Recent Comments

Prev  2635  2636  2637  2638  2639  2640  2641  2642  2643  2644  2645  2646  2647  2648  2649  2650  Next

Comments 132101 to 132150:

132101. aaron at 01:53 AM on 19 March 2008
        Comparing IPCC projections to observations
        The increase of heat in the oceans is likely due to more heat being absorbed rather than less heat is being emmitted. That doesn't jive with GHG global warming theory (where the heat blocking effect would be distributed vertically in the atmosphere--the entire green house effect can't act just at the plane of the ocean surface). Direct light is the primary warmer of oceans (very difficult for the atmosphere to warm the oceans), it would be interesting to see if there are changes in the amount of light reaching the oceans.
        Response: You're right, it is due to more heat being absorbed by the ocean from the warming air. This isn't to say the greenhouse effect acts just at the ocean surface, quite the contrary. But this is why the warming trend is higher over land - because over the ocean, the heat from the air is being absorbed by the ocean. Similarly, the Northern Hemisphere is warming faster than the Southern Hemisphere because there's a lot more ocean in the south.
132102. Den siste mohikanen at 19:39 PM on 18 March 2008
        Comparing IPCC projections to observations
        The IPCC chose to predict temperatures 1,5 to 2 m above ground, a rather meaningsless measure if predicting global warming is your point. However, even if accepting such unscientific methods, you should also mention the very serious critisism directed to temperature records from GISS and Hadley - and that they haven't effectively responded to that critisism. A far better measure to assess the radiative imbalance is of course the heat budget of our climate system. Here we can say that probably no accumulation of heat has taken place since 1998 and that vertially certainly no heat accumulation has occured the last 4 years. This doesn't square with the IPCC notion of a radiative imbalance in the range of 0,85 W/m2. If a pot of water is on the stove and is not getting warmer (accumulating energy) then you know that the person trying to sell you the second hand stove, insisting that it is fully functional and that the plate is perfectly good, is, well, a hustler? (And I'm not saying that we cannot start to warm again: but the IPCC has not got the relative importance of forcings correct, otherwise we would see an continuing accumulation of Joules in the climate system. This also means that their predictions cannot be trusted.)
        Response: It's not practical to address so many skeptic objections in the one post without bloating out to unreadable proportions. Hence I break these topics up into more manageable pieces. Re the criticisms directed to temperature records, that is addressed at Surface Temperature records are unreliable. Re radiative imbalance, I mention that in passing when looking at the empirical evidence for AGW. Specifically, I link to Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications (Hansen 2004) which looks at precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content and calculates that Earth is absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it emits to space. Lastly re warming trends since 1998, that is covered in the global warming stopped in 1998 argument.
132103. Steve Bloom at 10:32 AM on 18 March 2008
        Comparing IPCC projections to observations
        Also FYI, John, you wrote above "Add to this the fact that model uncertainty is inherently skewed towards *greater* sensitivity." You want lesser, I think.
        Response: Hmm, my wording is clumsy, am struggling to think of a clearer way to communicate what I'm trying to say.
132104. Steve Bloom at 09:49 AM on 18 March 2008
        Comparing IPCC projections to observations
        FYI, John, any paper that has a GISS author or co-author will appear very promptly on their pubs page, often as a pre-pub. The full text of this one is here. All U.S. gov't institutions can do this without concern for copyright, meaning that you can safely link to them, but GISS is exceptionally thorough about it. Usually for Science articles they'll link the separate high-res figures file, but unfortunately they missed it in this case.
        Response: Steve, great info, very useful to know. From now on, I'll check http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/ for full access papers - it sucks when the general public only have access to the abstract. I've updated the link in the post to go straight to the full version. I also noticed their graphs were low-rez bitmaps rather than the usual high-rez. A shame, it looks a little fuzzy when I display them at 500px wide.
132105. Philippe Chantreau at 06:23 AM on 18 March 2008
        Comparing IPCC projections to observations
        Frankbi, I seem to recall the fact that the location afforded as much distance as one can be away from a high concentration of emitting sources that could have affected the measurements, guaranteeing that the concentration measured is that of well mixed gas. I'm really not sure about this, however, can't reference it.
132106. frankbi at 04:29 AM on 18 March 2008
        Comparing IPCC projections to observations
        I can't access the paper unfortunately, but anyway I'm curious about one thing: do the authors say why they choose to use Mauna Loa to measure CO2? (I'm aware that any difference in the CO2 concentration measurements won't change the temperature and sea level measurements, and the conclusion that warming projections are being underestimated by the IPCC.)
        Response: The paper doesn't say why Mauna Loa but it's probably because it's the longest continuous record of directly measured CO2 levels.
132107. Quietman at 05:14 AM on 16 March 2008
        Climate change on Mars
        May I draw your attention to: "Scientists Verify Predictive Model For Winter Weather" - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070820123745.htm - and "Warm Winter Predicted For United States" - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010131931.htm - and "Coolest Winter Since 2001 For U.S., Globe, According To NOAA Data" - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080314175834.htm - So much for climate model accuracy.
        Response: In Oct 2007, the NOAA predicted a winter that was warmer than the long term average but a "cooler winter than last year". It also predicted a moderate-to-weak La Niña was likely to persist through the winter. What actually happened was the winter was still warmer than the long term average but cooler than expected due to La Niña being stronger than expected (moderate-to-strong). Short term internal variability is always harder to predict due to the chaotic nature of weather. Which is why climate prediction averages out the chaotic noise of weather to deduce long term trends.
132108. Steve L at 12:48 PM on 15 March 2008
        Climate change on Mars
        Re#3: Shouldn't the stratosphere have warmed if the sun was the source? I believe the data show a cooling stratosphere.
132109. Philippe Chantreau at 10:22 AM on 15 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Solanki works the Max Planck Institute and I find him, a priori, very trustworthy; so I would definitely trust info obtained directly from him. He is a very respected authority on the Sun. His reconstruction used to be popular with skeptics, until they figured it did not really support that much of a case for them. The Hoyt and Schatten's data used by icecap was part of the topic of a thread at Tamino's, in which Joe D'Aleo did not have much to say that was convincing. Dr. Svalgaard mentioned there that the authors themselves have acknowledged the weakness of their reconstruction, which is not used anymore since much better ones have been done (including Solanki's). http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/#comments The dubious mathematical methods used by D'Aleo in the paper that is the subject of the thread are very nicely dissected by Tamino and provide an interesting insight into the reliability of Icecap, in which I believe D'Aleo to be a major contributor.
132110. Wondering Aloud at 05:48 AM on 15 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Well I don't know what this graph is really saying, it sure doesn't seem to fit anything I can find elsewhere. Perhaps this link woulod be a nice contrast. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf
        Response: I'm not sure when that icecap article was written. At best, it's quite old and the data they use is outdated. At worst, it was written recently and they're being intentionally misleading by using outdated, defunct data. They use a graph for TSI from a 1997 book by Hoyt Schatten. I'm not sure where the book gets their data from but it contradicts sunspot numbers and satellite measurements. At a guess, it looks reminiscent of Foukal's TSI reconstruction which made errors when merging different sunspot records.
        
        Even worse is their use of Lassen's 1991 solar cycle length graph. In 1999, Lassen updated his data concluding "since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature". The 1991 data is erroneous and to use it when even the author has debunked his earlier work is misleading or at best, ignorant.
132111. Philippe Chantreau at 03:27 AM on 15 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        If there is lag, it does not apear to be consistent. In fact, the period 1915-1930 shows an inverse correlation that does not square very well with the hypothesis of TSI having a major influence. Why are the temps increasing in the 1920's while TSI is decreasing? The 1975 period shows a simultaneous increase, no lag, but soon turns into a total lack of correlation. As remarked before, what is appearent overall is a reverse correlation, i.e. the temp trend changing first and TSI following (up until 1975). I do not see a 10 years lag clearly emerging either. Even if you imagine a 30-35 years lag, to explain the 1975 upward trending temp by the 1940's TSI peak, then you're out of an explanation for the 1940 temp spike. All in all, the TSI to temp idea is a really difficult case to make with this data.
132112. Wondering Aloud at 00:18 AM on 15 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        That could be important, I've been wondering how people quantify the time lag as I've seen assumptions from 3 years to several hundred years.
132113. paledriver at 23:49 PM on 14 March 2008
        There is no consensus
        and on the Heidelberg Appeal.............. "Parts of the Heidelberg Appeal do endorse environmental concerns, such as a sentence that states, "We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved." Its 72 Nobel laureates include 49 who also signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," which was circulated that same year by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and attracted the majority of the world's living Nobel laureates in science along with some 1,700 other leading scientists. In contrast with the vagueness of the Heidelberg Appeal, the "World Scientists' Warning" is a very explicit environmental manifesto, stating that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course" and citing ozone depletion, global climate change, air pollution, groundwater depletion, deforestation, overfishing, and species extinction among the trends that threaten to "so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know." Moreover the Heidelberg Appeal has been, if not specifically misrepresented, at least broadly interpreted out of context, for example, by The National Center for Public Policy which asserts "The appeal warns industrialized nations that no compelling scientific consensus exists to justify mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal
132114. paledriver at 23:43 PM on 14 March 2008
        There is no consensus
        in response to wonderings #23 relying on the petition project? The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories. The petition requests signatories list their degree (B.S., M.S., or Ph.D.) and to list their scientific field.[3] The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute". The Petition Project itself used to state: “ Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.[2] ” In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote: “ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.[15] ” In 2005, Scientific American reported: “ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[16] ” In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote: “ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[17]" wikipedia.com and........... "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001." http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
132115. paledriver at 23:36 PM on 14 March 2008
        There is no consensus
        #26 here's a good post for you at "A Few Things Ill-Considered." " Definately Not Galileo A common theme among hardcore denialists, after slowly dragging them around to admit there is a consensus, is an appeal to the Galileo syndrome. "Galileo went against the consensus and he was right!" This is a flawed argument in the climate change debate for many reasons, and it is a Guide entry that is missing for the moment. I am only bringing it up now, rather than do a proper entry, because of a discussion paper by Ernst-Georg Beck that was presented on Warwick Hughes' blog (no relation to me... to Glenn Beck? I don't know). It is basically a well dressed version of the "there is no anthropogenic CO2 rise" argument. Eli Rabett took the time to take it apart in a rather thorough and scientific manner, especially given the total lack of a credible conclusion Beck arrives at. You can see the featured graph at Deltoid and read Stoat's dismissive opinion of it here. The irony I want to point out is that Galileo was a forward thinker, reaching into previously untrodden territory. His innovation and imagination helped him see past the prevailing state of human knowledge at the time and go into new ground. What are the denialists doing here? Digging up decades old research with results all over the place, results that lead to all sorts of impossible conclusions and then trying to claim that this is the reality and the new, consistent and refined results are the ones that are wrong. Never mind that this is what progress looks like, this is many minds working to overcome the challenges that caused prior confusion to finally achieve consistent, sensible and reliable data. But what if you don't like what the new data are telling you? Just chuck it and go back to the old stuff! Sorry, that is so not Galileo!" http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/10/definately-not-galileo.html
132116. Den siste mohikanen at 19:29 PM on 14 March 2008
        It hasn't warmed since 1998
        With no major volcanic outbreak since 1991, current temperatures are the same as before that major outbreak (Pinatabu). (Actually, current temperature is lower than then but it is fair to allow for a lower average temperature the years before Pinatabu and we need to keep in mind that current temperatures are a bit lower than previous years.) Anyhow we can conclude than since prior to Pinatabu there has been no statistically significant warming trend (its all within error bounds). Now how much was the upper projection of the IPCC? +6°C to the year 2100. From now on that roughly means at least five times the warming rate we've seen so far since satellite measurements began and more than ten times the warming rate since we started to increase our CO2 emissions (around 1940-45). That anyone can believe this without the IPCC presenting any evidence at all is flabbergasting to be honest. I'll admit that there is a risk (albeit minor IMHO) for a two degree warming, but such a risk you handle differently and you certainly won't scare children nor keep people in poverty because of it.
        Response: You can read the IPCC projections versus observations here.
132117. Wondering Aloud at 12:00 PM on 14 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Interestingly this graph you have now used on like 3 different threads does not seem to be at the location you have linked to. (Usoskin 2005) There appear to be a couple of graphs there that rather refute it. Specifically showing huge increases in sunspot numbers during the 20th century. What gives? Did you put the wrong link? Where is this from? Is it proxy data Be10 they mention? If so why would we use proxy data for a time interval where direct measurement is available and cited on other threads? Would you expect there to be no time lag? This graph doesnt support TSI temp link even starting in 1900. It has a dandy cause effect reversal dominating the middle of the graph.
        Response: I created the graph myself from TSI data emailed to me from Sami Solanki (co-author of Usoskin 2005). Solanki used a physical model that reconstructs solar total and open magnetic flux using observed sunspot numbers from 1611. The reconstruction is confirmed in comparisons with satellite measurements of TSI as well as several other solar indices observed over the last few decades. The process is documented in Krivova 2007. As far as I know, his is the best TSI reconstruction going around (others such as Judith Lean's and Peter Foukal's have been shown to contain flaws). Re time lag, I've never said there was no time lag - in fact, Usoskin 2005 concludes historically there is a 10 year time lag between decadal TSI trends and temperature, due to ocean thermal inertia. I allude to this at the bottom of the sun page.
132118. Wondering Aloud at 11:39 AM on 14 March 2008
        Climate change on Mars
        The graph you posted on the "it's the sun" thread showed a drop after 1975 while the actual case appears to be a slow increase generally up until about 2003. I think what is really bothering me is that you appear to think the correlation must be linear and not involve a lag time, while not holding CO2-climate relation to anything like a similar standard Is the correlation CO2-climate better than the sun-climate correlation for the last century? I think you would have to admit it isn't. You have to choose a very specific time interval, something like, longer than 20 years shorter than 50 years or the CO2-climate correlation loses the comparison. Another trouble is the "sharply rising temperatures" are they? Isn't that contention already 10 years out of date? If temperature doesn't have to keep lock step with CO2 why do you think it should keep lock step with TSI or the hypothesis fails. Shouldn't you hold both hypothesis to the same standard? I am not even disagreeing here on your main point it just seems that you have a double standard. Maybe we can't avoid it when personal beliefs intrude.
        Response: As there are a number of forcings that influence climate, CO2 doesn't always correlate perfectly with climate. For example, right now we're experiencing cooling because La Nina is temporarily overpowering long term warming. On a more long term scale, mid-century cooling occured while CO2 levels were rising because cooling from rising aerosol levels temporarily overpowered CO2 warming.
        
        Now if I argued CO2 was the driving force for mid-century cooling when the data clearly shows a break down in correlation, I would be mistaken. Instead, the obvious conclusion is that some other forcing/s was driving the cooling. Similarly, we cannot conclude the sun is driving current warming because the correlation has broken down. Therefore some other forcing/s must be the driving force of the last 3 decades of warming.
        
        The breakdown in correlation between sun and climate doesn't prove CO2 warming. It just disproves the argument that the sun is the main driver of global warming.
132119. Quietman at 10:01 AM on 14 March 2008
        Do 500 scientists refute anthropogenic global warming?
        Over 500 scientists from all over the globe showed up in NYC recently to discuss AGW and Climate Change. It was sponsered primarily by Heartland. I have read their "consensus" on the Heartland web site but I have no idea what branches of science they represent. Heartland are definate AGW deniers so I don't put much stock in their summary but I sure would love to know who they were and how the discussion went (I'm a skeptic, not a denier).
132120. Den siste mohikanen at 08:03 AM on 14 March 2008
        It's cosmic rays
        Sir, you state that "The point is that because the sun has correlated so closely with temperature in the past, when the correlation ended in the 1970's, it's reasonable to conclude some other forcing imposed itself on the climate. Re the CO2 lag, the ice core records actually confirm the amplifying effect of atmospheric CO2. As for the last 10 years of global not warming, you'll find the warming rate is the same over the last 10 years as over the last 30 years." For sure, neither the sun nor CO2 nor the two together make up for the only climate forcing. So your argument is a bit weak by itself, but even if we assume that all the unexplained difference is due to CO2, that doesn't give as much room for IPCCs +6°C forecast that you seem to imply. If all the difference from Krivova et al graph is attributed to CO2 that means that burning half of our known reserves of oil and gas has yielded us less than 0,3°C in temperature change. Some may be in the pipeline but several degrees? The climatic response time would need to be many hundreds of years for that to be possible, which clearly is not the case with TSI & cosmic ray forcings. I would also think that the discussion would be less confusing if we started to define what kind of cosmic rays we are discussing. If I remember correctly Laut is using low energy CR but what Svensmark and others claim is that it is cosmic rays of a certain energy (around 10 GeV) that makes the difference: only these energies create the secondary particles needed for the ionisation over low altitudes far from land. Sometimes the CR of high and low energies follow eachother, other times they won't; hence we should clearly state what kind of cosmic rays we are refering to.
132121. Wondering Aloud at 02:57 AM on 14 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Don't get too confident the correlation is still better for TSI than it is for CO2.
        Response: Here's a graph demonstrating the correlation between TSI and temperature which speaks for itself:
        
        The most striking feature is that sun has correlated so closely with temperature over the past 1,500 years and yet just in the last 3 decades has diverged so sharply (Usoskin 2005).
132122. Wondering Aloud at 00:31 AM on 14 March 2008
        Climate change on Mars
        Yes and many have concluded the opposite. Your argument is stretching the claim that TSI is down since 1975. I don't know, I don't read many papers in solar astronomy, however asking around the astronomy professors I work with I can't find any that agree with the contention that TSI has been dropping since 1975. The few who were involved in solar astronomy looked at me like I was crazy when I suggested it. Maybe your reference on correlation between sun and climate ending in 1975 isn't all that good. I actually don't think the Mars warming is necessairily related to Earth warming. But the idea that the Sun is cooling through this recent warming is just wrong.
        Response: I've never said the sun was cooling, just that the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970's. There are several composites of TSI which show slightly different trends over the last 30 years. However, the fact that scientists are arguing over whether the sun is showing a slight upwards trend or a slight downwards trend or if there's even a trend at all only serves to underscore the sharp divergence between sun and sharply rising temperatures.
132123. Quietman at 09:58 AM on 13 March 2008
        Climate change on Mars
        Re: "the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began." is only true if the factoring is incomplete. See my last comment on "Global cooling: the new kid on the block". Richard Mackey has developed his hypothesis based on the earlier work done by Rhodes Fairbridge.
        Response: Fairbridge's work addresses the cause of solar variations (eg - planet alignment affecting the sun's angular velocity which affects solar output). Regardless of what's causing solar variations, we have empirical measurements of solar output. And many studies comparing solar output and global temperatures have concluded the sun's role in global warming is minimal.
132124. Quietman at 09:50 AM on 13 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Re: "question of whether solar output is driving global warming has been thoroughly analysed" - I did follow the link but saw no new data, only the same IPCC answer. In the paper by Richard Mackey (2007) he states: "The IPCC dismissed any significant link between solar variability and climate on the grounds that changes in irradiance were too small." ... "Short wavelength radiation (UV and Xrays) ionises the upper atmosphere and heats the middle atmosphere. As a result, atmospheric temperature varies in a nonlinear manner with the amount and type of solar radiation. The sun ejects enormous quantities of matter continuously in the form of the solar wind, or periodically as either a mix of high energy protons and electrons (Coronal Mass Ejections, (CMEs)), or as mostly high energy protons (Solar Proton Events (SPEs)). The earth’s atmosphere is more sensitive, and more reactive, to the CMEs and SPEs than to the sun’s short wavelength radiation, to which it is, in any case, highly reactive. The effect of the solar wind, CMEs and SPEs is to reduce the amount of ozone and as a result, warm the middle atmosphere. The overall effect on climate is more turbulence: stronger winds, more storms and greater precipitation." Your blog on solar cycles did not mention this.
        Response: The sun's effect on climate isn't insignificant. Camp 2007 looks for a solar signal in global temperatures and finds the solar cycle contributes 0.18 degrees C from solar maximum to minimum (and vica versa). This is a significant effect. And this isn't isolating one particular aspect of solar activity - it's an empirical look at global temperatures for an 11 year signal. In other words, as cosmic radiation, TSI, UV, X-rays all correlate in an 11 year signal, the 0.18 degree effect encompasses all these effects. More on solar cycles...
        
        But more importantly, the long term, decadal trend of solar activity does not correlate with global temperatures. This applies to Total Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Radiation, UV and X-Rays. However, I haven't looked at data on CMEs and SPEs - I imagine as they correlate with other indices of solar activity, they would show a similar lack of correlation with climate.
132125. Wondering Aloud at 08:04 AM on 13 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        He he he (evil chuckle) and I am still right... the trick is be less specific. If this keeps up I can have a job at the psychic hotline.
132126. John Cross at 03:02 AM on 13 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        OK, just to clue things up - the land / ocean index is finally up and sure enough I am off by about 0.09C . The January figure was 12, I predicted February to be between 35 and 45 and it actually came in at 26! Let the unseemly gloating begin!! John
        Response: Thanks for the heads-up, I've grabbed the February data and updated the post.
132127. Quietman at 23:28 PM on 12 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Solar cycle 24: 2007-2011 are the "test" years for "The solar inertial motion hypothesis" which predicts that the period from about 2010 to 2040 will be one of relatively severe cold throughout the world. - Richard Mackey, Journal of Coastal Research SI 50 955 - 968 ICS2007 (Proceedings) Australia ISSN 0749.0208
132128. JohnMashey at 16:18 PM on 12 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        re: LIA And don't forget what William Ruddiman says in "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum" about temperature dips possibly being contributed to by major pandemics (Chapter 13), i.e., with the causal mechanism being: - humans die - previously-forested farmland goes back to forest, sequestering CO2 That's still a hypothesis, but I have seen at least one paper somewhere that seemed to support it: Abandonment of farmland and vegetation succession following the Eurasian plague pandemic of ad 1347–52. In particular, the later LIA coincided with the biggest die-off in human history, the deaths of native Americans from smallpox, etc. See 2007 conversation. One part I can verify personally: I grew up on a small farm in Pennyslvania farmed for 140 years. I have a drawing from the 1840s that shows a big pasture in front of the barn, and it was there when I grew up. My parents sold the place for development, they built nothing on the pasture, and 15-20 years' later, there was a forest there indistinguishable from that on the next property.
132129. Quietman at 15:37 PM on 12 March 2008
        Has solar cycle 24 begun?
        2007-2011 are the "test" years for "The solar inertial motion hypothesis" which predicts that the period from about 2010 to 2040 will be one of relatively severe cold throughout the world. - Richard Mackey, Journal of Coastal Research SI 50 955 - 968 ICS2007 (Proceedings) Australia ISSN 0749.0208
132130. Quietman at 13:43 PM on 12 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        For those unfamiliar with Dr. Fairbridge's work or credentials, his paper is on http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/Fairbridge...
        Response: I haven't done a post on Fairbridge's work but the general gist is that the alignment of the planets affects the sun's angular velocity which affects solar output. I'm not sure about the whole planet alignment thing but the question of whether solar output is driving global warming has been thoroughly analysed.
132131. Quietman at 13:32 PM on 12 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Philippe Chantreau; Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge had a hypothesis about planetary gravitation controling climate. He had predicted that when solar cycle 24 started we would see a cooling trend to peak in 2012. Since he passed away 2 years ago his hypothesis never saw a lot of attention. I think he may have been onto something, only time will tell.
132132. Quietman at 12:47 PM on 12 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        In recent news (the past few months) we have discovered 1} volcanic activity under the melting ice sheets in both Greenland and Antarctica that "may be contributing to their melting". 2) El Nino and La Nina are a part of one cycle driven by vulcanism at the South American subduction zone off the coast of Peru. 3) The atmosphere has had less particulates in the past 100 years due to decreased volcanic ejecta (not reduced vulcanism however). 4) The planetary alignment of 1976, while not having any immediate catastrophic effects, did intensify vulcanism all over the Earth. 5) The sudden increase in temperature slope begins in 1976. Please tell me that this is all coincidental.
132133. Quietman at 12:37 PM on 12 March 2008
        Human fingerprint on atmospheric CO2
        CO2 = 379 ppm or 0.000380, or 0.038% currently.
132134. Quietman at 12:28 PM on 12 March 2008
        CO2 lags temperature
        What if CO2 is meaningless? The graphs show measured concentrations of CO2 for the past how many years? Modern direct measurement of gases using a bench and means of interpreting past CO2 are not going to give the same results. Even trapped gas pockets in ice suffer from osmotic action. Past climates are mostly guesswork. As Wondering Aloud points out "it would cause a warming spiral." but that did not happen. The graph shows 450K years, ALL of which were within the oscillations of an ice age. We assume that this is an interglacial period. What if it isn't? How do we know that the planet isn't returning to Earth Normal or Earth Mean temperature? The fact is, we don't know.
132135. Quietman at 10:55 AM on 12 March 2008
        Models are unreliable
        Models are as reliable as the data put into them.
132136. Quietman at 10:50 AM on 12 March 2008
        Mars is warming
        It's not just Mars. Ever read the papers by the late Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge?
132137. Quietman at 10:46 AM on 12 March 2008
        There is no consensus
        If science relied on consensus then the Earth would be the center of the universe and you would fall off the edge. Science is not about consensus, opinion is about consensus. A german physisist,Gerhard Gerlich, demonstrated (in a very long and boring paper) how there can be no greenhouse effect. Do we burn him at the stake? I have seen many explanations about how the greenhouse effect works but no proof. Is it real and can it be proven?
132138. John Cross at 00:08 AM on 12 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Wondering Aloud: Just to echo John Cook's statement on the ice ages. The timing of them seem to match the timing of orbital mechanics very well (as shown in the Milankovitch cycles). The really interesting thing is that there is almost no difference in the amount of energy that the earth receives from the sun during these cycles but how it is distributed is important. Thus there are feedback mechanisms required to explain ice ages. In fact, the idea of a constant sun but different earth processes changing climate seems to be a common theme that I have seen in paleoclimate. Another way to say it is that internal processes of the earth are more variable than solar output. There is speculation that the development of the isthmus of Panama - which took place about 2 million years ago - was the trigger that caused the current cycle of ice ages. I don't know how it fits into the idea of skeptical science, but there may be a very interesting post in there John. On the other hand you may not want my advice right now. The preliminary numbers are looking like February will be about the same as January (temperature anomaly wise). Thus my prediction is looking high! I am game for making a prediction for next month if anyone wishes to join me! John
        Response: What, you're giving me more homework?! How about a guest blog post on the isthmus of Panama? :-)
132139. Philippe Chantreau at 21:54 PM on 11 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        To get back on topic, I recall this from Hadley: http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5839/796 In my recollection they suggested a short term stabilization or slight cooling until 2009 and more warming afterwards. Who knows? They may be right.
132140. Wondering Aloud at 05:43 AM on 11 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Phillipe he said he was hoping! (Response in 13) There is nothing simple about the physics involved here, indeed physics and astronomy are where a lot of very credible disagreement is coming from. It seems the better I understand a specific portion of the issue the less convincing it becomes. Hmm... it said that paper was ppv I'll have to try again. However if vulcanism is the big driver here how about the driver of the ice ages? Unless vulcanism has a 100,000 year cycle I think this is going to be a hard sell. Because now we are talking about two different mechanisms between IA and LIA. Not impossible but ...
        Response: Science magazine has free registration - sign up and you get access to certain papers. Not the most recent or really old papers but stuff a few years old are fair game. The 100,000 year ice ages and the Little Ice Age are two completely different phenomena. The 100,000 year ice ages are driven by Milankovitch cycles (and amplified by CO2 feedback) while the Little Ice Age was a short and mild (relatively speaking) cooler period just over the last few centuries. The major driving forces behind the LIA were the sun and increased volcanic activity.
132141. frankbi at 17:24 PM on 10 March 2008
        What 1970s science said about global cooling
        "Critique this stuff for a change:" No. If you want to spam unrelated denialist talking points, go play elsewhere.
132142. BTN at 16:03 PM on 10 March 2008
        What 1970s science said about global cooling
        frankbi Good analysis of Green/Armstrong. What fools. Critique this stuff for a change: http://climatesci.org/2007/06/15... http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/table-of-conten.html http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/climate.php http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1816 http://www.his.com/~sepp/Archive/NewSEPP/Climate%20models-Tennekes.htm http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/ http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar http://www.cato.org/research/articles/michaels-031016.html
132143. John Cook at 13:35 PM on 10 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Okay, got a bee in my bonnet about the Little Ice Age now (j'accuse, WA). Tracked down another interesting paper Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years (Crowley 2000) (requires free registration to Science to view the full paper). He concludes "There is increasing evidence that pulses of volcanism significantly contributed to decadal-scale climate variability in the Little Ice Age". Lots of other interesting goodies in that paper too.
132144. Philippe Chantreau at 13:01 PM on 10 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        W.A., John is not hoping, he is quoting Wang (2005), Krivova (2007) and IPCC AR4. There is not so much in all this that's only a matter of opinion or preference, Physics still apply. And if you want to talk about weather, I just had a picnic today by the waterfall, was gorgeous and quite comfortable.
132145. Wondering Aloud at 12:05 PM on 10 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Burr. Don't even say that in jest John! You might hope CO2 forcing would overpower a cooling sun but looking at the magnitude of the event in the case on the Maunder, I sure wouldn't bet on it.
        Response: It's worth pointing out that the Little Ice Age was a combination both of lower solar activity (the Maunder Minimum) and increased volcanic activity. It wasn't all the sun. In fact, one paper (Robock 1979) goes so far as to suggest volcanic activity is the dominant forcing. That's an old paper though - would be interesting to track down mopre recent research. A good topic for a future post (thanks for the extra homework, WA!)
132146. tbandrow at 08:21 AM on 8 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm rooting for a sunspotless ice age. Global warming tells us that we are increasingly the masters of the earth, which is nice and all, but, an ice age just reduces us to utter despairing powerlessness. What better to depress a humanity that so pathologically feels like it needs to matter than to have to shake its fist in futility at the sun as the earth freezes and billions of people go hungry. The best is that, we know the sun is a big ball of hydrogen and helium, and therefor, even praying to it is utterly pointless. May as well stand in front of the tide and try it hold it back with your hand.
        Response: Even if the sun didn't show sunspots for the next few years (or decades), the forcing from CO2 overpowers the forcing from a cooling sun. However, I too am hoping for a cooler solar cycle. Another Maunder Minimum would be even better. It will mitigate the CO2 warming at least a little.
132147. tbandrow at 06:45 AM on 8 March 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        There's no need to argue inferences at all. This is something very easily testable, if the sun cooperates. Let's hope that the maximum doesn't show up, let's have no sunspots for, say five years. That way, if the sunspots do not come, and, we get past La Nina, and other "weather" effects, and, the earth's temperature continues to drop, then, we need to refine GCMs to account for some as of yet undiscovered mechanism linking solar output to the earth's climate. On the other hand, if the temperature does go up, then, well, obviously, that would argue in favor of existing GCM models, so long as the temperature increases were as predicted.
132148. Wondering Aloud at 06:17 AM on 8 March 2008
        What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
        What Gore should have said is that one relationship is clear... When it gets warmer carbon dioxide increases. Than he would have been correct and we wouldn't have to be discussing it.
        Response: Gore oversimplified. It's like when you're explaining complicated science to kids - you dumb it down so they can understand it. Plus Gore is not only trying to explain but also entertain - he doesn't want to get bogged down.  Personally, I find the CO2 cycle fascinating and would've like to have heard more. And he opened himself up to criticism by oversimplifying. But the overall assertion "when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer" is correct. The criticism is more a framing question than a question of whether he got the science right or wrong.
132149. tbandrow at 17:04 PM on 7 March 2008
        It's the sun
        Well, solar flux doesn't need to be argued. It can be proved. The current solar theory is due to an interaction that has something to do with sunspots. So, if that is the case, then we can see if the global temperature will go down, assuming the present dearth of sunspot continues. Last year, there was a low amount of sunspots, and the earth's global temperature dropped a degree. We can see if it drops again. Also, in that vein, is it not possible to just create a carbon dioxide plume, turn it on, then turn it off, somewhere, and measure the radiative forcing that way? It seems to me that the RF is calculated based on another term that looks, honestly, like a fudge factor to make a computer model "work". If you created a carbon dioxide "bubble" on earth somewhere, then shouldn't you be able to measure a temperature increase on the ground proportionally to that increase?
        Response: 2007 cooling was not driven by solar forcing (or lack thereof) but by La Nina.
132150. Philippe Chantreau at 14:07 PM on 7 March 2008
        Temp record is unreliable
        And just as a reminder, it does not make any real difference what the ref period is.

Prev  2635  2636  2637  2638  2639  2640  2641  2642  2643  2644  2645  2646  2647  2648  2649  2650  Next