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:
-
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 + -
TOP at 22:39 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
What I don't see is a reasoning for the cause of the MWP globally. -
batsvensson at 22:33 PM on 11 June 2010Collective Intelligence and climate change
@doug_bostrom at 18:41 PM on 10 June, 2010 Doug, I am sure you had a small chuckle when you wrote the comment, and so did I when read it but you miss my points. Fun as the analogy is I do not agree with the label imperfect even. Invalid is rather a word that comes to my mind. Comparing two different classes of physical system is not only a major fault. One is also a extremely well known system both in science and as well in engineering but the other is not. That's why we have transport vehicles in the first place, but we do not see planetary atmosphere transformers with specification charts and all sold off the shelf at special offers at super markets, or do we? While the methods to control transport for the past then thousand years - or even longer - has been a rudimentary but growing understanding of physics the very same principles has not been applied to control weather or climate - here other methods like prayers, rituals and scarifies has been major tools in the control – until just recently. But all this is a red herring and does not address the main point I made: you are demonetizing the opponent. Humor and even iron indeed has its part to clarify the ridiculous in things but I don’t see how a sweeping generalization would promote discussion and open talk. It is not possible to have a educated discussion when the opponent has postulated that anyone that does not agree need to have their ignorance or stupidity "educated". -
Ned at 22:26 PM on 11 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Glenn Tamblyn writes: And any similarities to the methods used by McLean, Carter & DeFreitas 2009 in their comparison of El Nino with temperatures is purely coincidence? Thus the comment "Perhaps if Hocker were an avid reader of Skeptical Science, he would have been familiar with this error in McLean's analysis and would have avoided repeating it!" :-) -
Glenn Tamblyn at 22:23 PM on 11 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
And any similarities to the methods used by McLean, Carter & DeFreitas 2009 in their comparison of El Nino with temperatures is purely coincidence? Derivatives to remove trends and all of that old rot... -
tomhuld at 21:59 PM on 11 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
First off, it is interesting to see that correlation is causation after all. I thought we'd been told it wasn't. This stuff is impressively silly. What jumps right out of the little equation is that for zero temperature anomaly you still have a rise in CO2! It comes out as 0.22 (ppm/month?) which sounds about right (~2ppm/year and rising). So his hypothesis is refuted by his own equation. (BTW, little nitpick: a trend is not removed by differentiation but is turned into a constant offset. That's what we see here). -
Daved Green at 21:37 PM on 11 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
I like where Hocker says 'The two coefficients, (0.22 and 0.58) were chosen to optimize the fit." sounds like a neat trick , Oh dear !! and also how its claimed the computer models only work if the right data is imputed . -
werecow at 21:24 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
"Rather than cut out the middleman, going direct to Keigwin would only complicate as the question would then be "did Abraham correctly quote you refuting Monckton quoting your work?"" Why? You could simply ask the same question Abraham asked Keigwin. -
JSFarmer at 21:16 PM on 11 June 2010It's the sun
OK, got it... Thanks! -
Marcus at 21:14 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Arkadiusz, you talk about Cherry Picking, but your entire claim is one cherry pick after another. You pick *one* study showing rapid warming, vs the roughly *dozen* studies which show much slower warming. Your preferred study looks at an aquatic environment, whilst most other paleo-climate studies look at terrestrial environments. Your preferred study looks at a *single* isolated region of the Southern Hemisphere, whilst the other studies cover quite broad regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Your preferred study looks only at *Summer* temperatures, whilst all the other studies look at temperature over the entire year. Your preferred study looks at temperatures with respect to the whole 20th century (much of which was quite cold by modern standards) whilst the other studies look at temperatures with respect to the 1961-1990 average. As to the methodology used-what's the accuracy? Whats the rate of deviation around the mean? So basically you're basing you FAITH in a strong MWP on a single paper, using a largely untested method focused on a single region of the Earth during the Summer months of the year. Yet you accuse *others* of cherry picking! Hilarious! As to Mann et al. They don't malign the MWP-so now you've moved on to simply making things up-which puts you in good company with the likes of Monctkon if you ask me! -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:30 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
@Marcus "... but the Surface Area isn't that great either: remember that less than 1/3rd of our planet is "dry" land-& not all of that is actually good for sequestration." From the Polish textbook for learning about soil: "Prairie soils are formed in continental climates of the characteristics of warm, temperate dry, and subtropical, areas in the forest -steppe, steppe, prairie and pampa". "The level of accumulation of humus in them reaches 1.2 m. [!!!] thickness (humus decay is about 12% weight of this layer), which is unheard of in any other soil." "The savannahs areas - in Africa (the Upper Nile Basin), India (Deccan) and Australia (Queensland) - implies the existence of black tropical soils. These are the fertile soil, but in times of excessively drying rainless." (...) "As opposed to dealing with areas of steppe soils (prairie), chestnut soils have developed in climates with characteristics very continental warm, temperate and subtropical - under low steppes." "Chestnut soils are classified as fertile ..." -
Berényi Péter at 20:24 PM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
#108 scaddenp at 11:39 AM on 11 June, 2010 this is so offtopic It is. We should wait for a thread on peak oil or something I guess. If that happens, I'll backlink here. Feel free to email Thanks, I will. However, it's so much more useful to discuss things like this in public.
Prev 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 Next
