Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 Next
Comments 130751 to 130800:
-
Neu at 01:27 AM on 1 April 2008Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
John, Nice post. I have also looked at the influence of solar cycle on global temperature. However, although the correlation after 1960 looks quite impressive, it diminishes when going further back. You find also oscillations in the order of about 10 years, however, the correlation to the solar cycle is rather negative. This is hard to explain by data uncertainty (global temperature since 1870 is not too bad and the sunspot data is not either). And if you look a little bit closer to solar and temp cycle over the last decades there is a phase shift changing the sign over that period. So I am sceptical, if this quasi-10y-oscillation seen in global temperature really is a response to the solar cycle. It might also be an internal resonance frequency of the climate system and the correlation over some decades is accidental. Looking at longer time series, this seems more probable. In this case, the geographical patterns shown by Camp and Tung might just represent the difference between warm and cold years of this internal oscillation (like it exists e.g. for ENSO). However, be it a response to the solar cycle or an internal oscillation, we can expect that we are at the minimum now and there will be a rise over the next years; subject to the reservation that the oscillation has only been rather regular over a few decades, but not before...). Urs NeuResponse: Interesting analysis. Camp's study does only go as far back as 1960. There are other studies that find a similar solar signal (although not as much as Camp, they seem to find a 0.1C solar signal in global temperatures). Will track down some of these studies, see how far back they go. -
John Cross at 00:59 AM on 1 April 2008Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
John: I think this is a really interesting post. I will have to think about it over a while. But I think the key thing is that this is to be expected yet all we hear about is warming stopped in 98, no wait, 2001, no it's really 2002, etc. Thanks again for Skeptical Science. John Cross -
Wondering Aloud at 00:29 AM on 1 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Actually I think the graph in 28 was done by John Cook. It is a derived graph of a "corrected" value rather than a raw data graph and as a result tends to magnify trends, if any, near the end of the time line. It is very easy in that case to get suckered into seeing trends even if they aren't there. I don't have any idea what the time lag for any of this stuff is. I am trying to suggest that the instant response idea is wrong and unlikely because of the heat capacity of the system. There are a lot more than one or two interactiong variables here and how much of a factor the ocean plays and how long it takes to respond to a change are big factors. For example the 1890s increase could play a roll in the 1930s being warming. The correlation isn't that great. It just happens to be a bit better than CO2 temp one or the TSI temp one. I am just playing with the numbers, it seems obvious to me that simple answers to complicated questions are usually wrong. Which is why current cooling does not disprove AGW, however the warming of the late 20th century doesn't prove it either. Being a skeptic is usually what science is all about. Just because I posed another unllikely hypothesis doesn't meen I suddenly believe it's right. The way science works is the correct hypothesis has to take on and defeat all competing hypothesis. If it ever fails it's done. What you may not see is that people cut the CO2-warming idea a lot of slack, as you say, while holding all other ideas to tight scrutiny. Perhaps you are also dealing with people who have been around for the last 50 or more years and have been bitten by the distortion, dishonesty and alarmism that has been characteristic of every big environmental crusade I can think of. This has in the past led to policy that is in fact harmful to the environment. If you want a dandy example take a look at the story of DDT. Every thing used to replace it was more environmentally harmful more expensive less effective. Here we are 35 years since the ban, National Geographic still telling us it was killing the eagles, all long ago disproven and millions still paying for the lie with their lives. Or would you like to think about acid rain, logging, the new ice age, nuclear power dangers, alar, asbestos or how about compact florescent bulbs ?... the list goes on and on. Here is my question on this rant, how many times does it take for the same people to lie to you before being a skeptic becomes your knee jerk reaction? Maybe you should cut the skeptics a little slack, they are doing their job. The fact that anyone is even willing to listen to claims of global warming, or any impending environmental disaster, is a miracle. We better not be wrong this time, especially not for inciting another overblown panic, or we may never regain the influence to get anyone to believe us if we have a real warning. -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:56 PM on 29 March 2008There is no consensus
WA: "The claim that there is some vast number of scientists that constitute a consensus and that agree with catastrophic warming is not only not science it isn't even correct." Here is a strawman so big, it's more akin to the Chinese straw dogs. Let's merrily burn it. Indeed, it's not correct at all. The SCIENTIFIC consensus is that there is warming, happening quite fast, and that the massive CO2 release from the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to it. That is the real consensus. -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:41 PM on 29 March 2008There is no consensus
WA, I don't understand why you would even pay attention to the "my list is bigger than yours" type of attitude, which is obviously utter nonsense. Why are you trying to defend that so-called "petition project?" What does that have to do with science and evidence? Disputing that there is a consensus among climate scientists is downright futile. All sources of information arguing that point are non scientific (Heartland, Cato, Inhofe's office, CO2 science and all that crap). Real scientific organizations (AAAS, AGU, etc) endorse the AGW hypothesis, which is by itself an interesting fact. I find it really funny that "skeptics" both dispute the existence of a consensus and also argue that consensus is meaningless anyway, as Quietman does with a mightily inappropriate comparison. As for Quietman post about Gerlich's pathetic load of dung, Rabett Run has more on that than anyone really needs to know. And to answer his question, there is no doubt about the radiative properties of CO2 and the reality of the GH effect. It can be precisely measured in the lab, and if there was no GH effect, this planet would be an ice covered rock. The Gerlich paper is also funny in the sense that it denies the very existence of a GH effect at all but, later, the authors questioned about Venus go on explaining Venus' temps by GH effect from other sources than CO2. It's perfectly grotesque, a fine example of the worst BS that denialism can produce. The quality of skepticism here is on the way down if that's the kind of stuff we're going to talk about. Well, BTN had already set the bar so far down that we might have a margin anyway, but still. This my thought of the day to you, Quietman, and others. You can not apply extreme scrutiny to the CO2 hypothesis and lower scrutiny to alternate explanations. I know that it makes for a lot more work but that's the only way. If you apply the same extreme scrutiny to these other alternate explanations, what is left of them? Have you even tried (sincerely)? If not, you can not call yourself a skeptic in the true sense of the word. In my experience, if you try to take apart these alternate theories with any eagerness comparable to what "skeptics" use against the CO2 hypothesis, there is nothing left, zilch, nada. That's one reason why I'm skeptical about climate skepticism. -
Philippe Chantreau at 12:51 PM on 29 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
This "goofy" data happens to be compiled by Dr. Solanki. Since you're calling it goofy, perhaps you'd care to explain exactly what makes it so. You having difficulty to use it is not necessarily enough. I find it more plesant to look at than the graph in 38 with all the noise, and it's done with the same data, what's not to like? "The dip your talking about around 1920 (in post 31)would than be part of the cause of the mid century cooling." But then you would have no temp response to the increase of the 1890's. And the 1965 dip does not have a response either. No matter how you cut and slice it, it's hard to fit, to the point of being impossible. Especially when considering how small these variations actually are when you translate them in terms of energy received per square meter and what's reflected by albedo (roughly divide by 4, the multiply by 0.49). Sorry, but I don't find it convincing at all. Imagine you're applying your skeptical outlook to that hypothesis. How well is it truly defended? Being a real skeptic means you're equally skeptic of all hypotheses and HOLD THEM ALL TO THE SAME STANDARD OF SCUTINY (that which you're aplying to CO2). You can't cut slacks to the solar idea just because it's not CO2. I find that true skeptic attitutde profoundly lacking with all skeptics but very few (counted on one hand's fingers) whose writings I have read on blogs. Ironically, those show much greater intellectual integrity than "skeptic scientists" like Baliunas, Pielke Sr. and others. -
Wondering Aloud at 06:50 AM on 29 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
The dip your talking about around 1920 (in post 31)would than be part of the cause of the mid century cooling. -
Quietman at 05:58 AM on 29 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
Wondering Aloud That is what converted me from passively accepting AGW to being skeptical (as to the source and strength of AGW) in the first place. There are too many variables that were not originally addressed and that may explain the large discrepancies between predicted behavior and observations. -
Wondering Aloud at 05:54 AM on 29 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
I dont think you understood me Phillippe I wasn't saying it was true but looking at the TSI graph, not this goofy one here with the 11 year averages etc I am asking if the increase in the TSI from the first half of the century could be part of the cause of late century warming. -
Quietman at 05:48 AM on 29 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
Philippe I understood the main post but had some difficulty following the updates. His summary statement is logical but I can't seem to figure out if he reinforced the original statement or switched directions. -
Wondering Aloud at 05:45 AM on 29 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
You're right Phillippe, interesting.. but oh no another variable that affects everything. -
frankbi at 05:39 AM on 29 March 2008Ice age predicted in the 70s
Um, for one thing Moran was writing about _Florida_ cooling, not _global_ cooling. I guess you'll need to relax your search criterion for "global cooling" a whole lot to prove that scientists did predict cooling... "they came from scientists who made suggestions (like the above 'possibly to a new ice age') which were then hyped and exaggerated by the media. Much the same thing is happening now with the global warming scare." Yeah, "much of the same thing" in the sense that the "media" is artificially inflating the voice of the global warming "skeptics". -
Quietman at 05:36 AM on 29 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
frankbi Also you appear to be under a misconception. I never said that I deny AGW, only that I am skeptical that CO2 is in fact the prime mover. I won't repeat myself here but I explained my concerns in my comments to "Determining the long term solar trend". -
Quietman at 05:27 AM on 29 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
frankbi What I need to see to be convinced is simple. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. If the prediction matches the actual data then you have proof. Using the climate model that Gore displayed the amount of warming to the increase in CO2 was actually 1/2 of the prediction. This is a large error. It tells me that the model is either using bad data or based on an erroneous concept. When I see a match I will accept the results. I am not a scientist but a retired engineer. I am accustomed to and expect precision. -
paledriver at 03:14 AM on 29 March 2008There is no consensus
and were do you get "1"? but please, wondering, rephrase your point for me. perhaps I have misunderstood? -
paledriver at 00:23 AM on 29 March 2008There is no consensus
if it's such a waste of your time, stay the heck away. You seriously don't understand that any "fake" signatures, and there were many on both, not to mention the fraudulant article to support the "petition project", you really mean to say that you can't grasp that that in and of itself shows the desperate need to dupe the public with policy driven pseudo-science? you're point is on your head. -
frankbi at 15:30 PM on 28 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
Quietman, I asked you what kind of evidence exactly you'd accept as proof of global warming. Apparently the results presented by Hansen, Rahmstorf, Lockwood, Santer, etc. etc. etc. aren't "proof" to you, so I'm just wanting to know what you _would_ consider "proof". What do you consider as actual "proof", and what do you consider as _not_ actual "proof"? You've repeatedly dodged the question. -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:48 PM on 28 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
To stay in topic, this post and its sequel are mighty interesting: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/pmod-vs-acrim/ -
Philippe Chantreau at 18:05 PM on 27 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
"Just for fun assume the timelag for a solar affect on the Earth is about 35-40 years, probably not true but you see the result would fit interestingly" Disagreed, as I pointed in post #31. -
Philippe Chantreau at 18:02 PM on 27 March 2008Climate change on Mars
The lack of correlation between Mars and Earth' climates is well known to Mars enthusiasts. Dust storms and warm conditions prevailed at the time of the Viking landings in the 70's, while Earth was entering the recent global warming trend we know. Then, while Earth was warming, Mars cooled down, only to experience dust storms and warming again in the recent past. To my knowledge, there is no significant correlation with solar activity either. It is rather ironic that some skeptics will go at length on how Earth has not warmed since 1998 and then go on to attempt correlations with Mars, which did warm significantly since 1998. I have looked at a variety of claims about other planets' "climates" and so far nothing even remotely convincing has surfaced. -
Quietman at 16:17 PM on 27 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Wondering Aloud I believe that the half cycle average is 11.1 and full cycle average is 22.3, but I can't remember where I read that. -
Quietman at 16:10 PM on 27 March 2008Climate change on Mars
Philippe Please note that I said "If there is a correlation". Regardless of the difference in axial tilt, IF it's solar warming we should see some correlation, making some allowance for La Nina of course. I have not heard any further information on what Mars is doing so I am only speculating that IF it is solar activity then it should affect Mars in similar fashion to earth. When I said "this winter" I should have said "at this time". The cooler south pole remark was just a curious observation. Thanks for the Link. -
Quietman at 15:48 PM on 27 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
I am not saying that CO2 lag disproves AGW, I accept the fact of AGW but I do not accept that CO2 is the prime mover. I do look forward to reading the paper you mention with great anticipation. I wan't to see if it confirms my suspicions. In 1975 the Clean Air Act was passed, requiring vehicle manufacturers to meet standards in HC, CO and NOx. As you are probably aware these emissions ride opposing curves so lowering one tends to elevate another. The addition of a catalyst, and later a combination of three catalysts was able to reduce these emissions by changing the specified emissions to water vapor and CO2 and Sulphur dioxide. I worked in an emissions lab for 10 years and when the 1981 standards came out there was an additional increase in CO2 and water vapor (these emissions were not considered harmful to the environment) and additional sulphur dioxide. That is why exhaust systems don't last as long as they did on pre-emission vehicles. The largest emission from modern gasoline engine vehicles has been water vapor. This means sulphuric acid diluted in water vapor pumping out from all the vehicles fitted with a catalytic converter (1975 on for most passenger vehicles). Don't you find this coincidental timing of instituting emission controls and the advent of acid rain and AGW just a little strange?Response: The timing isn't strange at all. The Clean Air Act had the effect of lowering aerosols in the atmosphere which have a cooling effect. As aerosols have a short life in the atmosphere, removal of the cooling effect would've been fairly quick. This is one of the reasons for mid-century cooling (with cooling solar activity possibly one of the other factors) which ended in the mid 70's. I wasn't aware that the Clean Air Act had the effect of increasing CO2 emissions which is an interesting point. -
Periander at 11:46 AM on 27 March 2008Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
"Oceans are much deeper than that." Quite the generalization there. Many are, many are not. Neverthe less are you arguing that all the heat is finding its way to the deep deep depths of the ocean without leaving a trace in the top 2 kilometers? That's quite a sequestration mechanism there! Can you provide me with details? -
5meocmp at 11:06 AM on 27 March 2008Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
@Periander: 1. Argo only measures to 2km. Oceans are much deeper than that. 2. If La Nina is bringing cooler water to the surface, you would *expect* that Argo would show a cooling at the surface. -
Periander at 10:37 AM on 27 March 2008Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
Ok, so the argument is that La Niña is bringing cooler water to the surface, which means that less heat is being transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere resulting to the lack of recent warming. Makes sense. However, the reduced transfer of heat from the oceans should logically then be accelerating the rise in ocean temperatures. Problem is that there hasn't been any recent rise in ocean temperatures: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025 The Argo system, the best data available, is showing no rise in ocean temperatures at all (indeed, a slight cooling) since it was deployed in 2003. This data raises a lot of questions. If the heat isn't in the atmosphere, and it's not in the oceans, where is the Global Warming heat supposed to be?Response: Note that the heat capacity of the oceans is much greater than the atmosphere. So relatively small amounts of heat exchange (from the ocean point of view) make a big difference to atmospheric temperatures.
Initial results from the Argo system contained a cooling bias due to issues with the pressure system. The latest results from Argo show warming. This is particularly the case when the results down to 2000 metres deep are considered (the upper waters show more variability while the overall warming trend is more apparent when viewing the 2000 metres heat content).
Bottom line - the oceans are still warming. -
Quietman at 03:52 AM on 27 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
This is not to say that there is no AGW, there is definate evidence of AGW contribution through ozone, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, but CO2 appears to be the feedback mechanism rather than the cause, hence the lag. But until any hypothesis has been proven true I will remain skeptical as I have an field engineering background and can not accept any hypothesis based solely on consensus.Response: The problem with invoking CO2 lagging temperature as a way of disproving AGW is that ice core records actually confirm the amplifying effect of atmospheric CO2. Plus as you say, it's a feedback mechanism. We pump CO2 into the air, it causes warming, the warmer temperatures cause the land and oceans to give up more CO2 - you have a positive feedback loop. There's a paper coming out on this very mechanism which I hope to post on within the next few weeks. -
Quietman at 03:34 AM on 27 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
frankbi In the "Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?" thread you provided the link" http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html This was an interesting letter. Most interesting was "Addendum by Eigil Friis-Christensen" which you apparently did not read. -
Quietman at 03:20 AM on 27 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
frankbi Re: "What evidence will you accept as proof that AGW _is_ happening and _is_ serious? " In science it is up to the person or persons presenting the hypothesis to also present proof. The AGW hypothesis has evidence but no proof. If you believe it so strongly it's a matter pf faith. Present actual proof and all of us skeptics will shut up. Why else do you see so much skeptisism? Why don't you see it from prominent figures as much? Because the skeptics are threatened with losing their jobs if they don't fall into line. That is not science, that is ignorance. Science depends on skepticism. No progress would be made without it. If you have proof, please present it. -
Wondering Aloud at 02:01 AM on 27 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Yeah, Phillippe I noticed that and it certainly is part of the issue. The technique used in the Max Planck graph appears to show a drop in irradience when the raw data doesn't have one. The 11 year averaging is creating at least part of the disconnect in the timing. Just for fun assume the timelag for a solar affect on the Earth is about 35-40 years, probably not true but you see the result would fit interestingly. It also seems to fit somewhat with the PDO.Response: There is a time lag between the sun and climate but historically, it's been about 10 years. Eg - Usoskin 2005 compared 1150 years worth of TSI and temperature and found the correlation was highest when temperature lagged TSI changes by 10 years. -
Wondering Aloud at 01:52 AM on 27 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
So your saying you dont know the difference between doing a calculation with a statistics technique and making a climate model? You think the two are the same? That explains so much. -
Philippe Chantreau at 21:09 PM on 26 March 2008Climate change on Mars
Quietman point #1 in post 6 seems to make no sense. Mars winters and summers are of very different durations than Earth'and are not resonant. Furthermore, the planet's axis and orbit lead to naturally warmer south pole summers on Mars: http://www.exploringmars.com/science/seasons.html -
Philippe Chantreau at 21:01 PM on 26 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
The PMOD reconstruction above is different from the Max Planck data WA refers to because the Max Planck data is the 11 year average computed yearly. I don't think you can directly compare these 2 graphs, especially because the 11 year cycle is not always exactly 11 years. Furthermore, the 11 year average graph does not show a drop in 1985, the decrease is late 80's early 90's. -
frankbi at 19:33 PM on 26 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
Quietman simply throws out another bunch of denialist talking points without facts. Wondering Aloud: Oh great, now the "Cochrane-Orcutt fit" is a "statistical treatment", which of course is somehow different from a "model", in the sense that it involves "treating" data... oh, wait. Why couldn't Pielke simply compare the IPCC models directly to the raw data? Why the need to "treat" the data? Tell us, WA. -
frankbi at 13:49 PM on 26 March 2008Svensmark and Friis-Christensen rebut Lockwood's solar paper
"And when they say this you can be pretty sure they are using the tainted surface data and falling over themselves to make a concession to the mob." Yeah, keep using that excuse. Every time quote-mined scientist decides to go on record saying that he _doesn't_ dispute the global warming theory, the denialist immediately claimed he's been threatened in unspecified ways by the Worldwide Satanic Conspiracy headed by Al Gore the Antichrist. -
Quietman at 09:02 AM on 26 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
Re: since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone." Agreed. But this does not prove the AGW hypothesis. Let me quote Thomas W. Blaine, Ohio State University Extension FactSheet "Global Climate Change": *** "The specific gases that occur naturally in the atmosphere to sustain the greenhouse effect include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), and nitrous oxide (N2O). These are often referred to as “greenhouse gases.” It is widely agreed that concentrations of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere (particularly carbon dioxide and methane) have varied tremendously over the period of the earth’s existence, and there is considerable agreement that these changes correlate with temperature change. ... It was about 18 degrees F warmer than at present about 100 million years ago when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. It is estimated that at the other extreme, the earth was more than 10 degrees F cooler than at present during the last ice age, which ended about 10 thousand years ago. ... Numerous questions remain. For example, why has there been only a 1 degree F increase in global temperature, when climate models predict it should have been twice that amount, given current greenhouse gas emissions?" *** This addresses long term trends while your blog here is using only short term data. TSI by itself is almost meaningless but the Solar Cycles can be used as a clock. Mackey explains how the gravity of the planets and the gas giants in particular effect solar tides and increase the effect of solar wind as well as TSI. This hypothesis is a much newer one than AGW, has just as good a fit with known data and definately needs further study. Not covered by Mackey are the same tidal effects on the earths internal engine. These effect the primary local climate drivers like El Nino / La Nina. -
Wondering Aloud at 01:34 AM on 26 March 2008There is no consensus
Yup, clearly ignoring the entire point. You continue to waste my time here. If you can't answer the main points and instead must repeatedly resort to nibbling on the fringes of the petition project it appears you are merely trying to obfuscate the issue. I am trying to learn things here other than your bias. You seriously are proud that there was 1 fake signature out of 20,000? Even if it was 2000 fakes you would have lost that argument wouldn't you? Please,you've proven my point to any unbiased reader. -
Wondering Aloud at 01:18 AM on 26 March 2008Has solar cycle 24 begun?
We apparently had some cycle 23 sunspots on Sunday. -
Wondering Aloud at 01:17 AM on 26 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
See the graph of TSI John just poated on the global cooling threadResponse: You mean this one:
Quite coincidentally, we've been discussing TSI reconstructions although I did this latest PMOD vs ACRIM post because I received a copy of Mike Lockwood's paper last week. But it's neat timing - Krivova's 2007 TSI reconstruction is quite relevant to the PMOD/ACRIM debate. -
Wim Klaassen at 00:42 AM on 26 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
Fraud? In Physics today, March 2008, on page 51, Scafetta and West show a red curve of TSI (total solar irradiance)with a clear increase of TSI since 1980. The subscript mentions 'Data for the red curve are from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk and http://www.acrim.com'. I followed these links and found instead a slight decrease of TSI since 1980. The error is serious as the authors end their paper with the suggestion that the IPCC report does not need to be taken seriously.Response: I don't think Nicola Scafetta is engaging in fraud. The ACRIM composite does have a (slight) long term trend of increasing TSI (perhaps you were looking at the graphs on the ACRIM homepage which show a decreasing trend over the last couple of years). But she seems to be convinced the sun is contributing a large portion of the global warming since 1975. In Scafetta 2006, she compares solar activity to temperature and finds "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone." Then she casts doubt on her conclusion by citing urban heat island effect, imprecisions in solar data, land use. It's the first time I ever saw a scientist debunk their own conclusion in the same paper. -
Wondering Aloud at 00:39 AM on 26 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Yeah thats what Im looking at, now it's TSI and not one of the likely important parameters but this shows that your 1985 drop off isn't there. (red line from graph in 28) Which is what I've been complaining about all along. This could suggest warming throughout the last century was solar related. dram a trend line on this graph and you'll see it. Add a reasonable time lag and you could have the sun inducing warming out to about 2030 based on this data alone. Now just to be naughty I'll admit I think this is a coincidence -
Wondering Aloud at 00:29 AM on 26 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
I don't know frankbi... maybe you should have read closely enough to know the Cochrane-Orcutt fit" thing is not from Pielke but someone else looking at the data and is a statistical treatment not a model. As I said the evidence for a catastrophic warming simply does not exist, .6 degrees C is a benefit not a catastrophy, and the very physics that is claimed to underlie the entire theory of CO2 caused warming clearly does not support it. Hence all the arguments about feedback on another thread. To me the issue being ignored is the time lag, I don't know how big it really is, either the effect of CO2 is much more delayed then some people think or the C02 warming is much less significant. The supposed temperature response to CO2 increase is a curve and the increase of the last century should already have produced more than half of the total change in temperature. How about a thread on that John? Or here is another idea: If CO2 really is a problem it is a fairly easy one to fix, why not discuss how to fix it? The fact that we get stupid cap and trade schemes instead of actual workable fixes is more evidence of the political agendas invovlved. -
Quietman at 19:34 PM on 25 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
frankbi Most posts I have referenced come from legitimate science resources. They may be skeptical but they are not denialists. The only denying literature that I have read has come from the far left and far right extemists, one side says it's all CO2 and the other says it's no CO2. The fact is that there are very few true climate scientists in the world and most of them do not participate in the IPCC, only some, the rest are specialists in other fields, many unrelated to climate. The AGW alarmists are the true deniers, they will not accept skeptisism which is required in order to do true scientific investigation. A skeptic understands that there is some effect from greenhouse gases but realizes that there is a lot more involved, factors that are not being used in the IPCC models. It's a GIGO situation. Only within the past 30 years have true climatologists been able to discern many of the more important factors in climate change but regardless of new data the IPCC keeps using 100 year old theories that do not and can not make proper predictions. The historic cycles have been identified but not fully understood. Hiding your head in the sand will not make the cycles stop no matter how much you would like them to. It will cool down now but more slowly than it got hot. That is what has happened for the past 2 million years and will continue to happen until another extremely violent solar cycle reoccurs like this last one. The TSI charts are basically garbage, Illuminenesence is a minor factor. UV and the ozone layer are much more important apparently. But it would appear that the major forcing is gravimetric tides within the sun, controlled by the interaction of planetary gravity fields, the strongest of which is jupiter. Instead of reading only documents approved by the IPCC consensus, I suggest that you also read the skeptical ones as well. They are written by geologists and climatologists rather than IPCC meteorologists. Sorry, I am not argumentative by nature but I read these blogs to learn and this blog has been mostly regurgitating the IPCC climate cycle denialist points word for word. I have learned more from the skeptics arguments here. Now that that has been said, I will go back to being quiet. No offense meant. -
nanny_govt_sucks at 17:17 PM on 25 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
"But the IPCC presented a range of projections - the observed data was greater than even the warmest projection." I think you missed my point because you said basically the same thing again. The IPCC projections include the confidence intervals, as far as I'm aware. The observations did not exceed the IPCC projections as portrayed in the graphic. Perhaps you have a different interpretation of "confidence interval" than the one I'm familiar with?? -
frankbi at 14:26 PM on 25 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
Wondering Aloud: "Any evidence at all would be nice at this point." And what exactly will you consider as "evidence" that global warming is serious? That's my question. "According to Pielke he is comparing model predictions to the data there is no model involved from his end" Yeah, so what's this "Cochrane-Orcutt fit" thing? It's clearly _not_ the raw data, otherwise it won't need a fancy name will it? "Pielke has asked what would constitute falsification?" How about comparing the IPCC models _directly_ with the raw data, none of that "Cochrane-Orcutt" stuff? I pointed that out already. You ignored it. And I see Quietman simply dodges the above points and throws out another bunch of denialist talking points. -
nanny_govt_sucks at 10:01 AM on 25 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
"It's immediately apparent the IPCC underestimated temperature rise with observations warmer than all projections." Is that really apparent from the graph? The IPCC confidence interval appears to encompass all observational data. It would seem that the IPCC got this one right (so far).Response: You're correct, observations fall within the IPCC uncertainty range, which is a pretty big uncertainty range - a climate uncertainty ranging from 1.7° to 4.2°C. If observations exceeded even the error range, then there would be serious cause for concern! But the IPCC presented a range of projections - the observed data was greater than even the warmest projection. -
Quietman at 05:54 AM on 25 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
"Here's a strange scenario: You move farther away from a fire, getting cooler and cooler, until suddenly you are burning up. That's essentially what happens in the sun: Its outer layer, the corona, is inexplicably hot. A new study may complicate things further by poking holes in a leading theory that aims to account for the puzzling phenomenon." From a new article "New kink in sun’s strange corona" By Clara Moskowitz, at space.com; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23780033/ This fits nicely into the Solar hypothesis. -
Quietman at 05:20 AM on 25 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
You will find an interesting observation or two in the following note from a climatologist: "On the Fundamental Defect in the IPCC’s Approach to Global Warming Research" June 15, 2007, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks (CLIMATESCI.ORG). -
Wondering Aloud at 01:39 AM on 25 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
So why should I believe this as opposed to... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variationResponse: WA, you're like my own private Steve McIntyre. So I decided to download the PMOD satellite data and compare it to Solanki/Krivova's TSI reconstruction (monthly values). Here's the result:
It's a pretty good match (which isn't surprising, Krivova 2007 does make a point of checking their reconstruction against the satellite data). Last year, I did ask Solanki if he could upload their TSI data to his website (so I could provide a link to it). He said he'd run the idea by Krivova but I'm guessing they never got around to it. I'd be happy to email you the Solanki data if you're interested. -
Wondering Aloud at 00:11 AM on 25 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Looking at Usoskin and at Krivova it still looks to me like your graph is wrong. Certainly from 1985 to 2000 where you have a big dip that is not reflected in either place.
Prev 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 Next
