Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 Next
Comments 21951 to 22000:
-
jdeutsch at 13:49 PM on 30 November 2016Scientists rate Canadian climate policies
Looking at the accumulating Hiroshima heat energy box on the right side of this web page, it appears that physics will determine our fate, while the compromises and false promises of politicians and negotiators will matter little. An economic response to the nonlinear rise in climate destabilisation is absurd, when viewed through this lens.
-
chriskoz at 12:43 PM on 30 November 2016Dear Mr President-elect: a message from across the Pond
barry@3,
Thanks for bringing this thread back on the topic.
I would go even further: this government (i.e. president-elect) not only cannot "think that far [thousands of years] ahead", it provides plenty of evidence that it does not even think of the reality of the moment. I'm very confident that this article, if presented to president-elect, will be dimissed as unimportant distraction, or if forced to read it, president-elect would likely not even understand it. President elect made more than obvious and on many occasions, that the only "facts" he accepts as real are those that make him the "winner" in his mind, even if those "facts" are in fact falsehoods. The very recent example: in 2012 he called Ellectoral College a 'disaster', in a mistaken belief that Romney won the popular vote (he didn't) over Obama. Now, he is happy about EC because it made him win:
Since winning the 2016 election, Trump has been tweeting about the "genius" of the Electoral College system, because "it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play."
and at the same time is criticising popular vote by inventing conspiracy theories of "millions of fraudulent votes for Hillary Clinton". He does not need to invent such theories, just accept the "genius" system, but he has to boast ego that he's always a "winner" in every game, even by inventing non-sense theories.
It becomes clear that the factual argumentaion in this article is futile if directed to a person such as president-elect. Different type of arguments (e.g. reinforcing his ego along the way) are needed. However this article is important as an open letter to be read by the supporters who elected him. I have a faith that the level of understanding/acceptance of reality by those average american voters is higher than that represented by president-elect. And they realise their mistake of electing such grossly incompetent president. The soonner they do, the better.
-
scaddenp at 11:01 AM on 30 November 2016Dear Mr President-elect: a message from across the Pond
nigelj - sorry if that came over too aggressively, i know you meant well. I cant moderate on a thread that I am commenting on, but can I suggest no more comment on this so that we all conform with the "no dogpiling" rule.
-
Dear Mr President-elect: a message from across the Pond
James Hansen about AGW and future ice ages:
(page 9, §3)"But shouldn’t Earth now, or at some point, be headed into the next ice age?
No. Another ice age will not occur, unless humans go extinct. Orbital conditions now are, indeed, conducive (albeit weakly) to initiation of ice sheet growth in the Northern Hemisphere. But only a small amount of human-made GHGs are needed to overwhelm any natural tendency toward cooling. The long lifetime of human-made CO2 perturbations assures that no human generation that we can imagine will need to be concerned about global cooling.
Even after fossil fuel use ceases and its effect is drained from the system an ice age could be averted by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) produced in a single CFC factory. It is a trivial task for humanity to avert an ice age." -
nigelj at 09:44 AM on 30 November 2016Dear Mr President-elect: a message from across the Pond
Thank's for the feedback, but I did not suggest government consider ice ages or that far ahead. I did not suggest that the current rapid rate of climate change is not an issue. By stopping an ice age it should be self evident I meant cancel the drop in temperatures, not stop the underlying cause.
I simply said that a typical sceptical argument is that global warming is good because it would stop or slow down the next ice age and indeed all ice ages. My understanding was global warming cannot even stop the next ice age as per this article below, so theres no long term benefit to global warming.
www.technologyreview.com/s/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/
My comments were made in good faith. The article seemed quite convincing. However I accept comments that most research does strongly find that global warming could at least reduce the effects of the next ice age.However it would be unlikely that global warming would be permanent, and would cancel all future ice ages.
-
scaddenp at 09:06 AM on 30 November 2016Dear Mr President-elect: a message from across the Pond
Further to chriskoz, even without human intervention, an ice age is not expected for 50,000 (see Berger & Loutre 2002). However, the ice age cycle is a Pleistocene phenomena - when natural CO2 levels got low enough for the milankovich cycle effect on albedo to come into play - and when we last had 400ppm of CO2 in Pliocene, then we didnt have ice ages. As Barry says, the issue with climate change is speed (can we adapt fast enough) and the ice age is incredibly slow compared current rates of change.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:41 AM on 30 November 2016It's the sun
Turning to the 10.7 cm microwave flux, using annual values from 1947-2015, the correlation is 0.141 and the r^2 is 0.02, indicating that (ignoring other correlated or anti-correlated causal factors), solar variation accounts for just 2% of CET variation. For your convenience, here is the scatter plot showing the low correlation:
And here is the plot of both against time, using normalized values to provide a common scale:
Human instinct makes us pick out commonalities of patterns, so that when we see such a graph we pick out the (approximately) shared peaks prior to 1960, and the strong correlation between 1980-1993. We do not notice the difference of the height of the peaks shared between those two (which indicates a weak correlation), and we tend not to notice the anticorrelation between 1965 and 1980. Particularly if we are committed to a theory that requires correlation between the two data, the graph plotted against time tends to decieve us. But the scatterplot cuts through that tendency to notice only those features which support our theory; as do the raw numbers which show only a weak correlation.
As with the Sun Spot Numbers, the weak correlation rebuts your theory.
If we crunched the numbers, we would make a similar finding with regard to the Dome C Deuterium record (though less so because to compare we would need to smooth the data, and smoothing artificially inflates correlations). We can see this because the scale that shows a strong correlation around 1815 shows a weak correlation elsewhere. Even more, we know this because we know the temperature trough arount 1815 was due to the Tambora erruption, and the resulting "Year without a summer".
-
chriskoz at 07:34 AM on 30 November 2016Dear Mr President-elect: a message from across the Pond
nigelj@2,
My understanding is global warming cant stop an ice age or even soften one.
That stetement is demonstrably invalid. Start by read ing e.g. Archer 2005, then his following articles in 2007, 2009 etc. Others may provide links and other copious supporting material. I have tine to only say that virtually all climate/carbon models (not just David's model) predict that moving all fossil fuel C (ca 5000Pg) into athmosphere would result in enough warming to skip the next ice age cycle. Even with the amount we've already added, the next ice age may already be disturbed, of course depending what you mean by "disturbed"
-
barry1487 at 07:31 AM on 30 November 2016Dear Mr President-elect: a message from across the Pond
nigelj,
No government today is going to implement any kind of policy to address the climate of the planet 5 to 20,000 years from now, and nor should they.
The issue with modern climate change is the pace at which it is occurring. Climate changing slowly over thousands of years (ice age transitions) is inevitable and something we can adapt to much more easily than rapid change over decades. It's difficult enough to get politicians to think that far ahead. Prognosticating thousands of years ahead for policy purposes is a needless distraction.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:14 AM on 30 November 2016It's the sun
jlfqam @1218, I assume your comment that "I am sorry, but I am a bit lost with number, especially when restricted to narrow time spans" is a response to my post @1218.
First, as to the "narrow time spans", the SSN data I had downloaded was the monthly values from 1749 available here. The CET data I downloaded was the mean monthly values available here. I converted both to annual means as that was easier than converting the CET series to anomaly values, a step that would otherwise have been necessary to avoid incorporating the seasonal cycle (which is noise in this context). Therefore the "narrow time span" was merely the full overlapping time span on the data I had available. It was certainly a sufficiently long time span to test your thesis. Given that the data show a low correlation over 266 years, even if adding in the additional 49 years of annual data available on the SSN increased the correlation, it would merely show that increase to be coincidental.
As to what the number mean, if two values are correlated, when one value is high, so also is the other; when one value is low, so also is the other; and when one value is near its mean, so also is the other. That is what correlation means. Pearson's product moment coefficient, or "Pearson's r", measures that tendency. That relationship can be seen when you plot the values against each other rather than each seperately against time, a type of plot which is called a scatter plot. In a scatter plot, values which are perfectly correlated, form a line with a positive slope. Values which a perfectly anti-correlated form a line with a negative slope. Uncorrelated values typically (but need not) form an an amorphous mass, but the trend of their scatter plot exhibits zero slope. These tendencies can be seen in this graph of various scatter plots with their correlation (Pearson's r) shown:
With this explanation, and given that you are "... a bit lost with number", here is the scatterplot of SSN vs CET from 1749-2015, using annual values. (I have normalized the data, ie, subtracted the mean and divided by standard deviation, to bring them to a comparable scale, but that has no effect on the shape of the graph.)
As you can see, there is little apparent trend, and the points are far from forming a simple line. That is, they are poorly correlated.
Given that you are drawing conclusions from the purported high correlation between the two, the actual low correlation refutes you completely.
-
nigelj at 06:36 AM on 30 November 2016Dear Mr President-elect: a message from across the Pond
Just on a related issue of climate history, a lot of people I talk to think global warming is a good thing because it could stop the next ice age. Trump may believe this himself. My understanding is global warming cant stop an ice age or even soften one.
From what I have read is if we burned all the fossil fuels on the planet, warming would last about 5,000 years and then start to return to lower temperatures well before the next ice age, let alone the ones after that. However I'm not certain how firm the science is on this issue.
I'm just thinking that the IPCC should perhaps discuss this in its advice to policy makers, and it needs more public awareness.
-
nigelj at 06:27 AM on 30 November 2016Dear Mr President-elect: a message from across the Pond
Your history makes for interesting reading, and I think your conclusions are 100% valid. However I dont think Trump really believes climate change was a scam invented by the Chinese. Trump is not quite that crazy. This was simply emotive rhetoric to get votes from his particular target audience.
Trump's positions appear to be somewhat flexible. However his appointment of hard line climate sceptics suggests that Obamas work will be at least partly scaled back. Trump may try to have climate change policy both ways to appease all interests, so he may keep some policy but quietly undermine other policies in the background. This needs to be watched carefully and exposed if it appears to be happening.
-
MA Rodger at 23:20 PM on 29 November 2016It's the sun
jifqam @1212,
You ask what other questions should be asked "in order to satisfy those in favor or anthropogenic or non anthropogenic cause of climate change?"
The CET and SSN data is but a few centuries in length. (Despite your efforts @1219, you fail to better this. Do remember you need two variables to carry out a comparison.) Both CET & SSN have shown signs of multi-century rising trends but in recent decades CET has continued to rise while SSN has paused and now shows a sharp downward trend. I conclude from this break in correlation that SSN must have no great infulence in CET. However you disagree. You say CET is greatly influenced by SSN but not since 1990. You do not provide an coherent explanation why the correlation held (roughly) for centuries and has now failed. @1212 you said "it may be intersting to find out why do temperatures sometimes follow the solar cycle and sometimes do not." Why is it? Coincidence. That is all. CET &SSN rise not in unison but in coincidence.
Let me make it more difficult for you. The IPCC conclude that CET & other global temperatures are not greatly affected by solar variation (ie SSN variation). IPCC AR5 figure 10.6 (pasted below) shows in figure 10.6 panel d) that the temperature rise resulting from solar forcing is small as are the wobbles in global temperature resulting from the solar cycle. The wobbles are about 0.1ºC in ampitude & result from SSN variation of roughly 200, or 2000(SSN)/ºC(CET). Does CET show such a wobble? What size is it?
If you detrend the wobbles in CET and in SSN by, say, calculating annual variation from an 11-year rolling average, the two records can be analysed for such a wobble. The CET-to-SSN correlation is not statistically significant suggesting SSN is not a major driver of wobbles in CET. But if you calculate correlations for CET with different levels of lag, you encounter a pretty little sine wave of ampitude roughly 0.0005 or 2000(SSN)/ºC(CET). This appears to confirm the IPCC result for the wobble size. They are small like the IPCC calculate. So if the wobbles are small, how can the trend be anything other than small?
-
jlfqam at 21:15 PM on 29 November 2016It's the sun
I am sorry, but I am a bit lost with number, especially when restricted to narrow time spans. Please take a look at this figure representing the isotope composition of the most recent layers from the antarctic ice core DomeC, in two time spans, compared the the obvious effect of solar irradiance on the ice, from the model by Lean 2000, which is frequently posted in this forum.
The sun clearly had an effect on the warming of antarctica since
Maunder's Minimum to, lets say until the mid 1950's. NO more data is available from that site, unfortunately. Since the mid 1950's, if solar irradiance is decreasing but temperatures do not, you are right, there must be a buffering or thermostat effect, which is what we have to find before it's too late and the oceans start to cool down until the sun recovers.
Let me also post the linked figures from a previous posting which show how the sun has strenghtened the East Asian Monsoon that had reached a steady stated around 2kaBP after a continuous weakening since the Thermal Optimum of the Holocene around 7-9kaBP, due to the decrease in NH insolation caused by Earth Orbital Cyclicity.
If you are interested we can discuss in detail the ocean circulation mechanisms that have caused the contradictory warming during a net solar irradiance decrease. I have gathered enough data and plots to support that. As mentioned before, after over a decade of "time travel" to past climates, back to 50Ma, thanks to the free paleo climate proxy databases Pangaea and NOAA Paleo, we could select a good deal of hight quality data sufficient to explain how climate works. Unfortunatly it's difficult to publish in official media for the obvious reasons everybody is aware of.
Collaboration of specialists in getting field data, data comparison, mathematical correlation and good scientific writing will be necessary because, unfortunately, those qualities are not available in one single person. In this particular and complex topic of climate, there is no "super scientist" as someone may expect, hence "real" and positive collaboration is the only way to succeed.
Thanks again for letting comments to be posted freely and the constructive replies from readers
Best
JLF
Moderator Response:[JH] Please note that all graphics included in comments must be restricted to 500 pixels in width in order to preserve the integrity of the column. You have repeatedly posted graphics that exceed the width restriction. Moderators have reduced the size of the graphics and have politely asked you to adhere to the width restriction. Please do so in the future.
-
jlfqam at 20:21 PM on 29 November 2016Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Continuation of 59 jlfam,
Yes we can see slightly more negative values in the higher latitude d18O values from the figure above, but only during seasonal minima of CO2 production, notice how maximum seasonal CO2 values coincide with more positive or eriched 18O values. This discards mainland as the source or seasonal CO2 production peaks. Mainland CO2 18O are more depleted in the heavy isotope 18O due to isotope fractionation processes that carry water from the ocean surface to the land.
I have prepared a table comparing the seasonal variation of the different parameters measured in the Scripps Station at Mauna Loa, since it's the classic to compare atmospheric CO2 values.
CO2 concentration [{CO2], d8O, d13C, D14C and O2 concentration [O2].
The background value to which seasonal variations are added or subtracted is indicated by an equal sign (=).
A plus sign (+) means the value increases seasonally (either concentration [CO2] or [O2], or the isotope values become more enriched in the heavy isotope (for example d18O,+, increases 18O/16O ratio)
A minus sign (-) means the opposite, a seasonal decrease in concentration or an isotope depletion, the light isotope 12C, 16O becomes more abundant in the ratio 13C/12C, 18O/16O, or the D14C suggests older values, lower 14C/12C ratio values.
Question mark (?), means its open for discussion with specialists.
The Peclet effect is related to plant metabolism, its inclusion in the table has been suggested by a well known plant metabolism and isotope specialist.
The possible sources list is not complete, new suggestions are welcome.
For example, at mloa, an increase in CO2 concentration shows that the CO2 18O isotope ratio is simultaneously more enriched, delta13C takes more depleted values, D14C shows more negative or older values and the [O2] also decreases. This is seen by comparing one by one the plots and data available from here. About [O2], a decrease in concentration when the CO2 concentration increases fits perfectly with water upwelling from the deepest ocean regions which are obviously depleted in oxygen due to microbial respiration. Take a look at this figure from Scripps station.
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/plots/daily_avg_plots/mlo.pdf
Dole means, the d18O value depends on the Dole effect, that is the isotope fractionation of photosynthetic O2, which includes a background value from metabolic water.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/isotopic_data/
I prefer each one of the readers to do the work, to avoid any alledged manipulation of the data from this writer.
As you may see the only source that fulfills the same conditions shown by Mloa station is the ocean upwelling.
I will be glad to discuss any details and accept any correction.
To illustrate why the upwelling may be the main source of CO2 at mloa, please take a look at Takahashi's team arduous task represented in this map of CO2 sources from the ocean. Notice how close are the Hawaii Islands from the bicarbonate, CO2 rich waters of the Tropical Pacific.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/CO2/
On this page it's shown how the concentrations of ocean surface CO2 change seasonally, (figures can be expanded indiviually in separate browser tabs)
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/CO2/carbondioxide/pages/pco2_maps.html
Thanks for letting me post this and comments and for the constructive replies.
Best
JLF
-
jlfqam at 19:25 PM on 29 November 2016Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Hi,
let me please start a discussion on the source of CO2(atm) based on the 18O isotope composition. This reply comes from this posting
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=508#119448
Let me please continue, the 18O isotope composition in atm CO2 is key to understand the sources.
The lack of any significant trend in d18O reveals there's one main source of CO2 Oxygen atoms. The seasonal variation gives clues on the two alternating sources.
If the Oxygen comes from atmospheric O2 by combustion, there are two main sources of photosynthetic O2, terrestrial and marine organisms.
In this posting, I have already discussed with more detail the reactions involved.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=508#119450
Photosynthetic O2, has the isotopic signature of the water the organisms use in their metabolism.
As convention, the 18O isotope composition of sea water is taken as zero, although, deep and surface ocean waters show important diferences.
Terrestrial waters, come from precipitation waters that have markedly depleted delta18O and deltaD values.
In this link we see how isotopes distribute over the continents
http://wateriso.utah.edu/waterisotopes/pages/data_access/figure_pgs/global.html
for example this one shows the distribution of annual mean18O values.
Seasonal variation is significant.
http://wateriso.utah.edu/waterisotopes/media/IsoMaps/jpegs/o_Global/oma_global.jpg
According to this map we should expect significant isotope diferences depending on the source of Photosynthetic O2. Basically from higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere CO2 would acquire more depleted of negative d18O values. Which is not observed in the Scripps d18O figure above.
-
jlfqam at 19:00 PM on 29 November 2016CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
Thanks Tom,
I will post the answer in the corresponding forum page. I am sorry I did not find it first.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html
-
jdeutsch at 12:07 PM on 29 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
And lest we forget, LBJ in 1961...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/LBJ-climate-1965.html
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
michael sweet at 12:01 PM on 29 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
This New York Times article describes loss of value in beach front property from sea level rise. If more articles like this one are published, it will start to draw attention from developers and their potential buyers. Perhaps if scientists emphasize damage to beach front properties it will become an important point faster.
Hit them in the wallet to get the most attention. Trump and his ilk do not care about poor people starving due to climate change. He will care a lot when the insurance on his Mar A Largo property goes up 200%.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:45 AM on 29 November 2016It's the sun
jflqam @1214, the correlation between the Central England Temperature Series and the Sun Spot Number using annual means from 1749 to 2015 is 0.122, with an R-squared of 0.015. That is, ignoring other correlated or anti-correlated causal factors, solar variation accounts for just 1.5% of annual variation in the Central England Temperture series. Given the weak correlation between SSN and CET series, the complete breakdown of correlation after 1990 (r=0.101; r^2 =0.01) hardly needs special explanation.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:05 AM on 29 November 2016It's the sun
Not only that, HK, we know the radiative forcing of solar relative to human related forcings. It's clear that solar plays a very small role.
-
It's the sun
I made this graph showing the 11-year moving average of sunspots and global temperature, using annual data between 1880 and 2015. It’s obvious that the sun’s contribution to the global temperature has been somewhere between insignificant and non-existent after the 1950s.
The apparent correlation before that may be partly due to the scaling of the two y-axes, as the change of TSI is too small to explain the warming before 1940.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:13 AM on 29 November 2016Scientists rate Canadian climate policies
The phasing out of coal burning in Canada by 2030 is a great ambition. However, there is more to understand about this planned action.
In Alberta that action will cost current and future Albertan's $1.1 Billion (CBC Article). The cost to current and future generations is the result of approvals of new coal burners in Alberta that previous governments made during the past 25 or more years when the unacceptability of such approvals was clearly understood (but obviously not accepted as a basis for decision making) by Alberta and Canadian Leaderhip in Business and Politics.
That cost was a benefit recieved by previous generations of Albertan's who did not care to limit how they benefited. And none of that undeserved benefit (lower cost electricity) is able to be taken away from those people (that is what makes it so tempting for any current generation, or individuals and corporations, to try to get away with less acceptable ways of benefiting).
Also, the Alberta plan is to increase Natural Gas burning. In addition to the increased fugitive emission of methane from expanded natural gas operations, the natural gas burning will need to be terminated by 2050.
That creation of new natural gas burners will likely lead to future costs for future Albertans. Any gas burner built today would only operate for 33 years, less than investors would claim they are owed the opportunity to profit from. And future Albertan's will face that cost while their predecessors benefit by getting less expensive electricity.
The more responsible way for already well developed regions of the world to generate electricity are well understood and have always been able to be built. They just "cost a current generation more tghan the y can get away with in a system tghat determines acceptability by popularity and profitability".
That clear flaw of economic and political systems needs to become common sense understanding among the entire population, contrary to the many desired interests in pursuit of unjustifiably profitable activities that could easily have unjustified popular support Trumped-up for them.
And a big push-back on these plans (they can be terminated as easily and quickly as the Trumped-up about-face of America) is claims that if Trumped-up America doesn't responsibly increase the fossil fuel burning costs or reduce the related profits of its citizens and corporations then it is competitively disadvantageous for Canada (or any other nation) to act more responsibly.
Success of irresponsible leadership in business and politics is clearly one of the most tragic developments ever created by humans, clearly contrary to the advancement of humanity in so many ways.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:58 AM on 29 November 2016It's the sun
jlfqam... The more relevant point might be: Why do you think there is a correlation? And, why any possible correlation to a very tiny part of the planet (central England) have any meaning at all?
It seems to me you're stretching too far to find something that is not there.
Again, there are researchers out there for whom this is their area of expertise. They clearly tell us that solar irradiance is not the cause of surface warming over the past 50 years.
Moderator Response:[PS] Indeed. I feel that participants in this discussion are talking past each other.
I would note the following in hopes of more focussed discussion please.
1/ The total energy reaching the earths surface is absolutely related to temperature, so both changes in the sun and GHGs are acknowledged as causes of warming or cooling.
2/ Small variations in solar output in solar cycle affect temperature but AGW (climate) is concerned with trend. Please focus on data averaged over longer than 11 years.
3/ As with RH comment, please provide some actual evidence, not eyeballing of graphs, for correlation and use global temperatures.
4/ I strongly suggest you read existing papers examining solar influence or their summary in the IPCC report (p688f) so you can make more informed comment. See also here and
here for computation and validation of various influences.
5/ Simply repeating statements without addressing the points of commentators will result in posts being deleted as per comments policy. -
jlfqam at 01:51 AM on 29 November 2016It's the sun
thanks HK,
This is the key point, why the correlation between CET and SSN or 10.7cm disappeared since the mid 1990's. You can also see the 2009-10 minium was still visible, but briefly.
In fact it appears a temperature buffering or thermostat effect has taken control since the 1990's. The most obvious cause of that change could be the ocean cooling as consequence by the 1991 Mnt. Pinatubo eruption, it's the most significant abrupt event that took place during that decade, and capable of such a change in trend.
That volcanic eruption aerosol cooling added to the ongoing solar irradiance (especially in the microwave range) since the mid 1950's. This process of synergy between solar irradiance and volcanic winter cooling, has happened many times before and can be seen in paleoclimate proxies. The recovery of temperatures will have to wait until the sun enters a new high activity phase. Until then we cannot do anything else.
In the linked plots you may see, how the sun had an effect on the recovery of the Asian Monsoon since the Maunder Minimum that would otherwise continue down to the next glaciation following the decrease in NH insolation.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyaFZfVndOaFZ6Q0U
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/speleothem/china/dongge_2004.txt
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link that was breaking page formatting.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:39 AM on 29 November 2016CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
jlfqam @18, fossil fuels are completely depleted in C14. That is, there Δ14C = -1000 per mill, as per this chart:
(Source)
In contrast, the Δ14C of abyssal oceanic waters averages about -160 per mill, with minimum values of about -240 per mill (See figure 1 here). Taking those minimum values, you would need an increase in atmospheric CO2 4.2 times greater than has been observed to obtain an equivalent reduction in atmosperic C14 to that which has been observed as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore the C14 evidence by itself is sufficient to show the primary source of the increased CO2 is from the combustion of fossil fuels.
That being said, it is a bad practise to relly on a single indicator in making these sorts of determinations. In fact there are at least 10 different lines of evidence that help us determine the source of the increase in atmospheric C14. Some lines only provide evidence regarding a single potential source, while some provide relevant evidence for all four "major" theories. Overall, only a fossil fuel source is not contradicted by any line of evidence. Further, it is strongly supported by five of the ten lines of evidence, and given moderate support by a further two. This evidence is discussed here, and summarized by this chart:
I have not come across a discussion of Δ18O in this connection, but given the strength of the evidence from other sources, I would be flabberghasted were it to show anything different.
-
jlfqam at 00:09 AM on 29 November 2016CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
Thanks for the figure of the evolution of atmospheric O2 concentration.
A comparison of simultaneous variation O2(atm) with CO2(atm) can be seen in the plots from Scripps measurements
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/plots
for example.
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/plots/daily_avg_plots/mlo.pdf
I am sorry, I did not explain properly the figures, the fourth plot refers to the Oxygen isotope composition of O atom in the atmospheric CO2 molecule,
the isotope ratio 18O/16O, in this molecule refers to the ratio of 12C18O16O+12C18O2(less abundant) over 12C16O2, for example.
According to two possible sources of CO2, biomass/fossil fuel burning or ocean sources: (equations are not stoichiometric)
In the first case, burning, the oxygen source is atmospheric Oxygen (O2), which is produced by photosynthesis, and ultimately bears the isotope composition of the water used
by photsynthetic organisms during the water photolysis reaction: H2O=>O2 + (2H --->sugars (CnH2nO))
combustion #CnH(2n+x)+*O2=> #C*O2+H2*O
#C has the isotope signature of the fuel organic Carbon, and is measured in the 13C and 14C plots in the previous posting.
*O is the isotope signature of the O2 used in the combustion, and is represented in the 18O plot from Scripps CO2(atm) measurements.
The second case, the marine source of CO2, has also isotope signatures
remineralisation of organic matter from ocean bottom organic rich sediments $CnH(2n+x)+^O2=> $C^O2+H2^O
$C has the isotope signature of the marine biomass remineralised, as it's of biogenic origin is depleted in 13C, and since it's old, it's mostly depleted in 14C, hence in principle it's difficult to distinguish from fossil fuel carbon
^O is the isotope signature of ocean waters, either deep or shallow, as bicarbonate or dissolved CO2 rapidly equilibrate with water.
"C·O2+H2^O<=>"C^O·O+H2·O
"C^O·O+H2^O<=>"C^O2+H2·O etc.
In principle the measurement of the 18O isotope ratio in atmospheric CO2 should tell us which of the two sources is the dominant.
Is this argument correct?
Which one of the two sources can explain the plots in the previous posting 16.jlfqam
-
Tom Curtis at 22:59 PM on 28 November 2016CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
jlfqam @16, total oxygen content in the atmosphere is showing a trend, as shown in this graph from the 2001 IPCC TAR:
You will notice that the trend is in parts per million. The graph you show of the d18O isotope is in parts per mill, ie, parts per thousand. A reduction of 30 ppm over 10 years (as shown above),ie, three parts per hundred of the scale, will not register on a graph scaled in parts per thousand.
-
jlfqam at 22:39 PM on 28 November 2016CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
Hi,
I agree with the CO2, 13C and 14C could be attributed to fossil fuel burning. But the oxygen isotopes in the CO2 molecule are not mentioned in the explanations.
Can anyone explain why CO2, 13C and 14C isotopes follow a trend while 18O isotopes of CO2 do not show a clear trend?
Data Sources:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/graphics/png/co2_sta_records.png
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/graphics/png/c13_sta_records.png
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/graphics/png/c14_sta_records_all_sta.png
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/graphics/png/o18_sta_records.pngModerator Response:[RH] Fixed image width. Please keep your images down to 500px.
-
It's the sun
Jlfqam 1212:
Your second graph (CET vs sunspot number) is the one I tried to insert in my posts 1206 & 1207.
It's hard to detect a trend visually when the oscillations are so large, but if the curves are smoothed, it should be obvious that CET and sunspots have moved in opposite directions the last few decades, just as sunspots and the global temperature have done. -
jlfqam at 21:13 PM on 28 November 2016It's the sun
My apologies for the CET vs 10.7cm solar flux, I reused an excel figure from paleo climate proxies and paid no attention to x-axis label.
Here is the updated figure link
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyVkZLTWNmU0xZX0k
Le me apologize for the tone of my writing, english is not my mother tongue.Let me please ask you, do you know where I can find or, perhaps, could you please write a set of more specific questions to be answered in order to satisfy those in favor or anthropogenic or non anthropogenic cause of climate change?
You know real data will not fit as one may desire.
Thanks for your comments
Best
JLF
The other plots
CET vs monthly mean SSN
and gmsst vs 10.7cm solar flux
it may be intersting to find out why do temperatures sometimes follow the solar cycle and sometimes do not.
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed image width.
-
MA Rodger at 19:42 PM on 28 November 2016It's the sun
jifqam @1203 & 1208.
You say @1204 that "it appears the sun is the main driver of climate. " In terms of the recent global warming this is entirely wrong, as has been pointed out in recent comments. The situation is illustrated best with a numerical analysis.
You link to a graph @1204 which compares the time series of Central England Temperature with Sun Spot Number. (Do note the X-axis is labelled thousands of years before present; not a good advert for the graphic.) The relationship between CET & SSN cannot be determined by 'eyeballing' two noisy data plots.
What we can say is that the full annual CET data set (back to the 1700s) and the full annual SSN data set (back to the 1700s & derived from observational records) do show a linear correlation between CET & SSN that is just statistically significant at 2sd if autocorrelation is ignored. By using 11-year rolling averages autocorrelation should be reduced. This shows that the 11-year average CET increases 1ºC (+/-1ºC at 2sd) for 190 increase in 11-year average SSN.
The result should be no surprise. A stronger sun will result in a warmer world. That the result remains statistically significant given the global and regional variation is perhaps a surprise to some.
The implications of this result are that the +0.7ºC increase in CET 11-year average CET since 1970 would have been +0.9ºC(+/-0.2ºC) if there had been no change in solar output. And thus I can tell you that when you say "it appears the sun is the main driver of climate, " you are entirely wrong.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:50 PM on 28 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
chriskoz@1, I agree that already more fortunate humans should not benefit from any steps toward sustained improvement of life for less fortunate humans that may be achieved from a known to be damaging activity that needs to be rapidly curtailed.
If Australian coal was to be properly employed it would be used in a way that only benefited the least fortunate and sped up their transition to a lasting better way of living (which means rapid advancement to ways of living that do not need coal burning).
However, India has plenty of its own coal. So a better way to help would be for Austarlian mining expertise to be donated to help the Indian nation most safely and effectively extract their resource for the benefit of their least fortunate (no wealthy or already more fortunate citizens of India getting any benefit from the activity).
The same goes for the extraction of Tar Sands in Alberta and its export for burning. It should only be done in a awy that only benefits the sustainable improvement of ways of living of the least fortunate.
That would be what should happen if advancing humanity to a constantly improved future as part of a robust diverstity of all life on this amazing planet was the objective of "Winners and Leaders".
Clearly, the problem is that unjustifiable understandably damaging pursuits of profit and Trumping-up support for them can succeed 'Famously Tragically' contrary to that objective.
The threat of unLeaders and unWinners who try to excuse 'unacceptable exploitation of their potential freedom to get away with things' or 'dismiss or discredit better understanding of what is required to advance humanity' needs to become the common sense understanding globally if humanity is to have a future on this or any other amazing planet.
The following recent Opinion article on the CBC News website highlights how the twisted attacks of groups like "Unite the Right" have pushed reasoned 'common sense' (consensus of understanding by people who think about things from a collective perspective) to become senseless passion (individual's encouraged to base their 'understanding' on their gut emotion about an issue).
"How 'common sense' came to mean its opposite under Donald Trump"
-
chriskoz at 08:05 AM on 28 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
lepidolite@10,
If he [Trump] had been unable to connect and comprehend things, I don't think he would have won the election
No. I don't think the result of this election and the ability by the candidates to connect and comprehend things are related. It they were, Clinton would have won by a landslide. This election turned out to be the result of voters' emotions (mainly white middle classs resentment of the establishment) rather than any rational decision. Pre-election polls of the rest of the world (i.e. of people who have no emotional interest in it) consistently showed preference for Clinton to be future president as much as 85%. A stark difference to some 50.5% support domestically (remember: more people within US showed their support for Clinton, T-man won the White House by a procedural fluke of Electoral College).
I would share your optimism that DJT could overturn "Republican Establishment" and even contributed to the process of denial eradication therein (a process that must happen sooner or later, or our GOP is doomedd to simply implode in future) but I see not a single saign of it. I admit even a person with a "trumpesque intelligence" can be a good leader if he surrounds himself with good experts and knows how to turn their advice into good decision and has good morale to choose the best decision of conflicting interests. But T-man has been showing consistently opposite qualities: he surrounds himself with fake experts (e.g. Myron Ebell Takes On the E.P.A.) and I've already mentioned the level of his morale. The recent signs of his "softening" on his key "election promisses" indicate he's not a man on hard will but rather a cowardly bully. He likes to shout "I'm the winner" but when faced with difficult realities he just silently retreats. The prospect of such a leader looks good for GOP establishment who would like to see him as his puppet and that's abviously the worst possible prospect for climate mitigation in US
-
It's the sun
Moderator:
I tried to post the first link in #1203
(https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyVlhLUzh5bDY5SG8)
It was a graph showing annual CET and monthly sunspot numbers back to early 18th century. It appeared briefly in the preview, but disappeared shortly thereafter. And now the link seems to be dead.Moderator Response:[PS] I have converted to a link. A URL to a google drive image viewer is not a suitable source. Actually, if I fetch content link instead, (ie LINK) this works.
[RH] Shortened [PS]'s link. :-)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:02 AM on 28 November 2016It's the sun
"I guess very few scientists have done so and consequently there are only a few who have the answer."
That's quite a bold assumption on your part. There are many 10's of thousands of researchers actively working on various climate related issues as their daily profession. These are people who have the relevant education and who've spent their entire lives working on this area of science. And you honestly think you're coming up with something they've all missed?My suggestion would be, as a first step, give yourself a healthy shot of humility. The chances that you're seeing something that actual scientists have missed is infinitessimally small. But, you clearly curious about the science, and that's a good thing. Instead of assuming you see something the professionals don't, take some time to educate yourself on this topic. There's lots of good reading material on this website. All that material is backed up with citations of published scientific research. Read and learn.
-
jlfqam at 01:40 AM on 28 November 2016It's the sun
Hi,
thanks for the replies. And the links.
There are no running means on the plots of CET vs solar flux or SSN.
It's just the available data from the links plotted as such. SSN is the monthly mean.
Your running average plot (1205) is interesting, as it show that something has changed since 1990’s, and the cause of the
Cold CET during the second half of Maunder’s Minimum.
In climate data is not as anyone would like to be. Take a look, please, at the plot of NOAA global land and ocean temperature (gmsst) vs solar flux.
Notice, how, after the mid 1990's, gmsst no longer follows the solar 10.7cm flux. Only
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyNFpzbXkwaGxOM1k
Remember that 10.7cm is radiation in the microwave region, which is fully absorbed by water in either state liquid or solid, and converted directly into heat.
Not to mention that, although TSI variations over the solar cycle are in the order of 1-2 per mil.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science_information.php?page=TSIdata
Or in the past centuries
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
however variations in the 10.7cm range
Between solar maxima and minima, and even between maxima, are significantly larger
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyNFpzbXkwaGxOM1kgmsst data link:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/gmsst.data
If someone has time and patience, I recommend taking a look at the past climate data.
There are two comprehensive databases,
NOAA Paleo:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets
and Pangea:
https://pangaea.de/
Freely available but very costly in the resources invested in obtaining valuable data enough to provide the explanation to what’s going on, not only during past times, but also during the present time.
There you may find a great variety of climate proxies that combined in a global picture tell us how the climate works over the last 50Ma (yes, 50,000,000 years).
After that stroll to the past, examination of present day climate data is more easily understood.
I guess very few scientists have done so and consequently there are only a few who have the answer.
On the other side, those who have only examined data with limited span in time or with a lesser variety of proxies or narrow spatial coverage, frankly, do not have the criteria and even less the authority to criticize, refute or anything of the kind.Moderator Response:[DB] As others have already noted, please read the entirety of this post and the comments following it to get a better understanding of the Sun:Climate connection, as far as it's impact on the timescale of human lifetimes. Simply making a visual comparison of a graphic and drawing the inference of a correlation is no substitute for a physics-based analysis.
Inflammatory snipped. Please abide by the Comments Policy of this venue.
-
It's the sun
The graph in my last post disappeared!
I’ll try to post it again:Hope it stays put this time.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] I had a look at the image, in order to fix it, but there was nothing there. Link?
-
It's the sun
1203 jlfqam:
I’m not a statistician, but the graph in your first link looks more like chaos than correlation to me:If that graph is your work, I suggest you redo it with 5-year or 11-year running means for both the sunspots and temperature to make the trends easier to detect visually. Use global temperature instead of central England, as that is more relevant for the discussion here.
Links to some datasets for global temperature:
NASA-GISS
HadCRUT4 (the last column is the annual temps)
Berkeley Earth -
Daniel Bailey at 23:07 PM on 27 November 2016It's the sun
Here's a post on the background of the CET. Tamino expertly unpacks it.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:04 PM on 27 November 2016It's the sun
Scientists use a metric called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to measure the changes in output of the energy the Earth receives from the Sun. And TSI, as one would expect given the meaning behind its acronym, incorporates the 11-year solar cycle AND solar flares/storms.
The reality is, over the past 4 decades of significant global warming, the net energy forcing the Earth receives from the Sun had been negative. That's right: negative. As in, the Earth should be cooling, not warming, if it was the Sun.
-
jlfqam at 22:14 PM on 27 November 2016It's the sun
Hi,
it appears the sun is the main driver of climate.
Please, take a look at the plot in this link
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyVlhLUzh5bDY5SG8
As an example, It can be observed how the CET follow quite well the microwave flux from the sun. There's however a significantly different behaviour of CET relative to solar 10.7cm flux after 1991, that's likely the consequence of the Pinatubo eruption cooling on the ocean surface.
Looking back in time we can see a good correlation between CET and the monthly SSN on this linked plothttps://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyUGw4ejJhZHVlOG8
Data sources:
CET
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
10.7cm fluxhttp://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/solar.data
SSN
http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafilesThanks for your attention
JLF
-
MA Rodger at 21:07 PM on 27 November 2016Models are unreliable
jchoelgaard @997.
The answer is evidently 'yes' as Knutti et al (2002) demonstrates. However, the literature seems to show neural network models being used mostly to analyse particular aspects of climate rather modelling the global climate as a whole.
But as scaddenp @998 says, the main causes of historical global temperature fluctuations is ENSO. Add in a few other factors and a model can be built to fit certain historical data and having been thus 'curve-fitted' used to calculate an output that can be tested against other 'non-curve-fitted' historical data, as this recent Tamino post demonstrates.
-
Tristan at 18:25 PM on 27 November 2016Models are unreliable
Question: Is a potential reason for three record hot years in a row the fact that aerosol production is peaking?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:57 PM on 27 November 2016Geologists and climate change denial
David
Some extra points. If it were a further breakdown of the ozone layer, that wouldn't change the amount of sunlight absorbed, just where it is absorbed. The UV would still be absorbed, just now it would be in the lower atmosphere. And nobody has reported any such change and since the advent of the ozone hole, we are monitoring that kind of stuff.
Also we are seeing cooling throughout the stratosphere, not just the ozone layer. This is a signature of more GH gases, particularly CO2. -
nigelj at 12:53 PM on 27 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
lepidolite @10, sure I agree we should encourage Trump to take climate change seriously, reduce emissions and start seeing the upside of all this for business and the country. Yes Trump appears more flexible than the Republican Congress. (That would not be difficult).
However Trump is just so changeable its distinctly unusual. Basically I suppose people have to just hope he is pragmatic and does the right thing on the day. It's hopelesss predicting what he will do.
However at least 4 of Trumps companies have gone bankrupt owing billions and Trump is lucky to have excaped in one piece. This is the guy the whole world is supposed to trust to make the right decisions. I think it will be a very rough ride, and will not end well.
-
chriskoz at 12:44 PM on 27 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
Worth reading the latest series about the deswtruction of GBR:
Especially the pro-Adani arguments by QLD govs that have fast-tracked this project:
- Emissions are measured in the country where they are released so those from the Carmichael mine belong to India, not Australia.
- About 300 million Indians don’t have access to electricity. India will build new coal power stations, and it will get the coal from somewhere. Why shouldn’t the Australian economy and Queensland communities benefit?(my emphasis)
My response: it's like giving your younger brother matches to start afire and then saying "my brother burnt my house not me. And BTW, if I did not give him matches someone else would". How could anyone listen to and agree with such logic? Unless they deny AGW & what's happening with GBR of course.
-
scaddenp at 10:57 AM on 27 November 2016Models are unreliable
jchoelgaard, the main influence on year to year temperature is the ENSO cycle which is appears to be chaotic and neural networks are no better than any other curve-fitting in predicting such processes. You have a limited no. of inputs (measured values) and you know that imperfect measurement and subscale unknowns will invalidate the prediction eventually.
The situation is analogous to predicting mid summer day temperature 3 months out. You can state with great confidence that the temperature will likely be higher than mid winters day, because (like with increased GHG), there is more incoming radiation. However, exactly what that temperature will be is dependent on weather - an inherently chaotic process. Applying the ANN approach to climate modelling would face the same formidable challenges as applying to a long term weather forecast.
You can however make a pretty good punt at what the long term average mid summer day temperature will be and climate model predictions are like that.
-
scaddenp at 10:41 AM on 27 November 2016Geologists and climate change denial
Also David, we are measuring the change in the incoming radiation (or outgoing radiation) and it has the spectral signature of CO2. The match between calcuated radation spectra and intensity for the CO2 increase and the measurement is extremely good. See the papers on this discussed here.
Unless you wish to abandon conservation of energy and Plancks Law, then you need explain why that measured increase in radiation from CO2 has not caused warming if you want argue for other causes.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:58 AM on 27 November 2016Geologists and climate change denial
davidbennettlaing... One would be to look at the relative radiative forcing of all the potential factors. As here:
Prev 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 Next
