Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 Next
Comments 132351 to 132400:
-
GMB at 12:07 PM on 28 December 2007Ice age predicted in the 70s
But the idea that we will go into another glaciation is far sounder science than is this new and basically baseless stuff. We always have in the past. This planet is currently hard-wired with a one way catastrophic cooling bias. The case that we will have another glaciation is basically cut and dried. We have the capacity to cool the earth. We have no such capacity to warm the earth. In order to avoid another glaciation we ought to be looking at ways to hose down volcanic aerosols or something. Certainly we need to build up our nuclear energy production capacity. And our hydrocarbons as well. -
GMB at 11:29 AM on 28 December 2007Evaporating the water vapor argument
"Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2." Here you've gone right over the edge into circular thinking. We need some actual evidence. -
GMB at 11:07 AM on 28 December 2007Svensmark and Friis-Christensen rebut Lockwood's solar paper
We cannot trust the surface data. Its cherry-picked for the purpose of showing warming and there are so many regions where there is no measurement. The balloon and satelite data correlate with eachother. That means they must be reliable. The satelite data it is. The satelite/balloon data leaves a lot less to explain in terms of divergence from solar activity. The only years to explain anything at all are probably 78 through 2000. The campaign against SO2 could explain some of this. But the real deal to consider is ACCUMULATING AND DECUMULATING energy lodged in the ocean. That solar cycle 23 was not as strong as solar cycle 22 isn't the main point here. For the air temperature to continue to warm solar cycle 23 only had to be strong enough for the ocean to continue to accumulate joules. Plus even if 23 was a tad too weak for accumulation over the long haul (that is to say if that strength of cycle was repeated many times) still the momentum of the oceanic circulation could have kept the ocean (and particularly the Far North) warming for a time before that ocean circulation momentum slowed down. When the solar scientists say that solar irradiance and air temperature move together in lock step.... but then they say that this only worked until 1978 or 1980 it must be remembered that they are not the ones who compiled the tainted surface data. 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. Such is the pressure in this field. So we can discount this some since the surface record is tainted. In any case while each solar cycle strength is correlated with the air temperature the solar cycle prior is even better correlated. If this was STRICTLY TRUE rather than just a minor observation well then its only natural that the time period FOLLOWING cycle 22 would exhibit the higher air temperature. So it ought not be thought that there is a great deal of an anomaly to explain at all. Even that is not the full story. Its all about accumulating joules in the ocean and the air temperature is only a spin-off of that. -
GMB at 10:41 AM on 28 December 2007Are we heading into a new Little Ice Age?
"In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence." The two simply cannot be compared. For one thing, as an INSULATIVE influence the effect of CO2 is itself totally dependent on the effect of the sun. A jumper, a windbreaker and three blankets will not warm a dead body. But secondly, the series of steps that one goes through to produce these various hypothetical FORCINGS are riddled with untenable assumptions. Truly these are flat earth calculations. The environment of leftist abuse within the profession has prevented superior paradigms from being formulated. While the skeptics stick with the leftists paradigms they will be constantly undercut, though there objections be valid. -
GMB at 07:59 AM on 28 December 2007Empirical evidence for positive feedback
"However, warmer water creates more distinct ocean layers and limits mixing of deeper nutrient-rich cooler water with warmer surface water. The lack of rising nutrients keeps phytoplankton growth in check at the surface." This is a negative feedback. It means the deep oceans cannot warm as well. The stratification will mean more energy lost from the surface. If the mixing was more robust the ocean could retain more heat energy. An ocean-focus tends to change all these alleged positive feedbacks into negative feedbacks. -
GMB at 07:53 AM on 28 December 2007What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
You are going to have to actually FIND evidence for a feedback effect. Alleging it or quoting someone who is alleging it isn't the same thing. There's insufficient evidence here not to assume a negative feedback effect on longer time scales. -
GMB at 22:55 PM on 27 December 2007Empirical evidence for positive feedback
You cannot make such conclusions about "climate sensitivity". Since we already know that volcanoes can cool things and we know that extra solar activity can warm things. But we have no evidence that extra CO2 can warm things. So its a big leap to say that CO2 can warm things on the basis of aerosols and solar variation. "A big leap" is an understatement. -
GMB at 19:07 PM on 27 December 2007Mars is warming
If Jupiter, the earth, Mars, Pluto and so forth are warming... then its the sun. These alternative feeble excuses are really clutching at straws. -
GMB at 18:27 PM on 27 December 2007Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Phillipe. Climate history is very clear on this. The warmer times are the better times. -
GMB at 17:15 PM on 27 December 2007CO2 lags temperature
The problem with your comment birdbrainscan is that its already part of the armchair hypothesis so it can scarcely be included as evidence. The armchair thinking goes like this: If the colour of CO2 is such that it absorbs a little bit of the infrared spectrum then industrial-CO2-release ought to substantially warm things up on a global scale. Now the fact is that there isn't a scrap of evidence for this thesis. One-step inductive armchair inferences don't always turn out to be true. This one has failed all experimental tests. CO2 might well COOL the temperature of the earth in the long run. An armchair inference with billions of dollars behind it is still an armchair inference. -
GMB at 16:57 PM on 27 December 2007CO2 lags temperature
This idea that Malinkovitch needs CO2 feedback to do the job is clearly false. Since it relies on a WATTS-PER-SQUARE-METRE model which is a light-and-air-only model. If we allow for the accumulation and decumulation of joules in the planet and the oceans then it is the factor of TIME ALONE that needs to be taken into account and not this sideshow of CO2-feedback. We ought to be looking at a model which relies on STRATA AND HEAT BUDGETS. Not on WPSM. The WPSM model is a first draught that people came up with looking through telescopes. They couldn't see anything else so they imagined the whole thing could be determined by spectroscopy alone. But what we are talking about is the accumulation and decumulation of joules. Another thing that these WPSM models fail to take into account is the distance travelled through the atmosphere. The stratosphere ends about 50km up in the air. But that doesn't mean that a "ray" of light hitting the stratosphere has to travel only 50km. This is only true at the equator and at high noon. And this is important since the climate guys talk as if only greenhouse gas and ozone can attenuate this radiation. But all gasses inhibit radiation and a lot of this radiation has a very long way to go. Not taking into account of this and failing to think about ACCUMULATION and DECUMULATION of joules over many decades and years is a fatal flaw to these climate models. -
GMB at 16:43 PM on 27 December 2007Empirical evidence for positive feedback
You would have to say that extra water vapour was a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. The idea of it being a positive feedback only comes about because of the climate scientists looking at the wrong metric. The metric has to be accumulated joules in the ocean. And if we could find out the information, accumulated joules in the planet itself. But it looks for now like we will soon have pretty good data for accumulated joules in the ocean. The air temperature is a SYMPTOM of the accumulated energy in the ocean. Because that accumulated energy will cause extra water vapour. But in no way is this a positive feedback. In fact water vapour is like the oceans sweating. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere ought to be considered in this way as well. What at first looks like a positive feedback may well turn out to be a negative feedback. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:14 AM on 27 December 2007Has solar cycle 24 begun?
Thanks John, I added some interesting links on that thread, hope they show up OK (the medmail ones are kind of funky). The idea of CO2 fertilization is far from being a "fact" on which future yields can be reliably estimated. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:09 AM on 27 December 2007It's not bad
Malaria is one among others. Italy recently had a brush with Chikungunya (more fun to pronounce, if not to experience). Dengue fever is also to be considered Furthermore, "skeptics" take as fact the idea of "CO2 fertilization" popularized heavily by the propaganda site called CO2Science. However, that fact may not be nearly as much good news as they imagine. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov02/plant1102.htm http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/24/13430 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5782/1918 Those positives and negatives are still pretty much open to speculation, I remain quite skeptical of the "CO2 fertilization" idea in light of the open air experiments conducted so far. -
Alan McIntire at 13:31 PM on 26 December 2007Greenland was green in the past
There's a recent paper on Greenland: AB: Radiocarbon dates of emergent organic remains along the western margin of Istorvet ice cap (70.8°N, 22.2°W) indicate a time when the ice cap was smaller than at present. This ice cap, similar to others in east Greenland, exhibits "historic" moraines ~1-2 km in front of the presently retreating ice margins.... Moreover, it indicates warm conditons at this latitude at the time of Norse colonization of Greenland." -
Alan McIntire at 13:20 PM on 26 December 2007Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
http://www.physorg.com/news116687408.html "Titled "Effect of Remote Sea Surface Temperature Change on Tropical Cyclone Potential Intensity," their study found that long-term changes in potential intensity are more closely related to the regional pattern of warming than to local ocean temperature change. Regions that warm more than the tropical average are characterized by increased potential intensity, and vice versa. "A surprising result is that the current potential intensity for Atlantic hurricanes is about average, despite the record high temperatures of the Atlantic Ocean over the past decade." Soden said. "This is due to the compensating warmth in other ocean basins." "As we try to understand the future changes in hurricane intensity, we must look beyond changes in Atlantic Ocean temperature. If the Atlantic warms more slowly than the rest of the tropical oceans, we would expect a decrease in the upper limit on hurricane intensity," Vecchi added. "This is an interesting piece of the puzzle." - A. McIntire -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:59 AM on 25 December 2007Has solar cycle 24 begun?
Sorry John, this OT, but I was wondering why you have no topic on the ubiquitous claim from skeptics that more CO2 is good for plant growth and will more than compensate for other inconveniences? Sorry again for the OT comment.Response: This is covered somewhat in Positives and Negatives of Global Warming. The general gist is that while there are some positives to global warming (increased CO2 enhancing plant growth, increased agriculture in higher latitudes, etc), the negative impacts from global warming far outweigh
the positives. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:55 AM on 25 December 2007Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Wondering Aloud, I find your view overly simplistic. In my opinion, and from reads like those of Jared Diamond, it seems that what is really favorable is a temperate climate without too much excursion one way or another. It is interesting to note that, for a while, the expansion of white colonization northward from South-Africa was stalled by a number of climate related factors: no crops, diseases etc... "The economy does not share your preference for cold." How does that translate when comparing at a macro level (not only real estate prices) the economies of, say, Sweden and Mauritania? Norway and Central African Republic? I find this statement so vague as to be meaningless. How about comparing the economies of various regions in Australia according to average temps? What results do you get with that? Also, when considering land area, it is better to look at a globe than a map (except a conical lambert projection, not very suitable for very large areas). It is also necessary to think about positive and negative there, i.e. how much land will no longer be available due to change in rain patterns or simply excessive temps. In a (overly) simple representation in which you map good agricultural regions as a belt defined by a latitude range (that's what you seem to allude to), moving that belt poleward will decrease its total area, there is no doubt about that. Furthermore, you seem to confuse global and regional just for the sake of your argument when you ask "am I the only one hoping for warming?" Global does not mean local, there will still be local variations and, while Baikal may see slightly warmer weather, other changes in precipitation, wind or whatever might not be to your liking and won't be compensated by the warming. If you really don't like it up there, you should move to a warmer place now, rather than wait for a phenomenon whose existence you doubt. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 22:26 PM on 22 December 2007Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Your list of potential catastrophes makes interesting reading. But there are no citations, so I wonder how many of these items are speculations and how many have any scientific backing to them. Presumably if the global temperature dropped 2C then we could construct an equally long list of potential catastrophes. It seems that the implications of all this is that somehow, miraculously, the current average global temperature must be perfect. -
plfreeman at 21:49 PM on 21 December 2007It hasn't warmed since 1998
While I don't disagree with the statement that the overall warming trend continues, the line-of-best-fit-graph is a bit disingenuous. You should show the 2 sigma bounds on the fit line, which would likely show that the probability of no increase in the last 10 years is not unreasonable. Further I presume that you used least-squares to fit the line. This assumes that temperature anomalies are normally distributed. Glancing at the graph, this doesn't seem to be the case (several major excursions from the mean trend line), so the outliers will unduly influence the line of best fit. Least squares is extremely non-robust to non-normal data. The second graph doesn't help your argument much, and might actually hinder it some. If you could send me or point me to the raw data, I'd be happy to do a different analysis on it and see if there is a meaningful trend in the data.Response: Good question, the data comes from GISS Temp, using the Global-mean monthly land-ocean temperature index. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 16:47 PM on 21 December 2007Scientists can't even predict weather
According to the graph and the station data Hansen uses, 2006 is apparently the warmest year on record, not 1998...? Is he therefore selecting the best data or perhaps the data that best fits his prediction? I would feel more confident in the accuracy of his prediction if the paper wasn't written *by* Hansen explaining to everyone how *clever* Hansen is. No bias, eh? Are there assessments of Hansen's predictive powers made by independent scientists or statisticians? I've already quoted in the other article a link to an assessment that is not favourable. Common sense dictates that his work will probably have to be reviewed at least independently before anyone should take his claims seriously. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 16:22 PM on 21 December 2007There is no consensus
The fact that there are so many Academies of Science endorsing the global warming position is probably the strongest argument for supporting it. The question to ask is how mature is this field? If the answer is 'very mature' then this type of support has high credibility. If the answer is 'immature' then it's significance is considerably less. Here is a link to US Senate Committee on the Environment that lists in detail 400 scientists who disagree with the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport That there are so many when we repeatedly hear on the news and radio that the actual number of dissenters is 'miniscule' will have the tendency to turn believers into sceptics. I would also feel more confident if the 'hockey stick' graphics that predict rapid change and global catastrophe would not all be linked back to a small handful of researchers and students who work together and presumably have the same preconceptions and modus operandi. If there are no 'hockey sticks' then the small increase in global temperature over the last century does not statistically look different from what one would expect from natural variation. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 00:15 AM on 21 December 20071934 - hottest year on record
A further observation: The seasonal Arctic ice melt is significant (based at least on the short observational records that we have) and it's been argued that it is strong evidence in support of global warming. Yet this area covers only 3% of the planet. Could you please clarify why the 2% land mass of the United States has only an 'infinitesimal effect on global trends' yet the 3% land area of the Arctic is apparently significant 'concrete' proof? Wouldn't the way such information is selectively used or ignored, indicative of certain biases? -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 21:50 PM on 20 December 2007Models are unreliable
Leaving aside the silly notion that you can 'prove' a model's accuracy by checking it's fitting to the historical record--I mean honestly, you are aware that these models are tweaked *until* they fit the historical record, aren't you? The past is not the problem. The Hansen forecast sounded impressive, so I looked over the paper and did some googling. There is definitely a different spin on the accuracy of the forecast. Discussed here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=796 which demonstrates that scenario B is nowhere near the perfect fit implied by your article or Hansen. Hansen could be right, but he doesn't seem to explain where he is getting his data from. I can only find vague references to 'Station Data' and 'Land-Ocean'. What data is it he is using? How has it been adjusted? At least the sceptical article above is up front on where the data is coming from. This doesn't prove that Hansen is wrong. But it doesn't leave one with a high degree of confidence either. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 21:06 PM on 20 December 20071934 - hottest year on record
The United States shows no warming trend but that doesn't matter because it's only 2% of the surface area of the Earth, correct? While this is true, the concern here is that the US surface temperature records are regarded as the best in the world. If they show no warming trend, how reliable are the records of countries such as China where there has been massive urbanisation (thus increased heat from cities)? This is an open question. And a legitimate one. It should also be pointed out that the land surface records we have don't show warming trends in South America or Africa or Antarctica. I suppose the only thing we can get out of this is to consider that global warming is perhaps more regional and local in nature and impact than the term would have us assume. Or perhaps we should focus on other temperature measures as the land surface record may not be particularly accurate in and of itself. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 21:07 PM on 19 December 2007Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
I am curious to know why you say the attacks on Mann are overblown? Are you not concerned that he has not released substantial portions of his data so that elementary checking by other researchers could be done? Isn't replication fundamental to science? And if his work is solid, what has he got to fear? Wouldn't it be better to shut the critics up? Also, if some of the world's most qualified and respected statisticians conclude that his statistical analysis is in error, why do you regard this as a problem that is 'overblown'? I don't have any problem with proxy studies that replicate hockey sticks, so long as the studies do not disseminate from the same small group of researchers over and over again. I am not suggesting there is anything sinister here. The gold standard in scientific research is the double-blind test because everyone understands that scientists are human and subject to bias. If there is solid independent research to back up hockey sticks, why not use it? Why quote 'apparently discredited' research? Whether you feel it is discredited or not is a separate issue. My point is that quoting the same small group of controversial researchers while at the same time misleadingly asserting that the evidence thus presented is independent, is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. To put it more bluntly: if the science is solid, you don't need them, so don't use them. Get your hockey stick data from a true independent source and then you have a solid argument to shut the deniers up. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 17:43 PM on 19 December 2007Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
I followed your link and noted that the article mentions 14 reconstructions. I did a quick search using Google to see what relationship there might be between the authors. In a few minutes--I am no expert in doing such searches and I am not particularly familiar with who these authors are--I found that 10 of the studies were authored or co-authored by Jones, Mann or Briffa. And according to the linked article, together with the search I just did, these researchers have all co-authored papers together. I suggest other people try the same by putting these names in Google and using key words such as 'collaborators', 'global warming', etc. I have no idea if the remaining authors are collaborators or have close relationships to this group. I am sorry but how can you call this research independently replicated or verified by independent scientists? Or at least, there is some cause for concern here...Response: Putting aside the fact that the attacks on Mann are overblown out of proportion, what problem do you have with Briffa, Jones or the other proxy studies that come to the same conclusion? -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 16:09 PM on 19 December 2007Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
A well balanced article. Excellent. Thank you! "It's important to remember that hurricane activity is just one possible side-effect of global warming. While the empirical evidence linking global warming and hurricane intensity seems robust, it has no bearing on the central question of whether human CO2 emissions are causing global warming." True, but if human CO2 emissions causing global warming do not have damaging consequences, such as increased storm activity, the 'central question' is no longer central, is it? Some interesting data on hurricanes: Fewest Northern Hemisphere Hurricane Days since 1977. 3rd Lowest since 1958 (behind 1977 and 1973). See: http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/Response: If the only consequence of global warming was increased hurricane activity, then you'd have a point. However, they are the tip of the iceberg (pardon the pun). See positives and negatives of global warming for a more comprehensive list. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 13:51 PM on 19 December 2007Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
Perhaps your article could be improved by pointing out that an 'appeal to authority' is a fallacious logical argument and therefore should not be used by either side. Unfortunately I doubt that 'alarmists' will stop using it, as prima facie it is one of the most convincing of their arguments for CO2+global warming. Consider Neo-Darwinism theory. Ask for a consensus view and you would probably find 99% of scientists in support of the theory up until only a few years ago. (Now with the growth in the field of epigenetics, the classic version of theory is being cast in serious doubt.) The plate tectonic theory you quoted went through such a period of rejection and then acceptance. Interestingly, deniers use the same arguments as you do *against* CO2+global warming. Perhaps it's better to realise that consensus viewpoints, whatever they may be, have to be considered very cautiously and that solid evidence will always trump opinions. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 13:38 PM on 19 December 2007Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
"The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc)." What you've written above may be true but unless you can back it up with research to support your statement, it's at best just your opinion and therefore not a reasonable counter-argument. In other words it's Klaus-Martin Schulte assessment versus yours, but at least one did research to support the stated opinion. "Two of the papers conduct no actual scientific research but merely review social aspects of climate science. I'm baffled as to why they would be included other than to "boost the numbers"" Because presumably the paper was focused on the opinions of scientists (remember?) and not just scientific research. I hope that resolves your confusion. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 13:30 PM on 19 December 2007Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
"The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc)." What you've written above may be true but unless you can back it up with research to support your statement, it's at best just your opinion and therefore not a reasonable counter-argument. In other words it's Klaus-Martin Schulte assessment versus yours, but at least one did research to support the stated opinion. "Two of the papers conduct no actual scientific research but merely review social aspects of climate science. I'm baffled as to why they would be included other than to "boost the numbers"" Because presumably the paper was focused on the opinions of scientists (remember?) and not just scientific research. I hope that resolves your confusion. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 12:38 PM on 19 December 2007Mars is warming
Thanks for the response, but it appears you only want to take the argument up to a fixed point. What's caused the *increase* in dust storms that is leading to higher temperatures? Obviously not the more elliptical orbit of Mars alone as this hasn't changed. Which only leaves an extra-planetary explanation, doesn't it? Your explanation only makes sense if the temperature of Mars was not showing a trend increase. Storm activity would therefore be relatively consistent over time and the temperature on Mars would be relatively consistent over time. But it isn't. If this is wrong (which is quite possible of course), you need to explain how these storm cycles can last decades and lead to decades of warming, and then presumably afterwards, decades of cooling, only by means of interactions within the Martian atmosphere itself. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 10:32 AM on 19 December 2007Mars is warming
You wrote: "Mars has one of the highest orbital eccentricities of any planet in our solar system which causes much greater seasonal changes than on Earth." OK, but has the orbit of Mars changed in the last 30 years or the last 100 years to explain the extra warming? If the answer is 'yes' can you explain why and how? If the answer is 'no' then doesn't that point to an extra-planetary explanation? It seems in your article you begin by ruling out the sun, then suggest you're going to offer alternate explanations, then fail to do so. Yes the storms can cause the warming, but what is causing the extra turbulence in the atmosphere leading to the storms?Response: The orbit wouldn't have changed over a 30 year or 100 year period - orbital changes occur over much longer periods. By orbital eccentricity, I mean Mars' orbit is more elliptical than Earth's which is more circular. This means Mars's distance from the sun changes more dramatically through a Martian year which means its seasonal changes are more dramatic than Earth's. I thought the alternate explanation was clearly explained - dust storms reducing the planet's albedo. -
Wondering Aloud at 03:18 AM on 19 December 2007Empirical evidence for positive feedback
I think what I am disagreeing with above is your contention that there is some great disconnect starting in the seventies. That is not evident in Tung's paper, nor is it as big a disconnect as 1940-1970 is from the AGW hypothesis. The sun climate correlation is not great but it does have a higher correlation than the CO2 climate connection. On your last paragraph you refer top your own positives and negatives page? There is a reason that warmer periods in the climate record are referred to as climate optimum. More than half of the surface area of North America, Asia, and Europe, is farther North than I am. Most of this land is very limited at the present for any significant agriculture. Currently far more people die as a result of cold related problems, (not just exposure) as due to heat waves. The idea that warming would cause reduced food supply and access to resources is not supported by the historical record. People are still not fighting for my beachfront property on Lake Baikal. Compare property prices on Lak Havasu and Lake Huron if you want to evaluate how people feel about too warm and too cold. Lake Huron is a lot nicer by any other measure. The economy as a whole does not share your preference for cold. -
jurrytusa at 00:39 AM on 19 December 2007Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Some additional ball park figures. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide 385 ppm corresponds to 3e12 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, so we get: year ppm tons 1970 320 2.49E+12 2005 385 3.00E+12 5.06E+11 increase apparently the manmade carbon flux has risen from 4E+09 to 8E+09 tons from 1970 to 2005 so on average a flux of 6E+09 for 35 years is 2.10E+11 tons which is 42 % of the total increase and 7 % of the current total atmospheric CO2. That begs the question, what is the cause of the other 48 % ? And how can a manmade increase of 7 % be the main reason for a global increase in temperature? -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 00:34 AM on 19 December 2007Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
Why start the trend line at 1982(?) Why not 1980? Or 1995? Wouldn't the trend line be pointing downwards then? Isn't playing with statistics fun? ;-) -
jurrytusa at 21:59 PM on 18 December 2007CO2 lags temperature
I have two questions regarding this "CO2 lags temperature" argument. You say that the Milankovitch cycle is to weak to explain the big temperature difference and that it requires strengthening through energy absorption by means of CO2. How do we know that CO2 is the main cause and not something else, e.g., the change in Earth's albedo due to ice and snowcover ? Also you say that it is not fully understood how oceans give up CO2. What about the reverse, the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere when the Milankovitch cycle drives the temperature down ? Hope you have time to answer these. -
jimdk at 20:13 PM on 16 December 2007Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Scientists are also seeing a net negative feedback Time series analysis results on the basis of 24 long temperature series from various European and Asian stations do not support the IPCC conclusion about the dominant role of positive feedback (e.g Soden and Held 2006) as long as the cumulative feedback sign is considered. Vice versa, the variability of the air temperature at these stations during the last centuries shows that the influence of growing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been totally eliminated by the system’s negative feedback. One can expect that the IPCC used four key feedbacks represent too weak tool to properly describe the cumulative effect of all actually operating feedback loops in the climate system. Its results are therefore not relevant for understanding the current climate system variability. http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/EE2007-ok.pdf -
Wondering Aloud at 04:46 AM on 14 December 2007Svensmark and Friis-Christensen rebut Lockwood's solar paper
I can see why you say it reads like an oped but that isn't very distracting. My question is are they wrong? I remember thinking that the Lockwood results seemed strange to me relative to what I knew of the recent history of solar activity.Response: The oped comment is about as ad hominem as I get (I try to avoid ad hom criticisms which rarely contribute anything useful) - just to register my surprise at the tone of what is meant to be a scientific rebuttal. As for Lockwood, the most controversial element of his paper is that it was even published - generally when you publish a paper, it adds something new to the body of knowledge. Lockwood is covering ground well trod by Ammann 2007, Foukal 2006, Scafetta 2006, Usoskin 2005, Haigh 2003, Solanki 2003, Stott 2003, Lean 1999, Waple 1999 and Frolich 1998 who all find the sun has contributed minimally to global warming over the last 3 decades. -
Wondering Aloud at 02:33 AM on 14 December 2007Empirical evidence for positive feedback
You mention here Tung and Camp, in a paper by Camp and Tung published in Geophysical Research letters volume 34 this year, these same two authors found a link between total solar irradience and temperature change including a short time lag. I suspect this is part of the same research. If this research is valid than one of the things it suggests is that total solar irradience explains a significant chunk of late 20th century warming, perhaps all of it detected by satellite measurements. While this research may support your point here it is somewhat contradicting your argument in the "it's the sun segment." From reading your link it appears to me that they are showing a positive feedback for total solar irradience changing. This is likely to mean CO2 would also have a positive feedback but it is not actually evidence of that. As the sun varies the amount of energy reaching us varies not only in amount but in distribution of wavelengths. Since high solar activity correlates with higher temperatures it may be that UV of x-ray radiation have a larger proportional affect on climate than visible and IR. If so they would also have a place to look for a mechanism for the phenomena they report. Am I the only one out here who is waiting hopefully for global warming? We are having a heat wave, warmest day in weeks at -8.Response: Tung's work looks at the short term effects of solar variations. Eg - over the 11 year solar cycle. Global warming is a multi-decadal trend and so to find out how much the sun is contributing, you need to look at the long term trends of solar variation. And studies on the long term trends (Usoskin 2005) show that in the past, long term solar trends have correlated with climate but the correlation ended in the mid 70's when the modern global warming trend began. It's past correlation coupled with the break down in correlation that tells us the sun cannot be the main driver of global warming.
UV does have an amplifying effect but as with Total Solar Irradiance, the UV long term trend over the last few decades is small. This is especially significant as UV typically shows greater variation than TSI.
I'm sure there are people who benefit from global warming, particularly in high latitudes. But compare the positives to the negatives to see if overall, global warming is a good thing. -
Wondering Aloud at 09:04 AM on 13 December 2007Temp record is unreliable
How do NASA and GISS claim to remove UHI effects? The term Urban heat island is probably not a good one it is a land use issue not simply an urban issue. A station in NYC central park may be just fine while a station in the middle of nowhere can be bad if it is placed on asphalt next to an air conditioner exhaust. Last month, Energy and Environment 18:985-995, published a not very kind report by Douglass J Keenan. It shows that two well known and influential papers, that are still the basis for the IPCC claim that UHI has been removed from the global climate data sets, are in fact incorrect. In fact the word used is Fraudulent. While Tom Wigley has sent me some references on sea temperature that seem pretty robust, (thank you sir) the land surface temperature measurements are in serious trouble. It looks to me like at least half of the late 20th century warming signal in this data is about to vanish. We really need a data set that is not badly contaminated, that uses sites that are properly placed and maintained, USHCN is not it. -
Wondering Aloud at 06:43 AM on 13 December 2007Evaporating the water vapor argument
Continued study. Very recent but I didn't write down all the details so you may have to dig a bit. Spencer etal in Geophysical Research letters Vol 34 have a paper on Rainfall events in the tropics. It appears to clearly show empirical evidence on Lindzen's proposed "iris effect" of water vapor. In addition to being very important to how storms develop over time, it appears to reduce any positive effect of increased water vapor on temperature by about 75% -
brewski at 19:58 PM on 7 December 2007Al Gore got it wrong
The British high court sided with schools, allowing the screenings of An Inconvenient Truth to continue. The court ruled the film was accurate in its four main scientific hypotheses, "each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals.” The court challenge was funded almost entirely by a mining concern owned by Robert Durward, a long-time critic of environmentalists. -
Wondering Aloud at 06:27 AM on 7 December 2007Temp record is unreliable
If what you say is true than McIntyre's error is in conceding that the sites in the US are good. I believe what he is conceding is that they are likely to be better or at least no worse than elsewhere. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ So far, with 40% of this supposedly gold standard network surveyed, 85% of sites are showing errors in the site and operations that are likely to be > 1 degree C. In other words larger than the entire GW signal to date. People promoting catastrophic warming scenarios frequently refer to graphs from this very data set to support their claims. It is clear that we just can't make a useful reconstruction of surface temperatures using these sites. I am somewhat dismayed by the idea that modeling with supercomputers is somehow climate research. While going thru and evaluating actual data and methodology is apparently not what "real researchers" do. I could have saved so much time in grad school if I had only known that computer models were real research and the actual data wasn't. Modeling is a valuable tool in science but the models are not evidence in any way of what is happening in the climate. Adding the word supercomputer does not make it science, in fact quite the opposite. By the way since Cray isn't making them anymore what makes a computer super these days? -
cce at 17:21 PM on 6 December 2007Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
It is "Likely" (~66%) warmer today than it was in the "MWP." That was the conclusion of the NAS, since "someone" asked. It was also the conclusion of the TAR, by way of the Hockey Stick, which is how this whole thing started. Now, setting aside the fact that MWP vs modern temperatures comparison isn't the basis for AGW theory, let's assume that AGW is only 66% probable, and not the >90% that the alarmist Saudi Arabia and Condoleezza Rice concluded in AR4. In constrast, what is the probability that your house is going to burn down? Just think of what you could do with all that money wasted on insurance. Mmm. Money. Or let's say a bunch of drinking buddies bet you to stick a gun in your face. Only one bullet in the chamber. Spin the chamber. Pull the trigger. Win a $1000 bet. Only a 17% chance of shooting yourself in the face. Just who wouldn't take that bet? -
nanny_govt_sucks at 12:51 PM on 4 December 2007Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
"likely"? Are you going to hang our prosperity on the term "likely"? If "likely" is the best you've got then certainly more study is needed before implementing any "solutions".Response: The "hockey stick" is hardly the sum of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming (in fact, a fairly minor piece of the puzzle). There are multiple lines of evidence to show humans are causing global warming including many independent climate model studies. Or if you turn your nose up at models, peruse the empirical evidence. -
birdbrainscan at 09:37 AM on 4 December 2007CO2 lags temperature
This discussion goes on as if the only evidence we have to decide whether CO2 has a warming effect is the paleoclimate data. That's a very, very narrow perspective. What everyone needs to appreciate is that we have fundamental physics and really, really extensive laboratory analysis of the absorption spectra gases alone and in combination, at all sorts of temperatures and pressures. You can look up the raw data on HITRAN at http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/ and you can read the conclusions drawn from this raw data about the greenhouse effect at, e.g. Ray Pierrehumbert's free access draft of his "Climate Book" http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html This is a university level physics textbook, not aimed at the general public. If you need more basic accounts of how GHGs absorb infrared, you can check out www.realclimate.org where Dr. Pierrehumbert is an active contributor. I'm linking to the academic text just to point out that belief in CO2 being a greenhouse gas, able to *cause* warming as well as respond to warming, is built on over a century of physics and lab analysis, and really, really NOT just on a few graphs taken from ice cores and put up on the screen by Al Gore. Way too much online discussion has treated this as if the whole line of reasoning rested solely on the paleo graphs and nothing else. To sum it up: temperature changes do indeed drive CO2 changes, *and vice versa*. The positive feedback between the two accounts for how ice age terminations get moving so much faster than the very gradual Milankovic forcings. The feedbacks don't run away forever because, for one, the carbon dissolved in the ocean is not infinite, the ice albedo feedback runs out when the glaciers and sea ice have retreated, etc.Response: Thanks, very pertinent comment and the link to Pierrehumbert's page is useful, particularly the latest draft of his upcoming Textbook on climate. Down the track, I hope to update this page fleshing out the point that CO2 warming is not dependent on ice core records but on fundamental physics (yet another on the to-do list :-) -
Alan McIntire at 14:08 PM on 1 December 2007Empirical evidence for positive feedback
One of Pielke's posts pointed out the differing effects of CO2 and water vapor. http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/05/05/co2h2o/ Here's a paper by Minschwaner, indicating that many models overestimate the postive feedback of water vapor, and that the actual warming would be more in the range of 1.2C to 1.6 C. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/water_vapour/dessler04.pdfResponse: Thanks for the comment. The Minschwaner/Dessler paper is an interesting one - it led me to a list of the publications by Andrew Dessler. As well as many studies on water vapor, it includes Minschwaner 2006 which concludes "current global climate models are simulating the observed behavior of water vapor in the tropical upper troposphere with reasonable accuracy." Added to my to-do list is going through all of Minschwaner/Dessler's studies as they seem to be some of the leading authorities on the role of water vapor in climate. -
sherro at 21:24 PM on 28 November 2007Human fingerprint on atmospheric CO2
What, then, is the total weight of Carbon dixide in the atmosphere and what weight is calculated to have been produced by burning fossil fuels? Does this method of analysis distinguish between CO2 released from burning fossil fuels and "old" CO2 produced from the decay of corals? In what proportion? -
sherro at 21:22 PM on 28 November 2007Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
You forgot to note that Al has his Y axis upside down and that his zero line did not go through zero. Some graph, so great is was the thematic for the IPCC?Response: At the risk of repeating myself, I'll reiterate that while Al Gore's graph has some flaws, his main point that modern times are the warmest over the last millenia are backed up by multiple studies, the NAS and NOAA.
Prev 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 Next
