paper relating to the impacts of Volcanic & Solar Forcing on the MWP in the paper of Goosse et al (2006), which itself relies on the work of Crowley (2000, 2003 & 2004), Ammann (2004), Lean et al (1995) & Bard et al (2000). All of these studies seem to suggest that the Medieval Warm Period was underpinned by a combination of high TSI & relatively low volcanic activity-compared to more modern times. I've definitely read other papers relating to the relatively slow pace of Medieval Warming-but have not had success in tracking them down yet. -
Paul W at 00:18 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Nice to see another debunk. I am how ever left wondering what is going on here? Perhaps some one who has studied the climate more than my recent interest can tell me. I'm a commercial scientist (Chemist) and a little light on with climate. My guesses so far are that global increase in temperature might be increasing the rate of CO2 being released by such things as rotting biological matter. Perhaps just the respiration of the land based biomass increased and decreased with heat. The chart is hard to see clearly but it also seems that temperature increase precedes CO2 increase at some of those points so I'm wondering if we are just looking at a positive feedback. It is after all prediced that AGW will cause a positive feedback of more CO2 from such things as arctic tundra, methane hydrates and other carbon sinks. I would have thought that if one was wanting to look for ocean release of CO2 one would looked at pH. Since that is found to be dropping my chemical background would have me doubt Hocker on that ground alone! A release of CO2 from an ocean would, I expect see an increase in pH at that point. As a chemist I'm use to finding multiple causes and in this case I expect that the AGW from CO2 increase from fossil fuels is being added to by a positive feedback from the carbon cycle or carbon sink due to natural variation. Could it be as simple as having reduced the trend to a constant one sees the positive and negative feedback. Perhaps AGW deniers are making a contribution to science by finding ways to quantify positive and possibly negative feedbacks. Interesting that Hocker sees just one effect and claims a cause when there is so much evidence for AGW caused by Fossil fuels. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:18 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
The same "trick" of looking for a correlation between detrended series has already appeared on WUWT at least once, for instance here by Roy Spencer, to make pretty much the same argument. It was wrong then as well. IIRC, the transition between glacial and interglacial periods give a rise in CO2 of about 100 ppm, but that was a 6-10 degree change in global temperatures, as dorlomin suggests (angband player?) one wonders why the carbon cycle is so sensitive now that you get a 100 ppm rise from less than a degree of change in global temperatures. Doubting that the rise in CO2 is anything other than anthropogenic seems to me to be the least supportable skeptic argument by a large margin. The annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is only about half anthropogenic emissions, so the natural environment must be a net sink for the carbon budget to balance. If the oceans are a net source of CO2 the "missing sink" must be way larger than anyone thought! ;o) -
Berényi Péter at 00:16 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
This reminds me of argon. It is neither produced nor consumed by either industrial or biological processes, so its mass in hydrosphere and atmosphere combined should be pretty constant. Its atmospheric concentration is said to be 9340 ppmv. However, solubility in water at 0°C is 100 mg/kg, while at 20°C it is 60 mg/kg. In equilibrium conditions there should be 3-4 times more argon dissolved in seawater than in the atmosphere. If average ocean temperature goes up by 0.01°C, argon concentration in air is expected to increase by about 2 ppmv. Therefore it is a rather sensitive global thermometer. Is there anyone out there measuring argon? Any pointer to data? -
CBDunkerson at 00:16 AM on 12 June 2010Request for mainstream articles on climate
Had to find one more to add (article about a new study which says biomass power releases more CO2 than coal and growing forests will reduce CO2) just so I could pass you Ned. :] On the other hand, I'm about to leave on a trip for a week so you'll have plenty of time to get ahead of me again. -
dorlomin at 00:14 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
How does this theory fit in with the stall in warming in the 60s and 70s? How does it fit with all the proxy data we have for the past 700 000 years? And what would this say about the much higher CO2 levels in the deeper past (Phanerozoic era). It is somewhat 'idiosyncratic' to say the least. -
CBDunkerson at 23:55 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
PW #26: "Nobody is accusing Abraham is being dishonest" Really? PW #21: "As far as Noon et al (2003) goes, putting forward a quote from a co-author's website about current events in the ARCTIC and presenting that as evidence that Monckton is incorrect regarding a paper by Noon et al about the MWP in the ANTARCTIC is either sloppy work (which Abraham does not allow from Monckton) or it is dishonest." BTW, you might note that the Antarctic paper in question covers "hydrological" changes... that is, water, not temperature. Which, in and of itself, shows how Monckton plays fast and loose with the facts. -
Marcus at 23:53 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Further to post #29. If we *were* to accept the study Arkadiusz refers to, then it would validate the claim about the asynchronous nature of the Medieval Warm Period (starting in the SH around 12th century AD, if the Chile data is to be believed, as opposed to the 8th or 9th century in the NH). Not exactly the "proof" the so-called skeptics were hoping for! -
Riccardo at 23:45 PM on 11 June 2010Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
Berényi Péter, one more try to disprove something with trivial high school level arguments? I rememebr I was 16 when I was thaught about the lorentzian and gaussian curves. Read the scientific litterature on line broadening if you think you've found something wrong. Anyways, first quote the origin of the data and how they were taken. Second, detail your calculations. Third, show the full spectrum. Otherwise your graph is meaningless. Finally, as I said before, lorentzian is just an aproximation; try the full calculations including all the sources of broadening at the relevant temperature and pressure. -
Passing Wind at 23:28 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
werecow. See John Cook's reply in post 12 above. -
Ned at 23:11 PM on 11 June 2010Request for mainstream articles on climate
Whoa, CBDunkerson wasn't even in the top 10 when John posted this, and now they've tied me for 6th place? I'd better step up my game here! -
James Wight at 23:10 PM on 11 June 2010Why Greenland's ice loss matters
John, should this post be a response to "Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass"?Response: Yes, it should. Why hasn't it? Because I forgot to add it! Thanks for the reminder, have now added the 115th skeptic argument, "Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass". -
James Wight at 22:54 PM on 11 June 2010Request for mainstream articles on climate
Wow. I didn't realise I'd submitted so many links! -
Berényi Péter at 22:42 PM on 11 June 2010Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
Nah. Spectral line shape of far wing in fact does not even come close to a lorentzian. Next guess?
Lorentz line profile: dashed curve
Reality is missed by up to three orders of magnitude.
laboratory measurements: shown by +
Prev 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 Next
