Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 Next
Comments 132051 to 132100:
-
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. -
Wondering Aloud at 00:03 AM on 25 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
Any evidence at all would be nice at this point. I cannot imagine a realistic situation given our current climate when any reasonably expected warming would not have a net positive effect. As I read more and more of the actual research I become less and less convinced of catastrophic claims. Are you sure of this frankbi or is this another of your wild goose chases? According to Pielke he is comparing model predictions to the data there is no model involved from his end, why should I believe you in light of the fact that you have deliberately steered me wrong in the past? Roger Pielke is correct about one thing at least, every time the models fail in a prediction it is arm waved away. Remember the predictions in the past included the poles warming first, the stratosphere warming more, or how about the classic 3 degrees C warming by the year 2000 claimed in congressional testimony? I have that one on video. Pielke has asked what would constitute falsification? If the answer is "nothing" as it appears, it is not science by definition, regardless of whatever problems you have with your foot. -
frankbi at 23:06 PM on 24 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
Wondering Aloud: Pielke's methodology is dubious. Instead of comparing raw data directly with the IPCC models, he decided to create his own model from the data using some super-duper method, and _then_ compare his "model" with the IPCC models. "Falsification" my foot. My question to you (and Pielke) is this: What evidence will you accept as proof that AGW _is_ happening and _is_ serious? -
Quietman at 15:48 PM on 24 March 2008It's methane
Re: "This is not to say methane can be ignored - reducing methane levels is definitely a goal to pursue. The good news is since the early 1990's, the trend in increasing methane has slowed down and even leveled off in the last few years (Dlugokencky 2003)." Gee, what a coincidence! -
Wondering Aloud at 12:32 PM on 24 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
WHAT? Are you aware that your own citation linked Krivova 2007 clearly disagrees with your entire premise of some big drop in solar activity in 1975 and since! So Icecap is debunked? Maybe,I haven't checked that out. It does appear that your own reference completely destroys the graph and claim you made in your response in 28. Either Krivova is totally wrong or this graph is. Krivova does not show declines in either magnetic activity or the less important TSI that started somehow in 1975 or apparetnly at all.Response: I've never said there's been a big drop in solar activity since 1975. To clarify, there's been a breakdown in the correlation between sun and climate since 1975. While climate has shown decadal warming, the sun has shown very little long term trend. There's either a slight warming trend or slight cooling trend depending on which TSI composite you adopt. Incidentally, the data I use is Krivova's TSI reconstruction - she co-wrote that paper with Sami Solanki who emailed me the data in late 2007. -
Wondering Aloud at 12:19 PM on 24 March 2008Climate change on Mars
Looks like NOAA had a not so good prediction; average temperatures that ran about 10 degrees F colder than last year were the rule not the exception. I don't think you have disproven the sun being the main driver any more than the mid century cooling disproved CO2 as the main driver; the situations are clearly similar. The fact that you have another hypothesis that allows you to say CO2 as a driver is not disproven because it cooled from 1940-1970, does not mean there is not also a secondary affect that is masking solar affect from 1975-1998. (like a simple time lag) Even if, as you claim, the sun/climate correlation is broken. This is a further example of a double standard. -
Wondering Aloud at 12:00 PM on 24 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
It looks to me like the elephant in the room is clearly being ignored in your cited paper. He is using the GISS data and not talking about the time period that is being debated. What you are not saying is that people like Roger Pielke are asking very good questions like what constitutes falsification of the model? http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/ -
Quietman at 04:50 AM on 24 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
BTN - From what I have read recently: Parts of the ocean ARE warming, but parts are also cooling from arctic ice melt. Major currents that are considered constants actually change course on a regular basis. Northern Europe is benefitting from the warming Gulf Stream at this time but that was not always the case. - See ScienceDaily, Climate section. -
Quietman at 04:41 AM on 24 March 2008We're heading into an ice age
Re: "What if the sun did go through another Maunder Minimum?" Not IF but When. It's part of the long term climate cycle. -
Quietman at 04:38 AM on 24 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Re: "La Nina" see my comments to "Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?" -
Quietman at 04:32 AM on 24 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
You might want to read this article: "Earth’s Orbit Creates More Than A Leap Year: Orbital Behaviors Also Drive Climate Changes, Ice Ages" ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2008) The Earth’s orbital behaviors are responsible for more than just presenting us with a leap year every four years. According to Michael E. Wysession, Ph.D., associate professor of earth and planetary sciences in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, parameters such as planetary gravitational attractions, the Earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun and the degree of tilt of our planet’s axis with respect to its path around the sun, have implications for climate change and the advent of ice ages. -
frankbi at 03:37 AM on 24 March 2008Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
Will Nitschke throws out a bunch of fluffy fact-free -- and _irrelevant_ -- nonsense. By the way, John Cook: Boehmer-Christiansen did eventually publish Schulte's paper anyway: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2008/00000019/00000002 :-| From the abstract: "Fear of anthropogenic `global warming' can adversely affect patients' well-being." First thing: how did Schulte test for this claim in the first place? Maybe he sorted his patients into two groups, and subjected one of the groups to repeated continuous replays of Gore's _An Inconvenient Truth_. Or something. Seriously, I'd like to know.Response: Thanks for the heads-up, I've added an update. It certainly is an original angle - debunking AGW as therapy for anxious medical patients. -
Quietman at 03:08 AM on 24 March 2008Climate change on Mars
By the way, Mackey predicted that when artic ice had melted enough that asia would have one hell of a winter. -
Quietman at 03:05 AM on 24 March 2008Climate change on Mars
A couple of points: 1) The warming on earth is least at the south pole, and so it seems least also on mars south pole. If there is a correlation then mars should be colder this winter as well (just like the earth). 2) I have been comparing daily temperatures to record temperatures for the North East U.S. this winter and not only is it colder than recent years, it's been running about 10 degrees F colder than long term averages. I don't have access to global data but I know that everywhere other than parts of europe has had a miserable winter. -
Dodo at 20:12 PM on 23 March 2008It hasn't warmed since 1998
OK, so now we have the data from the ARGO measuring system, and they show that the oceans have not warmed at all since 2003. So there is more than just one La Nina behind the flattening of global temperatures, wouldn't you agree? Sulphur aerosols from China?Response: The significance of cooling oceans is discussed here. -
BTN at 16:26 PM on 20 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
What about the fact that the oceans are not warming? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025Response: BTN, that's what we've been discussing in the last couple of comments. It's an interesting question - I contacted Josh Willis, the author of the paper mentioned above (Willis 2008) and although the paper still isn't published for several weeks, he was gracious enough to send me a copy and some background info. It's fascinating stuff. So I'll be posting something hopefully in a week or two (am halfway through another post though - have to finish that one first).
UPDATE: I address this in The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat (geez, what a pretentious title). -
Den siste mohikanen at 06:55 AM on 20 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
John, I have a faximile with missing pages, better to wait for the publication, which will come soon. You also have Lyman, 2006, and Smith and Reynolds, 2005 showing the same thing. The point is that the current radiative imbalance cannot be positive if the climate system loses heat. At the same time the IPCC ensures us that the suns impact is a mere 0,15 W/m2, you say that this lack of heat accumulation can be explained by the suns turn from max to min. But then you must fault the IPCC for not allowing a larger role for the sun in the climate puzzle.Response: I'm not saying it's necessarily the sun causing the ocean's warming trend to slow. Let me read up on those papers and scratch around for other papers on the topic - I'll probably do a post on the topic shortly (thanks for the homework). -
Geoff Beacon at 21:03 PM on 19 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
The link to "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections (Rahmstoorf 2008)" points to http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf Is this a mistake?Response: I was linking to the correct paper. My mistake was attributing it as Rahmstoorf 2008 (it was published in February 2007). For some reason, I had it in my head that it came out in 2008. The paper makes more sense now, I was wondering why they hadn't included data to the end of 2007! Thanks for the tip. -
Craig Allen at 12:49 PM on 19 March 20081934 - hottest year on record
Will Nitschke - "... the US surface temperature records are regarded as the best in the world." Sheesh, some of you Americans have such a superiority complex! Many other nations have excellent temperature records. For example Australia. You can check out our climate statistics at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The temperature and rainfall trends down here are ugly and getting worse all the time. Besides that, the temperature of the World's oceans is monitored by a multinational project called Argo. They do it with 3000 floats that alternately rise and sink through the top 2km of as they drift around the oceans. -
Den siste mohikanen at 09:16 AM on 19 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
John, You refered a paper by Hansen et al that looks on older data. What I claimed was that we probably have seen no net accumulation of heat since 1998 and that we are vertially certain that we have not seen such an accumulation since 2004. One of the articles supporting this notion is: Willis, J. K., D. P. Chambers and R. Steven Nerem, 2008: Assessing the Globally Averaged Sea Level Budget on Seasonal and Interannual Time Scales. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans which reports no ocean warming since 2004. Others are RSS and UAH MSU / AMSU data, ARGO. You also have the Lyman et al paper and others. If we do not accumulate heat we do not have a radiative imbalance; if we do not have a radiative imbalance the IPCC is wrong. You also misunderstood my point on warming since 1998. I was not talking about surface or atmospheric temperatures but heat.Response: UPDATE: I got in contact with Josh Willis who wrote the paper on Sea Level Budget and he was gracious enough to email his paper as well as some other material. Here's a summary of the ocean heat situation. -
Den siste mohikanen at 09:00 AM on 19 March 2008There's no empirical evidence
"here is a clear empirical evidence that CO2 is rising, CO2 causes warming and the expected warming is observed." -Yes, Yes and No. CO2 is rising and we expect that to cause warming. But "the expected warming" is not observed. If by expected you mean that we have seen warming that yes, but not from CO2 alone. In fact, the IPCC uses "aerosols" to explain the cooling from 1944 to 1975, and kindly explain that we do not know much about the climatic impact of aerosols. So to say that the "expected" warming is observed is to mislead: the expected warming from KNOWN factors (i.e. such the IPCC says we know lots about) would have been a steady increase from 1944, interupted by a few volcanoes and La Ninas. And to answer your question: "What is causing the warming if not CO2?" The suns irradiance, cosmic rays, a positive PDO, and a range of other factors, along with CO2. "Why isn't rising CO2 causing the warming?" Well, IT DOES, albeit not all of it, but from there, it's a long way to prove that a warming of half a degree until now will translate into an additional 5 degrees to year 2100.
Prev 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 Next
