Recent Comments

Prev  2547  2548  2549  2550  2551  2552  2553  2554  2555  2556  2557  2558  2559  2560  2561  2562  Next

Comments 127701 to 127750:

127701. Robbo the Yobbo at 09:07 AM on 25 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        I am beginning to wonder what could, as Swanson puts it, make us fundamentally question our understanding of climate science?
127702. Robbo the Yobbo at 08:43 AM on 25 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        You mean beside the fact that the UAH tropospheric data doesn’t show any trend since 1979? The important issue is the covariance of the data. The analysis uses data points in which any ‘trend’ is already fully expressed – included in the ups and downs of global surface temperature. The finding that the SOI explains 80% of the lagged global temperature variance strongly suggests that there is little room for other factors. The study doesn’t remove anything from the data at all and the SOI is of course a leading indicator of developing ENSO states. Does ENSO have a trend? Absolutely not. There was a stepwise change in 1976/1977, from a cooler (SST) period of intense and frequent La Niña from the mid 1940’s, to warmer (SST) conditions with more frequent and intense El Niño to 1998. This effect is real. It can be seen clearly in the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) of Claus Wolter that Tamino mentions. Indeed many people over the years have attributed the ‘Pacific Climate Shift’ of 1976/1977 to AGW. Perhaps the most telling indication of a natural origin is the recent switch to a cooler mode. Could the multidecadal modulation of ENSO affect the global surface temperature over decades? I think this study answers that question in a fairly confident yes. Tamino adds a fake linear trend – which cannot by itself change the covariance – and which then becomes the argument. This is why I refer to it as a statistical Three Card Monte. Keep your eye on the red Queen - the actual data and the covariance in the peer reviewed science and not some sleight of hand manipulation by a blogerati.
127703. Philippe Chantreau at 06:13 AM on 25 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        Yes Robbo and that obviously demonstrates that the mathematical treatment of the data effectively removes any TREND, by reducing it to a constant. Therefore it is of no use at all as to what the TREND could be related to. So using the study to argue that ENSO/SOI/whatever is responsible for the trend is a complete fallacy.
127704. thingadonta at 20:31 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        "Whatever else you might be Mr Donta, you are not a sceptic, otherwise you would apply that scepticism to the denialist manifesto" As usual, you have got it backwards. If the sun has caused climate changes before, then it is up to the 'global warming by greenhouse gas' theorists to provide VERY good evidence that it is not predominantly the sun now, not the other way round. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To claim that small changes in the sun causes climate changes is not extraordinary, to claim that small changes in trace gases causes climate changes, is extraordinary (as quoted by Bill Bryson). It is a not a 'denialist manifesto' to claim the sun is causing climate changes. Also, people who are skeptical of the c02 position dont 'deny' climate change, for one thing, they simply say that the sun is likely to be the driving factor. This is not 'denialism'. It is what science is all about, very carefully examining alternative theories and interpretations of data, and continuing to review new theories and interpretations as they arise. You won't win the hearts and minds of the community, academia, and governments by labelling skeptics 'denialists'-they will see through this denigration easily, and it will ultimately backfire against you. As for applying skepticism to the sun as the driving factor,I am a little skeptical that the suns magnetic field has anything to do with earth T. I am a little skeptical that T can rise in such fits and starts with a more active sun. I am a little skeptical that the solar heat lag effect can act in such a 'start' after an apparent 'delay' from 1940-1978. I am very skeptical of our position in the spiral arm of the galaxy and hundred million year variations in cosmic rays, having anything to do with earth T. I am skeptical that cosmic rays make more low level clouds, or that the sun really affects their flux (but am rather less skeptical about slight solar variations causing measureable cloud cover changes-as in Dutch 17th century paintings). I am very skeptical that the recent paper by Carter and co. isnt just 'reaching' when claiming El Nino and Enso is doing anything meaningful to T trends in the last few decades. However, I am NOT very skeptical that ~0.1-0.2% increase in solar activity/output can drive earths T up about 1 degree C. This is entirely plausible. But I am also skeptical of 1/10,000 part per volume c02 change (~100ppm) in the atmosphere having any meaningful effect on earth's T. I am skeptical that the 'rate' of C02 change has anything to do with it. I am very skeptical of corals having any meaningful negative effects from increasing c02 in oceans. I am skeptical that the earth system is so bad at regulating its T when there are such minute changes in trace gases in the atmosphere. I am skeptical that surface (and other types) of T has been measured accurately in the last few decades. I am skeptical that the sun, so far away and not prone to any human influence, is given a fair hearing. (This has happened before-middle ages). I am skeptical that the public service and politicians can be fair with the science and the data, and that the 'summary for policymakers' in the IPCC has much to do with the data. I am also skeptical of human nature's general ability to be objective: I am skeptical of academics, socialists, banks and bank financial modellers, c02 modellers, industry-funded research, government-funded research, economic rationalism, greens, NGOs, movie stars, religious dogma, bureaucrats, one-sided academic funding, the IPCC, the right, the left; and I am skeptical of science and scientist's practicing science free of significant cultural bias and prejudice. Humans are very bad at being balanced, and easily fooled. This includes all types of social groups, including scientists and academics, although the nature of their field (published data analyses) somewhat mitigates against their individual and group prejudices. All social groups tend towards extremism in the absence of effective counter-measures and regulation. The most difficult group to regulate is the government and its arm-the public service, as these exist largely outside communal regulatory forces; they require strong democratic processes to provide a countermeasure. Academics can also be very hard to regulate as they exist partly outside of market forces and are also partly linked to government; they also require government-based funding, although the 'verifible data process' (eg science), as well as broader community-derived values, somewhat mitigates against academic biases. Captalism is regulated by market forces, community values (not many people know this one), and government, but it is certainly not perfect since the market doesnt interact with all the structures within capitalism, and government can also have its finger in the pie (and vice versa). 'Communism' is a public service benefit philosophy, it is the ultimate triumph of the public service and academia together controlling all available power and resources for their own group benefit; it can't be effectively regulated by market forces, democratic forces, or community-derived values.
127705. David Horton at 19:45 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        #209 #210 - these two denialists make more sense than all the other denialists on this thread. I think, though, that "power caching" is another term for thingys climate lag, and therefore just as silly. But "one of nine people and people using キャッシング, per person " is a far better explanation for global warming than the "CRF-climate link".
127706. Robbo the Yobbo at 18:27 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        So - let me get this right - the peer reviewed science is inadequate because it is critisised in simplistic terms in a hastily compiled blog. Tamino shows convincingly the correlation between SOI and temp. He then adds a constant to the differential temperature data points and finds the same correlation? Duh. This is a statisitical version of the Three Card Monte. And I don't understand the math? Whatev!
127707. Philippe Chantreau at 16:20 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        OK Robbo, you have obviously not understood the first thing about Tamino's analysis. Whatever. Who cares who the clathrate quote is from? This is again ultra basic stuff, there isn't even any need for an attribution. If you're trying to prove that you can look up stuff, congratulations, you did.
127708. David Horton at 15:47 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        "to convince skeptics like myself". Whatever else you might be Mr Donta, you are not a sceptic, otherwise you would apply that scepticism to the denialist manifesto. All you do, as in #205, is go right back to repeating, endlessly, the same rubbish. And who could have imagined that Yobbo would be a fan of Lomborg, or that he would ignore the whole of Tamino's analysis that shows that the Carter paper is nonsense?
127709. thingadonta at 14:51 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        re 186: Have you ever noticed that so many 'corrections' (eg to recent ocean T on this website) to data are made in favour of c02 forcing? (I could count on this site alone the 'corrections' to data made in favour of c02 forcing, and it vastly outnumbers 'corrections' to data made against c02 forcing). Apparently, ~26 'corrections' have been made to T surface data in the 20th century (I read this somewhere), with nearly all in favour of enhancing warming. Doesn't this worry you? On another, but related point, just how did Hansen et al 2005 arrive at their calculation of 'radiative imbalance', and from this, their inferred, climate 'disequilibrium'? Answer: C02/greenhouse gas modelling, using strong c02 forcings. Did they model solar forcings? Did they test the 'imbalance' with an enhanced solar forcing 1750-1950s, such as reduction in low level clouds? Did the run any solar heat time lag at all? No. Have the oceans responded as they predicted they would, since the early 2000s? No (regardless of data 'corrections'). This consistent and special favouring towards c02/greenhouse gas models and data 'corrections', and the failure of their 'predictions', does not do much to convince skeptics like myself of scientific objectivity.
127710. Robbo the Yobbo at 14:35 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        And global developement is something I take very seriously - my actual statement was that any increase in energy costs in the third world has a price to be paid in human lives. This is far from the hyperbole your are engaged in. Bjorn Lomberg provides other consequences of wasted global resources - the opportunities forgone for a healthier and richer population. One of the consequences (formulated in 1977) given in the groupthink post was a failure of groupthinkers to effectively weigh up costs and benefits. Oh I the clathate quote from Warwick Hughes - silly boy
127711. Robbo the Yobbo at 14:10 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        Tamino invents a linear trend and then demolishes his own argument. The time series temperature change in Lean et al is simply: delta T = T(t) - T(t-1) There is no actual linear trend except in Tamino's imagination. The point about peer review and blogs is critical.
127712. Philippe Chantreau at 13:54 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        Less than seriously is accurate. For example, how did you scrutinize the Carter/Freitas piece? Less than seriously. But how does that square with your claim of being concerned about the welfare of all your fellow humans, plunged into paleolithic chaos by restrictions on fossil fuel use? You seemed to take that very seriously when you made the argument. I don't see anything new in your clathrate quote. Did you just discover this? At least now you realize the role of pressure. As for the "elder" scientist involved, I'll post the link again for those readers who want to better appreciate what he puts out on the internet: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/a-bag-of-hammers/ The mathematical analysis is indeed similar to the Carter/Freitas piece. Same old same old.
127713. Robbo the Yobbo at 13:47 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        What does the peer reviewed science say? As opposed to a blog? I give up.
127714. Robbo the Yobbo at 13:46 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        from a warm mode in 1976 to 1998 and a cool mode since. A physical reality stemming from the the "Great Pacifc Climate Shift' of 1976/1977. Tamino simply continues to ignore oceanographic reality.
127715. Robbo the Yobbo at 13:43 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        Tamino 'Their only justification for the claim that ENSO has affected trends is to point out that “For the 30 years prior to the 1976 shift (i.e., 1946–1975) the SOI averaged +1.93 but in the 30 years after 1976 (i.e., 1977–2006) the average was -3.06, which represents a shift from a La Nina inclination to an El Nino inclination.” While a shift from la Nina to el Nino can cause a shift in temperature, there’s no evidence at all (nor do the authors provide any) that it can introduce a trend. This argument is nothing more than hand-waving, and is only apparently supported by the strong correlation they estimate using a methodology which eliminates all effect of trends.' But we have already seen in Swanson and other papers I have referenced the modulation of ENSO
127716. Robbo the Yobbo at 13:29 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        Phillipe - you insist on repeatedly going back to a single silly remark on Vostok made because I had my dander up from some gratuitous insult of a respected elder scientist. Proper respect is due. It was never intended to be serious - as I think I made very clear - and it never had any relevance to the discussion - as I also made clear. Although it may indeed have some interesting implications for CO2 in ice cores. 'One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules.' And lest I be accused of taking this less than seriously - absolutely, science is play.
127717. gruntled at 12:54 PM on 24 July 2009
        The correlation between CO2 and temperature
        I would like to see a graph of CO2 vs Hadley Data Centre's temperature measurements (HadCRUT, HadCRUT3, maybe HadAT etc). Does anyone know where I can find one?
127718. Philippe Chantreau at 12:39 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        I understand that you are ideologically inclined to take Carter and al's paper as biblical truth. So I won't put pearls of mathematical precision before you. For others who are interested in what's in the paper, there is a look at the methodology here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/#more-1737 Nothing especially new or interesting there. Let's see, if this was happening the other way around, with an AGW confirming paper, and I were a skeptic, what would I do? Hmmm
127719. David Horton at 12:35 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        #192 Ah Mr Yobbo, your eager acceptance of any piece of denialosphere rubbish tells us all we need to know about both your ideology and your scientific competence. Did the name of Bob Carter on the paper you quote not ring any warning bells? Did you not then look at who the other authors were? Did you not smell a rat, wonder if this might not be quite what it seems? Check out the explanation of what Carter and friends have done here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/. It is roughly equivalent to discovering that a+b = b+a. Why so much fervor in trying to trying to defend the indefensible Yobbo? Why so much effort to prefer rubbish over the simple truth that Blind Freddy could see?
127720. Philippe Chantreau at 12:07 PM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        I do not recall calling you stupid or irrelevant. Your personal philosopy and ideology would certainly not qualify to categorize you as such. Your "broadly feasible" carbonic snow, however, is an indication of your competence in basic science. The fact that you even had to look up wiki before making that statement does nothing to let me believe that I can learn much from you. Nothing personal and nothing about your ideology either.
127721. Robbo the Yobbo at 11:50 AM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        Nature not man responsible for recent global warming Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity. The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling. "The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely" says corresponding author de Freitas. "We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.” Climate researchers have long been aware that ENSO events influence global temperature, for example causing a high temperature spike in 1998 and a subsequent fall as conditions moved to La Niña. It is also well known that volcanic activity has a cooling influence, and as is well documented by the effects of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption. The new paper draws these two strands of climate control together and shows, by demonstrating a strong relationship between the Southern Oscillation and lower-atmospheric temperature, that ENSO has been a major temperature influence since continuous measurement of lower-atmospheric temperature first began in 1958. According to the three researchers, ENSO-related warming during El Niño conditions is caused by a stronger Hadley Cell circulation moving warm tropical air into the mid-latitudes. During La Niña conditions the Pacific Ocean is cooler and the Walker circulation, west to east in the upper atmosphere along the equator, dominates. "When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modellers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall," says McLean. "The IPCC acknowledges in its 4th Assessment Report that ENSO conditions cannot be predicted more than about 12 months ahead, so the output of climate models that could not predict ENSO conditions were being compared to temperatures during a period that was dominated by those influences. It's no wonder that model outputs have been so inaccurate, and it is clear that future modelling must incorporate the ENSO effect if it is to be meaningful." Bob Carter, one of four scientists who has recently questioned the justification for the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme, says that this paper has significant consequences for public climate policy. "The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.” “Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”
127722. Robbo the Yobbo at 11:41 AM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        This one just in – the SOI is of course intimately related to ENSO and varies with the multi-decadal modulation of the ENSO states. It shows that most of the warming in recent times is associated with the warm ENSO phase from 1976 to 1998. And it is simply not good enough to call this dodgy science by dodgy scientists and go on your merry way. Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature J. D. McLean Applied Science Consultants, Croydon, Victoria, Australia C. R. de Freitas School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand R. M. Carter Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the 1958−2008 period. GTTA are represented by data from satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980–2008 and from radiosondes (RATPAC) for 1958–2008. After the removal from the data set of short periods of temperature perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close relationship between SOI and GTTA. Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer 50-year RATPAC record. Because El Niño−Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI with tropical temperature anomalies between 20°S and 20°N. The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.
127723. Robbo the Yobbo at 10:46 AM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        This should be - as Swanson says in he paper I have apparently misunderstood - the lack of warming in the last decade should challenge..
127724. Robbo the Yobbo at 10:44 AM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        The oceans are cooling. The metric more telling than any other is the state of Earth albedo. Figure 3 on the Project Earthshine site shows an increase in earth albedo of 1% since 1999 – a decrease in shortwave radiative forcing of 2 W/m2. While this persists – the cooling progresses. It is a proximate cause of the recent lack of ocean and atmospheric warming. As Swanso says in the paper I have apparently understood - the lack of warming in the past should challenge the current understanding of climate. It is not sufficient to say that the variability is chaotic and warming will return worse than ever soon time soon. Nor is it sufficient to suggest that I am a liberal humanist and a theist and therefore stupid and irrelavant. I could try and persuade with a passionate and flowery discussion of the nuances of liberal humanism - but it seems to be pearls before swine. You really need to integrate new data into your thinking even if it does challenge. Of the insults - in the vernacular - I don't give a rat's arse.
127725. Robbo the Yobbo at 10:16 AM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        The oceans are cooling. The metric more telling than any other is the state of Earth albedo. Figure 3 on the Project Earthshine site shows an increase in earth albedo of 1% since 1999 – a decrease in shortwave radiative forcing of 2 W/m2. While this persists – the cooling progresses. It is a proximate cause of the recent lack of ocean and atmospheric warming. As Swanso says in the paper I have apparently understood - the lack of warming in the past should challenge the current understanding of climate. It is not sufficient to say that the variability is chaotic and warming will return worse than ever soon time soon. Nor is it sufficient to suggest that I am a liberal humanist and a theist and therefore stupid and irrelavant. I could try and persuade with a passionate and flowery discussion of the nuances of liberal humanism - but it seems to be pearls before swine. You really need to integrate new data into your thinking even if it does challenge. Of the insults - in the vernacular - I don't give a rat's arse.
127726. Robbo the Yobbo at 02:57 AM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        The next test happens in the boreal spring - will there be a strong El Nino? Very unlikely given the statistical correlation between the PDO and ENSO modulation over decades.
127727. Philippe Chantreau at 00:17 AM on 24 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        You're still not getting it on the diurnal variation. The physical reason for the lag is not "thermal inertia." It is what I just explained above. Peak incoming energy is meaningless, unless taken in the context of the radiative imbalance. If you examine the variation more closely, you will see that the fastest increase in temp happens around noon, i.e. the time at which the radiative imbalance is the highest. If, for some reason, ground radiation would suddenly exceed incoming energy at that moment, the surface would stop warming. No lag. There is no crucial point here, you're trying to cling to an idea that has no real existence. Find a better idea to transpose to climate lag. Stop saying that the oceans have cooled, when John has recently examined this and showed that it's not the case. Yobbo, sorry I hurt your feelings mate. For one capable of cramming so many empty right-wing talk show adjectives in a paragraph, you're quite sensitive. Perhaps another snow cone will make you feel better, although I doubt that it will help you understand what you quote better.
127728. thingadonta at 20:15 PM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        RE182: The radiative description you have given is correct (ie there is no 'offset' or 'lag' with regards to radiative balance etc), but I would say just not quite the right 'take' on the main issue. Your 'radiative balance' explanation doesn't emphasise the time difference between max incoming heat energy (noon) and highest T (3pm), which is the CRUCIAL point. Incoming heat energy actually drops, but T keeps rising-a 20-25% offset. (ie until your 'radiative imbalance' is restored) The physical reason for this time-offset is, 'basically', thermal inertia and heat transfer. Max energy in occurs when the sun is highest overhead, when incoming rays are at the lowest angle of incidence to the ground (around noon). The angle of incidence is the key-the area of ground that the rays have to heat is less with a lower angle of incidence. This is largely why the tropics are warmer than the poles. But one main argument used by 'global warming by humans' against the sun as the driver of warming in the late 20th century states that there has been no increase in solar activity since the mid 20th century, therefore the sun can't be responsible for late 20th century warming. But if there is a long time heat-lag effect-just as happens during any day-and air keeps warming after peak solar incoming activity (eg 40-60 years-which is valid if the earth land-ocean system is very sensitive to changes in the sun-which history tells us is the case) it is obvious this 'basic' argument against the sun as a driver of more recent late 20th century warming is invalid. John Cook states above however, that the earth's radiative imbalance shows that the earth-land-ocean system is not approaching equilibrium, therefore invalidating this idea of a long ~40-60 year solar heat lag. However even if the 'energy imbalance' of the early 2000s itself is real (and I'm not sure it is), the 'cause' itself is contentious-it is modelled/explained using c02/greenhouse gas forcing in the Hansen 2005 paper-however it actually may be a confirmation of the solar heat lag itself- which would ALSO produce an apparent mismatch between 1955-1998 stored ocean heat and incoming/outgoing energy-however NO attempt is made to examine long term solar heat lag as an explanation for this apparent 'imbalance'. The imbalance is simply assumed/modelled to be greenhouse gas related. Moreover, Hansen et al then predict continuing increasing imbalances, high ocean T, and high T in coming years, which HASN'T happened, the ocean has actually cooled, which shows he may have got the whole issue as to 'cause' completely wrong-ie the sun's solar ?40-60 year heat lag may actually be the cause of his apparent 'energy imbalance', which, as the sun is now waning and lag effects are subsiding (ie its after 3pm), explains the non-rise in T since early 2000s. C02 doesnt explain this non-rise in T since early 2000s at all, however long term solar heat lag does, very nicely.
127729. Robbo the Yobbo at 16:26 PM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        Oh Phillipe - I am saddened - but you are right. I quote the 4AR and realclimate. I must be woefully muddle headed.
127730. Robbo the Yobbo at 16:16 PM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        Mr Donta, I would suggest that the energy flux/energy content concept is an obvious candidate. I don't often use analogies - they are too often imprecise. But consider he humble pot on the stove - it neither toils nor spins - no that's the wrong metaphor. The energy flux is constant - it is the W/m2 transferred to the pot and the water from the stovetop - but the water keeps getting warmer. The energy content of the water keeps increasing due to the accumulating Joules (W/s). The hot afternoon is also a reasonable analogy. The ground keeps accumulating energy until it is radiating more than the declining afternoon insolation. These guys are just thrashing about in the dark with not the slightest love of science and misuse peer reviewed literature to stubbornly insist on the wildest and most improbable points. They have no sense of humour at all and insist that they and their secular humanist and socialist minions are the annointed ones to secure the future of humanity and the planet. It is only most amusing because they never had a hope of winning the battle for hearts and minds. Cheers Robbo
127731. Philippe Chantreau at 16:15 PM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        What? You want ME to tell YOU? Considering how you have already convicted climate scientists with ignoring/suppressing the issue, I would assume you are quite knowledgeable about at least the basis of your comparison. But you're not. Interesting. This is extremely basic meteorology stuff. Blabbing about advanced research if you don't even know that kind of basics is pointless. Try this: the surface radiates heat out. The Sun radiates energy in. In the morning, the balance becomes positive, in exceeds out, surface starts warming (immediately). Surface continues to warm as long as in exceeds out. The moment out exceeds in (anywhere between 3 and 5 depending on the type of surface), surface stops warming and starts cooling. This is somewhat complicated by the fact that what is considered is not the surface temp itself but that of the adjacent air. Stratification, convection, moisture, lapse rate also come in to complicate things. Yet, the basic principle is there. There is no real delay. The reason why surface temp continues to increase in the afternoon is not that it's, somehow, catching up because of some mysterious "lag." Energy in remains higher than energy out until some time in the afternoon. There is no real "lag" in diurnal temperature variations, only the appearance of one. The temperature increases as long as the radiative imbalance is positive. Between the Yobbo and his carbonic snow, giving lessons on atmospheric physics, and you, we're getting some serious expertise here. And guys like you have no problem yelling that the scientists have it all wrong. Great.
127732. Robbo the Yobbo at 15:47 PM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        I thought I would go directly to the 4AR. Unlike some tryhards on this site - even the IPCC entertains the notion of cosmic rays and clouds - and cites some of the 'dodgy' science. The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002). Table 2.11 indicates that there is now stronger evidence for most of the RFs discussed in this chapter. Some effects are not quantified, either because they do not have enough evidence or because their quantification lacks consensus. These include certain mechanisms associated with land use, stratospheric water vapour and cosmic rays.
127733. Robbo the Yobbo at 15:27 PM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        I thought I would go directly to the 4AR. Unlike some tryhards on this site - even the IPCC entertains the notion of cosmic rays and clouds - and cites some of the 'dodgy' science. The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002). Table 2.11 indicates that there is now stronger evidence for most of the RFs discussed in this chapter. Some effects are not quantified, either because they do not have enough evidence or because their quantification lacks consensus. These include certain mechanisms associated with land use, stratospheric water vapour and cosmic rays.
127734. thingadonta at 14:43 PM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        "So, thinga, what is the mechanism behind the diurnal temperature heat lag? " There are multiple 'mechanisms', aren't there?. A few might include thermal inertia and heat transfer; proportions of land-ocean-ice, land use, and localised winds and clouds also play a role; longer time scales would also include eg ocean currents, atmospheric wind systems, and probably numerous other things. You tell me?
127735. thingadonta at 14:23 PM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        RE: 174: "the sun is so dominant that it just doesn't matter". Yes, this is my position. I think the relative effect of increasing C02 on T in the atmosphere, ie by ~0.01% (ie ~280-390ppm) is very small. EG 1: C02 rise only 'correlates' with 2/4 T step changes since the 19th century (~1900-1940, 1978-1998), whereas the solar increase correlates with 3/4 (1900-1940, 1940-1978, 2000s-2009), so the sun is at least as dominant. Its ideology, not data, to claim that c02 is more dominant, from this simple correlation alone. The problem humans have, is to disentangle the relative effects between the sun and c02 on recent T-I wish it wasnt like this, I wish the sun had cooled or stayed the same in the last few hundred years so we would know the relative contribution, but because of various forcings and so on, nobody really knows or sure. IPCC's '90% certainty' is ideological bureacuratic convenience, nothing more. EG2. To discount changes in the sun as only having a very minor effect on T is not valid, because similar 'very minor' effects have produced large-scale T changes before, so the earth MUST be very sensitive to minor solar changes. However similar changes in c02 in the past have not driven T changes, so it is precarious at best to assert that C02 rise is dominating recent T changes. Th physics of c02 on heat in the amosphere is not incorrect, it is the relative contribution to recent changes that is the issue. I personally think, like the NIPCC, that the IPCC have got it backwards, c02 has less than 10% effect on recent T changes, and the sun dominates. EG3. Have a look at human history- a mountain pass in Europe recently (2003) became free of ice/snow revealing 4 previous times it has been open in the last 5,000 years. None of these previous openings were driven by c02, all by very small changes in the sun (the 1500 years solar cycle-in which we are currenly in a warming trend). So, we know small changes in the sun can do it, whether c02 can singnificantly drive T is not supported by previous times c02 was high (such as in previous interglacials-no 'runaway greenhouse', and during previous geological periods). Ref: "Unstoppable global warming evey 1500 years", F. Singer and D.Avery. NIPCC's 'Climate reconsidered' report, downloadable PDF at the Heartland Institute website.
127736. shawnhet at 05:54 AM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        "I don't think so, shawnet. Again you're ignoring the fundamental element of science which is evidence. I'm generally agreeing with the evidence-based science. You seem to be rather uninterested in this. What I'm disagreeing with is bogus arguments and misrepresentation in the two sources you have introduced to this thread (I have no problem with the Harrison work you've referred to – he seems to be doing solid science without the fatuous hyperbole of your main sources). You're happy to cheerlead for dodgy "science". Fine....but you should expect that skeptical individuals are very likely to point out its flaws." It is fairly tedious to talk to someone who interprets any disagreement with themselves as dodgy science or whatever. The fact is, differences of opinion don't make either side of a scientific debate dodgy or whatever pejorative you wish to use. Calling something dodgy isn't pointing out its flaws. It is pretty obvious that there is much more detailed examination of the CRF-climate link in the Kirkby review than you have taken time to acquaint yourself with. However, rather than look at the totality of the evidence, it is much simpler to call it pseudoscience(when the worst you can offer is that he uses a different TSI reconstruction than you). You have offered no coherent objection to the central point of the Kirkby review which is that there appears to have been an amplification of solar effects on climate operating at various time schemes in Earth's history and that one way to see that connection working is by some sort of connection btw CRF and climate phenomena. Kirkby isn't saying the link is established, just laying out the reasons why he thinks it is worth exploring. ""Now perhaps you're suggesting that while these analyses are bogus, maybe some other arguments are more convincing. Fine. Let's have a look at them. You say "the long term correlation btw CRF and climate makes no sense without some form of solar amplification.". Which long term correlation? Why, exactly, does this make "no sense without some form of solar amplification"? " This paragraph makes me think that you aren't even reading what I write. There must be at least a dozen papers delineating the long term correlation btw solar proxies and climate events in the Kirkby review and I know we discussed the Bond paper already. The fact is, these papers lay out climate events whose magnitude is much greater than can be explained by variation in solar irradiance alone, but that are still well correlated to CRF. And, as I have said before, it is not that your papers are bogus, it is that, by and large, they don't deal with fundamental causes (for instance, they say THC is responsible without saying why THC changes happen). There is no contradiction btw saying both that a climate-CRF link and a THC change are responsible(if the climate CRF is indirectly responsible for THC changes).
127737. Robbo the Yobbo at 04:11 AM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        David - denying the reality of decadal climate variability is, well, denying reality. Swanson and Tsonis - ‘The subject of decadal to inter-decadal climate variability is of intrinsic importance not only scientifically but also for society as a whole. Interpreting past such variability and making informed projections about potential future variability requires (i) identifying the dynamical processes internal to the climate system that underlie such variability (seee.g. Mantua et al. [1997]; Zhang et al. [1997]; Zhang et al. [2007]; Knight et al. [2005]; Dima and Lohmann [2007]), and (ii) recognizing the chain of events that mark the onset of large amplitude variability events, i.e., shifts in the climate state. Such shifts mark changes in the qualitative behavior of climate modes of variability, as well as breaks in trends of hemispheric and global mean temperature. The most celebrated of these shifts in the instrumental record occurred in 1976/77. That particular winter ushered in an extended period in which the tropical Pacific Ocean was warmer than normal, with strong El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events occurring after that time, contrasting with the weaker ENSO variability in the decades before (Hoerling et al. [2004]; Huang et al. [2005]). Global mean surface temperature also experienced a trend break, transitioning from cooling in the decades prior to 1976/77 to the strong warming that characterized the remainder of the century.’
127738. Quietman at 03:53 AM on 23 July 2009
        A Great Science Fiction Writer Passes - Goodbye Dr. Crichton
        CORRECTION: "Eaters of the Dead" (dropped the "s") a.k.a. The 16th Warrior.
127739. Quietman at 03:51 AM on 23 July 2009
        A Great Science Fiction Writer Passes - Goodbye Dr. Crichton
        ps "Eater of the dead" is different from most his books and IMO it's one of his best (but I like the movie better).
127740. Quietman at 03:48 AM on 23 July 2009
        A Great Science Fiction Writer Passes - Goodbye Dr. Crichton
        ginckgo Dr. Crichton (M.D.) did base his novels on well research and use the worst scenarios of scientific forecasts. That is why it is called Science Fiction and not one of the other types like horror or fantasy. The alarmists are depicted as also in the worst cases but from real cases, some people are that sick enough to do something like that portrayed in "State of Fear". All of his novels are way to depict his personal fears as a message while still enjoying in a novel. To instill a reader the possibilities of what can happen if we ignore the world around us.
127741. chris at 03:28 AM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        I don't think so, shawnet. Again you're ignoring the fundamental element of science which is evidence. I'm generally agreeing with the evidence-based science. You seem to be rather uninterested in this. What I'm disagreeing with is bogus arguments and misrepresentation in the two sources you have introduced to this thread (I have no problem with the Harrison work you've referred to – he seems to be doing solid science without the fatuous hyperbole of your main sources). You're happy to cheerlead for dodgy "science". Fine....but you should expect that skeptical individuals are very likely to point out its flaws. We've examined those sources and arguments in detail, in the light of 30-40 scientific papers and data resources together on this thread (i.e. not "hand-waving"). It's tedious to go through this all again, but your two sources are simply objectively deficient as science. If we consider the MWP/LIA, your Kirkby misrepresents the science on solar irradiance reconstructions, takes the misrepresented value (0.06 oC), substracts this from the LIA to mid 20th century warming (around 0.6 oC), pretends that there has been no enhanced greenhouse or volcanic contribution, and insinuates that there must have been a major CRF contribution. That's clearly bogus isn't it. We can make that conclusion objctively in the light of the science – we don't have to beat around the bush. It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. Now perhaps you're suggesting that while these analyses are bogus, maybe some other arguments are more convincing. Fine. Let's have a look at them. You say "the long term correlation btw CRF and climate makes no sense without some form of solar amplification.". Which long term correlation? Why, exactly, does this make "no sense without some form of solar amplification"? No one is saying that there might not be a contribution of CRF to climate. There simply isn't compelling evidence that this is of any significance whatsoever. There are lots of good scientists working on all elements of these subjects, and if evidence for a CRF-climate link of any significance arises, that will be just dandy. In the meantime let's not be suckered by tedious "catch all fill-in-the-blanks type mechanisms" that do nothing to inform our understanding.
127742. Thumb at 03:27 AM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        "the sun tends to completely dominate earth climate variation historically/geologically, there is no reason this should suddenly cease in the last few centuries." "No reason?" Really? You mean no reason other than Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels? I'm not sure I'm following correctly. Are you arguing that modern civilization hasn't radically altered atmospheric CO2 levels from historically/geological norms, or that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, or we have and it is but the sun is so dominant that it just doesn't matter?
127743. shawnhet at 01:52 AM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        "I doubt that shawnet. So far when we examine in detail whatever is raised for discussion, we find that the evidence for CRF-climate links is dubious. That applies to the contemporary periods in which the relationships can be examined in detail and the periods encompassing the LIA/MWP, for which we also have a reasonably good estimate of the solar outputs. Solar influences are understandable in terms of solar irradiance changes as indicated for example by recent simulations of temperature through the last 1000 years [*]. These indicate that the lower estimates of solar irradiance reconstructions, with volcanic and greenhouse forcings, fit the hemispheric temperature data rather well. Neither is there evidence for the CRF – climate hypothesis, nor is this required to understand solar contributions over this period. Kirkby makes a pseudoscience case for a CRF contribution based on misrepresentation of the science and innuendo (he misrepresents the solar irradiance contribution and pretends that volcanic and greenhouse contributions don't exist!). I suspect if we look at Kirkby's other examples in detail we'll find these similarly deficient. " The only case were the CRF climate correlation is weak is for the short term, which I've already discussed. Your explanations of LIA/MWP are not fundamental, you don't know what causes THC to vary(if that's what's actually happening). Further, the climate is a lot more than 1000 years old. The long-term correlation btw CRF and climate makes no sense without some form of solar amplification. Frankly, it is a little silly the way you keep claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is performing bad science or pseudoscience in some way. Scientific hypotheses don't get falsified by hand-waving and name calling. BTW, even if GCMs could explain the climate changes we have observed over the past 1000 years based on lower solar forcing, they wouldn't be able to explain the extent of the correlation btw solar proxies and climate changes without such an amplification.
127744. Philippe Chantreau at 01:49 AM on 23 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        So, thinga, what is the mechanism behind the diurnal temperature heat lag?
127745. chech1965 at 00:30 AM on 23 July 2009
        Was Greenland really green in the past?
        WP Vinland has been found. It's Lanse Aux Meadows on the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland where Norse settlements were discovered in the 60s. The mistranslation of Vinland leads many like yourself to think that it means "wine" when in fact, it's a Norse word for "meadow." Which is where Lanse Aux Meadows gets its name today. Iceland was named that before they realized that naming something "Ice" land would deter settlers. Greenland was an attempt to correct that. And, thingadonta, I suggest you check out the argument "it's the sun." Fred Singer is the last person on Earth that you should be listening to when it comes to climate change. He is the same Singer that was also a "expert" when it came to the tobacco industry and proclaimed that second-hand smoke was not harmful to our health. Guess how that worked out? You should get your facts from the climate scientists, not those paid by the energy sector to be experts in the field: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/
127746. David Horton at 22:15 PM on 22 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        "They could really use this to very damaging political advantage, weakening proactive action just when it’s most needed." Well, yes, and that is precisely what is happening, on this thread and others. Swanson-Tsonis are not on the side of deniers, give you no comfort. They are simply looking at the precise nature of the period from 1998 - does it represent a stepwise upward shift, or is it simply part of the variability within error ranges, of the steady climb of GHG-induced temp rise of the last 50 years or so. So don't pretend there is some other weird and unproven mechanism lurking in there that turns the whole climate change analysis on its head and allows everybody to take bat and ball home and pretend the game never happened. Business as usual eh Yobbo, that's the name of this game is it not? And to hell with the planet.
127747. chris at 21:16 PM on 22 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        re #148 "Also, be advised that there are yet other lines of evidence(that we haven't talked about yet) for CRF-climate links which detail climate fluctuations for periods when the relationship btw CRF and solar irradiance is known to be altered." I doubt that shawnet. So far when we examine in detail whatever is raised for discussion, we find that the evidence for CRF-climate links is dubious. That applies to the contemporary periods in which the relationships can be examined in detail and the periods encompassing the LIA/MWP, for which we also have a reasonably good estimate of the solar outputs. Solar influences are understandable in terms of solar irradiance changes as indicated for example by recent simulations of temperature through the last 1000 years [*]. These indicate that the lower estimates of solar irradiance reconstructions, with volcanic and greenhouse forcings, fit the hemispheric temperature data rather well. Neither is there evidence for the CRF – climate hypothesis, nor is this required to understand solar contributions over this period. Kirkby makes a pseudoscience case for a CRF contribution based on misrepresentation of the science and innuendo (he misrepresents the solar irradiance contribution and pretends that volcanic and greenhouse contributions don't exist!). I suspect if we look at Kirkby's other examples in detail we'll find these similarly deficient. "Yes, I think that if you agree that there is some form of solar amplification, we aren't that far apart. You are missing the point of the Kirkby paper, though. It is saying that the CRF-climate interaction is worth studying precisely because it appears such an unknown amplification that CRF can help fill." No. That's another illogical argument The solar effects may be amplifed by ocean current effects or may (with volcanic forcing) trigger circulation state changes. There so far isn't a requirement for internal solar amplification of the sort that you suggest. There is neither evidence for a CRF-climate link nor is there a requirement for one. Solar and volcanic forcings may well trigger or be amplified by ocean/atmosphere current effects but that has got nothing necessarily to do with any CRF effects. The evidence simply isn't there. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist…however one can't pretend that evidence exists by misrepresenting the science and using false logic. I don't think I'm missing the point of Kirkby's review at all. He's proselytizing wildly for CRF influences, and in doing so giving a false account of the science. I don't have a particular problem with that, but if we want to understand the science we may as well recognise second-rate arguments. We are simply not going to learn anything about paleoclimate from Kirkby. Happily there's a huge wealth of good science out there. If we want to understand the difficult subject of Holocene climate variability, far better to read authoritative sources that consider the subject in its entirety. A very good source is a recent review by a large group of experts in all the relevant aspects of the subject which was published last year [**]. This review doesn't cheat the reader by pretending that the well characterised influences on Holocene climate variability don't exist! As you say the climate is complex. That complexity is represented in all its diversity in the scientific literature and in excellent reviews, such as the one by Wanner et al This is highly recommended if you feel it's worth learning about these subjects. [*] C. M. Ammann et al (2007) Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate System Model, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 3713-3718 The potential role of solar variations in modulating recent climate has been debated for many decades and recent papers suggest that solar forcing may be less than previously believed. Because solar variability before the satellite period must be scaled from proxy data, large uncertainty exists about phase and magnitude of the forcing. We used a coupled climate system model to determine whether proxy-based irradiance series are capable of inducing climatic variations that resemble variations found in climate reconstructions, and if part of the previously estimated large range of past solar irradiance changes could be excluded. Transient simulations, covering the published range of solar irradiance estimates, were integrated from 850 AD to the present. Solar forcing as well as volcanic and anthropogenic forcing are detectable in the model results despite internal variability. The resulting climates are generally consistent with temperature reconstructions. Smaller, rather than larger, long-term trends in solar irradiance appear more plausible and produced modeled climates in better agreement with the range of Northern Hemisphere temperature proxy records both with respect to phase and magnitude. Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing. Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century. [**] Wanner H, Beer J,, Butikofer J,, Crowley TJ, Cubasch U, Fluckiger J, Goosse H, Grosjean M, Joos F, Kaplan JO, Kuttel M, Muller SA, Prentice IC, Solomina O, Stocker TF, Tarasov P, Wagner M, Widmann M. (2008) Mid- to Late Holocene climate change: an overview, Quaternary Sci. Rev. 27, 1791-1828 Abstract: The last 6000 years are of particular interest to the understanding of the Earth System because the boundary conditions of the climate system did not change dramatically (in comparison to larger glacial-interglacial changes), and because abundant, detailed regional palaeoclimatic proxy records cover this period. We use selected proxy-based reconstructions of different climate variables, together with state-of-the-art time series of natural forcings (orbital variations, solar activity variations, large tropical volcanic eruptions, land cover and greenhouse gases), underpinned by results from General Circulation Models (GCMs) and Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs), to establish a comprehensive explanatory framework for climate changes from the Mid-Holocene (MH) to pre-industrial time. The redistribution of solar energy, due to orbital forcing on a millennia] timescale, was the cause of a progressive southward shift of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) summer position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). This was accompanied by a pronounced weakening of the monsoon systems in Africa and Asia and increasing dryness and desertification on both continents. The associated summertime cooling of the NH, combined with changing temperature gradients in the world oceans, likely led to an increasing amplitude of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and, possibly, increasingly negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) indices up to the beginning of the last millennium. On decadal to multi-century timescales, a worldwide coincidence between solar irradiance minima, tropical volcanic eruptions and decadal to multi-century scale cooling events was not found. However, reconstructions show that widespread decadal to multi-century scale cooling events, accompanied by advances of mountain glaciers, occurred in the NH (e.g., in Scandinavia and the European Alps). This occurred namely during the Little Ice Age (LIA) between AD similar to 1350 and 1850, when the lower summer insolation in the NH, due to orbital forcing, coincided with solar activity minima and several strong tropical volcanic eruptions. The role of orbital forcing in the NH cooling, the southward ITCZ shift and the desertification of the Sahara are supported by numerous model simulations. Other simulations have suggested that the fingerprint of solar activity variations should be strongest in the tropics, but there is also evidence that changes in the ocean heat transport took place during the LIA at high northern latitudes, with possible additional implications for climates of the Southern Hemisphere (SH).
127748. Robbo the Yobbo at 19:11 PM on 22 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        All I can suugest is that you take on the advice below. 'Thanks for the post Kyle. I hope you’re wrong though, because the thought of 10 more years of the deniers screaming (increasingly loudly) about how global warming is a bunch of not happening BS is a bit more than I for one can take. They could really use this to very damaging political advantage, weakening proactive action just when it’s most needed.' [Response: When the Keenlyside paper came out, Andy Revkin had a nice blog article on whether the drive for carbon mitigation action could survive (another) decadal interruption in warming. It's a good question, but one I wouldn't presume to know how to answer. Our best armory for the arguments you fear quite rightly is to build up our understanding of decadal variability and the extent to which it can cloud the long term trend. It's too soon to say whether the current "pause" in warming is anything more than statistics being clouded by one unusual El Nino event, but we should be thinking now about possible explanations just in case something more interesting is going on. --raypierre]
127749. Robbo the Yobbo at 18:19 PM on 22 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        All I can suugest is that you take on the advice below. 'Thanks for the post Kyle. I hope you’re wrong though, because the thought of 10 more years of the deniers screaming (increasingly loudly) about how global warming is a bunch of not happening BS is a bit more than I for one can take. They could really use this to very damaging political advantage, weakening proactive action just when it’s most needed.' [Response: When the Keenlyside paper came out, Andy Revkin had a nice blog article on whether the drive for carbon mitigation action could survive (another) decadal interruption in warming. It's a good question, but one I wouldn't presume to know how to answer. Our best armory for the arguments you fear quite rightly is to build up our understanding of decadal variability and the extent to which it can cloud the long term trend. It's too soon to say whether the current "pause" in warming is anything more than statistics being clouded by one unusual El Nino event, but we should be thinking now about possible explanations just in case something more interesting is going on. --raypierre]
127750. Robbo the Yobbo at 18:08 PM on 22 July 2009
        Climate time lag
        Oh I remember - I got to: save gaia says: 12 Jul 2009 at 5:27 pm Maybe this annomaly you speak of has something todo with the montreal protocol? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ozone_cfc_trends.png and gave up.

Prev  2547  2548  2549  2550  2551  2552  2553  2554  2555  2556  2557  2558  2559  2560  2561  2562  Next