Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 Next
Comments 22951 to 23000:
-
Oriana at 04:54 AM on 13 October 2016Climate's changed before
I agree that climate change will be observed whether humans are present on Earth or not. Just as historical records indicate, ice ages, which are significant climate change events, have been documented well before humans existed. The Earth will always undergo natural temperature variations and fluctuations. However, what skeptics fail to recognize is that humans contribute *significantly* to the rate of climate change, increasing these rates to an extent that is far beyond a natural cycle of climate variation. Of course, atmospheric carbon dioxide will always exist and contribute to the GHG Effect, with or without anthropogenic intervention; however, anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are sky-rocketing, resulting in the propagation of global warming at concerningly high rates. The following article published in Nature provides excellent evidence that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions directly precede maximum peaks in global temperatures.
Abstract
The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.
Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please learn how to create links yourself with the link icon in the comments editor.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 18:51 PM on 12 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
nigelj "The Bible contains some genuinely good teachings, however it contains contradictions and mixed messages and sometimes lacks clarity, in my opinion."
It helps to remember that it wasn't written as a single book, but instead it is a collection of independent writings from authors who didn't necessarily agree with eachother on everything (e.g. Peter and Paul). The new testament wasn't "standardised" until the fourth century A.D. and today is an example of "the nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from". The bible we have today is mostly a sixteenth/seventeenth century anthology. This also applies to Digby's comment, understanding the bible isn't that straightforward, and todays understanding is through the filter of nearly 2000 years of theology (some of which may well be deeply miguided). Having said which, my reading of the bible suggests that we should try to be understanding towards those that we percieve as misunderstanding it. ;o)
As I understand it, the same is true of the "Old Testament", only more so, which makes it even more difficult to intepret.
The issue of usury that Tom mentions is a good example of where unthinking attempts at rigorous adherence to the teaching has led to extreme injustice. Francis Bacon wrote an interesting essay "On Usury" which shows that people have been struggling between following Christian teachings and living in the real world for some time (with Bacon attempting a rational justification for regulated usury - nice to see that banking has sorted itself out so well between the reigns of the two queen Elizabeths ;o).
BTW I think the verses from Luke are no so much an instruction against usury, but that we can't expect much credit for acts that already bring us personal benefit. I.e. it is an exhortation to unselfish acts rather than a prohibition on personal gain.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:31 PM on 12 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
nigelj @12, by my reading the Bible has very little to say, if anything, about conservation. There are various arguments from that have been advanced to give one view or another a patina of biblical authority, but the subtle and indirect nature of those arguments is itself proof that the views are brought to the Bible, not taken from it. In the meantime, andybody presenting "biblical views" on conservation as a reason for an attitude on climate change is almost certainly shown to be engaging in (possibly self deceptive) propaganda by the habitual ignorance of very direct biblical ethics. In that regard, I have in mind particularly the Old Testament prohibition on the charging of interest on loans, which command Jesus modified by saying,
"And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back."
As with many Old Testament commands, Jesus amplifies this one; and in two ways. First, while the OT forbade the charging of interest to Jews, Jesus extends the command to apply even to your enemies. Second, while the OT forbade the charging of interest, Jesus forbade any expectation that even the principle would be repaid.
This command, if taken literally, would forbid any interaction with banks or credit unions (or indeed, support of capitalism in any form). No doubt the people with subtle arguments as to why the Bible commands neglect of AGW (or the contrary) will also have subtle reasons why their neglect of the literal command of Jesus' should be ignored, and supposedly consistently with their "biblical literalism" - but at that stage it is clear that the Bible does not direct their ethics, except where convenient and/or in agreement with their pre-existing ethical tradition.
Given that, trying to track down just what is the "biblical basis", either in context or literal word meaning, of the "biblical views on the environment" is almost certainly a waste of time. Almost certainly the "biblical view" has been raised to provide pseudo-authority to a view taken for an entirely other reason; and unless that other reason is addressed, no amount of Biblical argument will shake it.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:21 PM on 12 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
pink, from an earlier comment of yours
" U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend" &"and then going to the current time where the NOAA declares every year 'the hottest ever"
NOAA's declarations are for the entire globe. Wheras the US is only 1.5% of the Earths surface. Don't you see the logical fallacy in in using this contrast. Contrasting a tiny paet of the world with the whole world is rather pointless.
Look at these two maps, of temperature anomalies for 2 periods - 1930-35 & 2010-15. Both have the same baseline period of 1951-1980.
The first shows the US as somewhat warmer than the 1951-80 global average, but not the planet as a whole. In contrast, the planet as a whole is significantly warmer than 51-80 although the US is actually showing less warming than elsewhere.
See why drawing conclusions from a small region is mesleading?
Simple suggestion. Whenever someone present data for only one region to you and then makes argumants about the entire globe, explicitly or implied, you should distruct them. Whether from ignorance, stupidity or deceit they aren't a realiable source.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:12 PM on 12 October 2016Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
MagmaiKH @139, the OISM petition results are not the result of an attempt to sell a product. They are the result of two seperate mailouts of packages including the petition card, and article, and a return envelope; plus provision of the packages to an unknown number of people by direct contact; plus 23 years on the accessibility on the internet with copious free advertising on "skeptical" websites, and from opinion pieces by "skeptics" in the main stream media, and even by mentions in Congress. The vast majority (~95%) of signatures came from the two mailouts plus associated direct contacts, so the most relevant response rate is that to mail surveys. Mail survey response rates in the US are about 37% with wide variability. On the false assumption that all 10 million "scientists" in the US were on the mailing list, the expected response rate woud be about 3,700,000 with the actual responses representing 0.8% of expected responses - the difference presumably being attributable to non-responses due to disagreement.
The direct distribution, was likely significantly less than the 10 million, but was likely also biased towards those willing to sign the petition. That means it is impossible to assess a genuine effective response rate, and the OISM petition project make no attempt to do so; nor to give out the data on how many packages have been distributed. Presumably that is because doing so would be unflattering. Given their refusal to properly indicate the denominator, determining the denominator as in the OP is a reasonable aproach to determining the significance of the petition.
-
Digby Scorgie at 09:12 AM on 12 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
We know that there are people who reject any findings of science that conflict with their ideology. Climate change is just one example.
As an atheist I've never paid much attention to religion, but from the foregoing comments it would seem that there are also religious people who reject any biblical messages that conflict with their religious ideology.
There must be some common psychology involved.
-
Eclectic at 09:00 AM on 12 October 2016Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
MagmaiKH @ 139 , you seem to have missed the point that (by their own admission) the Petition project-ers began their collection of signatures in 1998 . So it took them ten years to amass such a pitifully feeble number.
The Petition is not just a lame duck . . . it is a very lame duckling, barely out of its shell, from an egg that's been "brooded" for 10 years.
-
nigelj at 07:23 AM on 12 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
The Bible contains some genuinely good teachings, however it contains contradictions and mixed messages and sometimes lacks clarity, in my opinion. This leaves things rather open to interpretation especially regarding the environment.
To some extent we have to ask what did the writers really intend and draw some conclusions. We have to ask what the "weight of evidence” suggests regarding the environment. Genesis seems to suggest we care for the environment, and its hard to believe God would want otherwise. Jesus seemed to promote a philosophy of personal restraint, and loving they neighbour, which could be taken to suggest we care for the environment. How can we love our neighbour if we degrade our mutual environment?
Of course we have this Bible clause that says "rule over the animals etc" and the Christian Fundamentalists and political right wingers (some of them, disproportionately) seem to think this means we are entitled to hunt species at will even to extinction, and degrade the environment. They interpret the Bible in a way that suits their personal views.
However it's an interpretation that doesnt make much sense when you look at the Bible as a whole. Theres seems little point in people “ruling over the animals” and "multiplying and replenishing the earth" if we degrade the earth in the process undermining our ability to meet other Bible goals and teachings.
But there’s a certain fatalism in the Bible. Christian fundamentalists might argue the Bible suggests humans are fallen beings, destined to ruin everything, so it’s all inevitable including global warming and species destruction. Jesus is expected to come back and fix everything up.
This all reflects the many and varied messages in the Bible, which sometimes seem inconsistent or lacking in clarity. This suggests to me it was composed by human beings, with all their various views on life.
-
MagmaiKH at 05:38 AM on 12 October 2016Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
This is a completely inadequate analysis of the presented data and should be removed.
You have to address and accounts for the bias in both the IPCC and OIPM crowds.
You may as conclude that 2k/10M is 0.02% so the alarmist still loose.
Obviosuly not every one of the 10M 'scientist' responded to the OIPM call.
If you want to make an attempt at using science, without knowing better the typical hit rate on an advertised item is 1%. So 30k/100k would be the best estimate we can give with the limited (read: crappy) data-set and it would have an err on the order of +/- 25%. It's useless.Moderator Response:[PS] The article points out how invalid the OIPM petition is as a measure of scientific opinion. For a scientific examination of state of consensus then look at any of the 7 published studies referred to here
-
william5331 at 05:38 AM on 12 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
Basically, Dad (god) passed his great works on to us to care for. I could never understand the fundamentalists on the Right (and most of them seem to be on the right) wanting to mine, kill the last whale, fish the last fish, clear fell the forests of the world and so forth. If my dad had passed on the family business to me, I think he would have expected me to care for it and even improve it. Go figure. Perhaps the fundamentalist can't actually read or if they read, they have the mother of all cases of cognitive dissonance.
-
skymccain at 05:01 AM on 12 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
It doesn’t really count for much to refer to the dominant message on the Old Testament as it applies to caring for the planet. The issue is actually how the words are interpreted rather than how the words appear. We must keep in mind that a great number of people who read the bible feel and think that it is “the word of God.” Secondly, so very,very few realize that Earth is a living, loving planet. My iopinion, yes I'm afraid so. However, most of us will not defend a "thing" out there.
“Genesis 1:26New International Version (NIV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
The words “rule over” do not invoke “care for” -
RedBaron at 04:20 AM on 12 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
Tom,
Good catch. Told you I was no bible scholar! So apparently it was the ancient Hebrews that were so domineering and harsh to the land that they needed special laws to prevent them from soiling the nest! However, shouldn't change the overall point for modern times though. Soil the nest and expect desolation from God. Whether the desolation comes from God or from the physical laws of nature, the result is the same....desolation. Atheists and the religious right should be equally concerned, not fighting with each other while the planet faces desolution due to not taking care of it properly.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:54 AM on 12 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
For what it's worth, there is a biblical hermeneutics stack exchange which might be a good place to ask questions about this sort of thing (if they haven't already been asked).
-
Tom Curtis at 01:01 AM on 12 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
RedBaron @6, for what it is worth, the word in Genesis 1:26 in the Hebrew, which is translated "subdue" in the KJV is described:
"kâbash
kaw-bash'
A primitive root; to tread down; hence negatively to disregard; positively to conquer, subjugate, violate
KJV Usage: bring into bondage, force, keep under, subdue, bring into subjection.Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions
כּבשׁ
1. to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage
a. (Qal)
1. to bring into bondage, make subservient
2. to subdue, force, violate
3. to subdue, dominate, tread down
b. (Niphal) to be subdued
c. (Piel) to subdue
d. (Hiphil) to bring into bondage
Origin: a primitive root"That which is translated "have dominion" is described:
"râdâh
raw-daw'
A primitive root; to tread down, that is, subjugate; specifically to crumble off
KJV Usage: (come to, make to) have dominion, prevail against, reign, (bear, make to) rule, (-r, over), take.Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions
רדה
1. to rule, have dominion, dominate, tread down
a. (Qal) to have dominion, rule, subjugate
b. (Hiphil) to cause to dominate
2. to scrape out
a. (Qal) to scrape, scrape out
Origin: a primitive root"The Septuagint (translated into Greek by Hebrew scholars pre 1 AD) uses the word ἄρχετε, whose stem, "archos" means "to rule".
While I am neither a scholar of Hebrew nor Greek, and I am not aware of any contribution of modern scholarship to the translation of the word, it seems quite clear that the concept of domination is there in the original Hebrew (as best as it is known). Indeed, if anything the Hebrew is harsher in its terms than either the Greek or KJV.
-
MA Rodger at 00:45 AM on 12 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
Tom Curtis @393.
Thank you for spotting the intended meaning of "solar maximums or solar minimums" @388. If it were more than "Oh my!" I would consider the implications of such a correction of interpretation. But "Oh my!" is about the sum of it.
-
MA Rodger at 00:40 AM on 12 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
pink @391.
I think we can tell. Should I be concerned (as is Tom Curtis @393) that you seem to go all silent on assertions like "The 1930's was probably the peak of several hundred years of warming." or "There hasn't been a big volcano for a while- a few years from now they probably start going off due to solar minimums.. and the warming is erased."? Or should we forget about them, as you potentially have?
pink @392.
If I missed something relevant in that old NYT item, do say. If it did "demonstrate that over time the 'warming' keeps getting adjusted up in latter years and down in earlier years," then I'm afraid I didn't spot it.
I note you consider an adjustment to the RSS TLT V3.3 ocean temperatures (1997-2016) to be "very disturbing"? I would therefore strongly suggest you sit down and take a deep breath when RSS TLT v4.0 is eventually published. The effect of this adjustment you refer to is a massive +0.0023ºC/decade, well within the statistical confidence of the result. The conversion to v4.0 will likely have twenty-times that impact, or more. So be warned!!
-
RedBaron at 00:27 AM on 12 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
@uncletimrob,
It is quite clear:
Genesis 2:15, The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Dominion is not the sort of dominion that doesn't repect God's creation. Specifically tied to it is the idea of stewardship and taking care of it. Very likely the connotation for dominion vs stewardship diverging came with the Romanization of scripture. I am no religious scholar or preacher by any means, but I have read the bible several times, and at least in my opinion it seems pretty obvious that care of the planet is one of the top principles in both Jewish and Christian (and maybe Muslim?) faiths. So much so that special laws termed Sabbath for the Land (Shmita) were given to insure against over exploitation of resources. And very severe penalties for ignoring this:
Leviticus 26:43 For the land will be abandoned by them, and will make up for its sabbaths while it is made desolate without them. They, meanwhile, will be making amends for their iniquity, because they rejected My ordinances and their soul abhorred My statutes.
I often wonder how any Christian or Jew could miss the phrase made desolate? And if we go from ancient to modern, where exactly are we to go to now that the whole world is populated? When the ancient Hebrews were forced to leave and their land made desolate, they went into captivity. What happens when the whole planet is made desolate due to not following God's laws and being the good steward? It is pretty astonishing to me how any person of faith could miss that.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:52 PM on 11 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
pink @388 again evades discussion of points that conclusively refute his claims on this site. Instead he launches of with a whole new lot of out of context factoids and a half baked theory of his own. I will continue once more responding to pink's game of "look, squirrel", but do request that the moderators constrain pink to actually responding to the points raised against his claims in this and prior posts, either by raising cogent and germane evidence, or conceeding the point.
1) pink's first new "argument" is to misrepresent a New York Times article of January, 1989. The Times article does indeed say that there were no significant trend temperature over the CONUS from 1895-1987. "No significant trend", is of course, not the same as no trend, or zero trend. It means only that whatever trend exists was not statistically significant. Indeed, the modern NOAA data over the same period shows an Ordinary Least Squares trend of 0.033 +/- 0.0324 C/decade (two standard deviation range). Given that the error margins based on standard deviations do not account for autocorrelation, if autocorrelation was included the trend would not be statistically significant. So, not only did NOAA scientists in 1989 think the 1895-1987 CONUS temperature trend was not significant, their modern counterparts would agree. In contrast, the 1895-2015 OLS trend is 0.076 +/- 0.0234 C/decade. That is clearly statistically significant, and would be so even allowing for autocorrelation. So, pink's outrageiously dated evidence is clearly irrelevant given that the full record disproves the apparent point.
Of course, the article also included caveattes that should have prevented the misuse of it by pink, as already quoted by MA Rodger @390. Indeed, it goes on from the quoted section to mention that the area of the CONUS is too small to be representative of global trends, and to mention that "... average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980's are the highest on record". Failing to mention the caveats on the CONUS data, and the global data actually reported in the article is definitely out of context quotation, something which in academic circles is tantamount to fraud.
pink then procedes to contrast the articles results with the modern pronouncements by NOAA (in 2014, 2015, and 2016) that each year has been successively, the hotest on record. He fails to note that the person making those pronouncements was Dr Thomas Karl, one of the authors of the research which he indirectly cites. Given the credence he gives to the research of Dr Karl in 1989, his refusal to accept Dr Karl's research in 2016 is a clear case of special pleading.
2) pink then mentions the satellited data, without mentioning that all TLT satellite series show a statistically significant positive trend from 1978-2016. The curious thing is that there are (at least) four satellite series, of which only the two with the lowest trends are commonly cited. They all use the same data, and all come up with different answers as to what the trend was. That is unsurprising because converting satellited data to a temperature series requires more, and more controversial adjustments of the raw data, than does the analysis of the surface temperature record. Thus it is no surprise that the five official (and about six unofficial) surface temperature records, using distinct but overlapping datasets, and different methods all come up with the same trends, while the various approaches to the satellite data fail to do so. It is with good reason that Dr Carl Mears (the author of one of the satellite data sets) has said, "I consider [surface temperature datasets] to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)." pink, not being aware of the complexities involved, merely prefers that data which appears to best support his/her previously arrived at position.
3) pink then invokes Sunspots and Volcanoes (Oh my!). Let me first state that I believe MA Rodger to have misinterpreted the theory. By solar minimums, pink means such extended periods of low solar activity as the Maunder Minimum (c1645-1715), the Dalton Minimum (c1790-1830), and the Modern Maximum (c1950-2000):
Constraining ourselves to volcanic erruptions with a VEI of 6 or above, from 1600 onwards we have:
- Huaynaputina 1600 AD
- Kolumbo, Santorini 1650 AD
- Long Island (Papua New Guinea) 1660 AD
- Grímsvötn (Laki) 1783 AD
- Unknown 1809 AD
- Tambora 1815 AD (VEI 7)
- Krakatoa 1883 AD
- Santa María 1902 AD
- Novarupta 1912 AD
- Mount Pinatubo 1991 AD
(Underlined volcanoes occur durring a named minimum or maximum. Source)
In all, 5 out of 10 eruptions occcur durring a named minimum or maximum. In all, named minimums and maximums occupy 39% of the time from 1600-2015, and durring those named periods, 50% of VEI 6 plus eruptions during that period occurred. In short, there might be a slight statistical link between the volcanic eruptions and the data, but you could not prove it on this data. You certainly could not prove it with pink's data, which counts Laki and Krakatoa as being during named minimums/maximums despite the fact that they clearly are not.
I do not discount a solar minimum/maximum effecting the rate of volcanos. Any factor significantly changing the quantity of ice in glaciers and ice sheets, could by the resulting change in the Earth's rate of rotation, cause stresses in the Earth's crust making eruptions more likely. Of course, that applies to any factor significantly effecting climate, including the strongest recent impact, AGW. But this, of course, is just a possibility - not a proven theory. Even if true, the impact is minor; and as the strong warming through the 1990s, despite the Pinatubo erruption shows; any consequent volcanic effect is likely to cause only temporary slowdowns in the onset of global warming.
Despite this slight possible connection, pink's treatment of the situation is, at best, very bad science fiction.
-
pink at 22:40 PM on 11 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
and the point of using old articles and charts is to demonstrate that over time the 'warming' keeps getting adjusted up in latter years and down in earlier years.
This just came out, that animated gif is very disturbing.. it shows that even the satelite graphss are being 'adjusted'
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/10/remote-sensing-systems-apparently-slips-in-a-stealth-adjustment-to-warm-global-temperature-data/
Moderator Response:[PS] This again is very close to an accusation of fraud. If you find it very disturbing, then you need to show that the adjustment was wrong or unnecessary. Look at why the adjustment was made and whether it is justified rather than going into conspiracy theory mode.
It also looks like you have been taken in by denier nonsense again. See here for detail.
-
pink at 22:28 PM on 11 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
I'm not geting everything i write from tony heller, he doesn't say anything on his blog about volcanoes, etc. most of what i'm writeing is just my own opinion.
Moderator Response:[PS] There is no interest on this site of opinion that is not backed with evidence.
-
MA Rodger at 21:36 PM on 11 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
Eclectic @389.
I think you will find the comment of pink @388 makes perfect sense.
In support of the position of Heller/Goddard, pink @388 kicks-off with that 1989 NYT article. As you say, it is now old. Indeed, it describes research using data that is even older. But note that even back then, the researchers were having to insist to the NYT that their findings are not in any way supportive of climate deniers.
"Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ''cast doubt'' on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming."
But if you are in denial over AGW, the words of Dr Kirby Hanson are an irrelevance. The title of the article is "U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend" and that is all a dener needs to read.
Of course 1989 isn't now. So it is only reasonable for pink @388 to supply more recent evidence to support his position that Heller/Goddard is "not going against common sense." Satellite data is always a good prop for deniers. Or so they think. If they actually looked they would see that even the much criticised UAH & RSS TLT data is showing warming, unless you deny it at which point it becomes flat. And not all satellite data does what deniers want to see. Consider RSS TTTv4.0. It shows (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') significant warming on a par with surface measurements. But global temperatures can still be "flat on satelite data" if you deny the existence of satellite data that isn't "flat."
Of course, pink @388 does not entirely depend on simple denial. Even deniers needs a 'happy place' to provide that 'feel-good factor'. After all, deniers don't all suffer from psychopathy. So we are treated to a blunderful new theory from pink @388. Big volcanoes all occur during solar maximums & minimums Ooops. That isn't true. So it is big volcanoes that make a mess of the climate all occur during solar maximums or minimums.
But doesn't the eruption of El Chichón rate as one of those "big volcanoes that make a mess of the climate?" And wasn't El Chichón in 1982? And wasn't there a solar maximum in 1980? And a solar minimum in 1986?
So the 'happy place' described by denier pink @388 is, as with most such 'happy places' falls at the first hurdle. It is entirely dellusional. Note how this 'happy place' is also entirely incompatable with the 'happy place' described by pink @382. (Whether the Heller/Goddard position stands & falls with the loss of pink's 'happy place' is not clear: I think it falls independently.)
-
Eclectic at 17:10 PM on 11 October 2016DOE charts show why climate doom and gloom isn't needed
denisaf @17 , as you say - liquid fuels are required for aircraft, ships, and trucks.
But why do you say that liquid fuels cannot be be manufactured via renewable energy ?
Hydrogen is not very practical : but surely bio-diesel (including jetfuel) and "bio-octane" could be up-scaled in production volumes. It is a matter of R&D , which could be pushed along rapidly with enough political allocation of effort.
-
Eclectic at 16:50 PM on 11 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
Pink, you are not making much sense.
How can sunspots and cheap food have anything to do with volcanoes?? Pink, the friendly Mr Heller/Goddard is feeding you misinformation.
Ask yourself WHY you would believe him , rather than all the world's climate scientists - who tell a very different story, and who have all the evidence to prove they are right.
And use your common sense, Pink. The sea level is rising because thousands of Gigatons of ice are melting - melting because the world is getting warmer, not colder (and not "paused", either! ). Please just use your common sense, Pink.
Also - follow the money. WHY would you choose to believe Mr Heller/Goddard ( paid by the oil industry ) rather than believe the thousands and millions of scientists worldwide, who are paid from all sorts of separate sources - paid by thousands of independent universities; by more than 100 independent sovereign national governments; by dozens of meteorological organisations; by dozens of research organisations . . . and in addition there are the vast number of scientists, now retired and independently paid by their own superannuation moneys, who support what the "working scientists" have all been saying too.
As for the temperatures being recorded by the satellites - Pink, you are also wrong about that. They show a picture of rising temperatures (not flat or falling). They do not show genuine surface temperature , but a temperature which is predominantly of the upper atmosphere - mostly from thousands of feet above ground level. Quite misleading, to rely on that as a substitute for real genuine ground-level / sea-level temperatures. Mr Heller/Goddard is conning you there! Yet even then, when you look at recent satellite data, the trend is rising, and not flat or falling. Pink, you have let yourself be led up the garden path, into Mr Heller/Goddard's fairyland !!
Also, Pink, why do you quote from a New York Times reporter in January 1989 - that is very nearly 30 years ago. A lot has happened since then. Pink, how do YOU justify ignoring all the events since then? Ignoring a spectacular rise in the world's surface temperature; ignoring a 60% loss of arctic sea ice volume, and a great reduction of glacier volumes; ignoring a big rise in heat content of the ocean; as well as ignoring many other changes in the world (too many to list here).
You might just as well pretend you are living 20,000 years ago.
Pink, you are not making much sense.
-
denisaf at 16:42 PM on 11 October 2016DOE charts show why climate doom and gloom isn't needed
This is a typical anthropocentric misleading comment on the emerging problem of coping with climate change (without mentioning coping with the associated ocean acidification and warming). It deals with the cost of clean energy technologies without taking into account the fact that these systems are made of irreplaceable materials, have limited life times, use weak energy income, are intermitted sources of electricity and cannot provide the concentrated energy in liquid fuels required by most forms of land, sea and air transportation.
-
uncletimrob at 15:45 PM on 11 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
In the opinion of a priest with whom I worked a few years ago, had "Man shall have dominion over the Earth" been translated instead to "Man shall have stewardship over the Earth" then things might have turned out differently. I'm not a Biblical scholar of any sort, but dominion and stewardship have very different meanings.
-
chriskoz at 14:39 PM on 11 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
So many people mispelled the name of Dr Katharine Hayhoe: commenters on this site, fellow scientists on Facebook, and now John Abraham in TheGuardian and herein...
I start wondering how Katharine feels about it. Perhaps, being a very nice person, she doesn't mind. But I'm puzzled... Not much mental effort is required to spell the name of such unique person as Katharine, a fairly common name. E.g. less effort than an effort of learning climate science as people do here.
Moderator Response:Good catch.
We will correct the spelling and email John to do the same. And be alert to it in future :-(
[GT] -
Art Vandelay at 14:28 PM on 11 October 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #41
William @ 1. Even allowing for the explanation from Tom Curtis @ 3, you make a good point.
It would be interesting to know to what extent the global emmisions growth is subject to some creative accounting.
If emmisions growth is really negative we should start to see a change in the gradient of the Keeling curve within the next few years.
-
Art Vandelay at 14:10 PM on 11 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
Better late than never I suppose, but unless the various Christian denominations change their stance towards abortion, contraception, and sensible family planning, they're still a bigger part of the problem than the solution.
-
chriskoz at 14:04 PM on 11 October 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #41
To elaborate on Tom Curtis@3 in intuitive terms (at least for a statistician):
Warm water dissolves less CO2 than cold water does: check second graph here.
During ElNino (as we've had in last year or so) the ocean surface water - responsible for excess CO2 sequestration - is warmer. Ergo, less man made CO2 goes into ocean, ergo perceived rate of atmospheric CO2 increase due to humans becomes higher than everage.
Correspondingly, During LaNina the ocean surface water - responsible for excess CO2 sequestration - is cooler. Ergo, more man made CO2 can go into ocean, ergo perceived rate of atmospheric CO2 increase due to humans becomes lower than everage.
However ElNino/LaNina variability has been perfectly balanced so far - no one has observed any deviation from neutral state. That's why an average CO2 concentration increase follows the cumulative emmisions so closely on Tom's graph above. ElNino/LaNina variability is seen on this graph as irregular red noise of few year to a decade frequency - precisely the average ElNino/LaNina historical frequencies.
Other sinks of CO2 exhibit different variabilities, e.g terestrial biosphere has very steady annual cycle visible on Keeling curve. But it is smoothed on Tom's graph.
-
pink at 13:33 PM on 11 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
He's not going against common sense he just created a chart using unadjusted data. NY Times articles like this from 1989:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?src=pm
[ U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend
After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period. ]and then going to the current time where the NOAA declares every year 'the hottest ever' even though warming is flat on satelite data, and some area's even show recent cooling cooling makes skepticism.
Also I don't know if you guys are aware of this, look at the sunspot chart:
http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/geog101/study/images/sunspots.gif
ALL the big volcano's since the 1600's have occured during solar maximums or solar minimums, with the ones that erupted during solar minimums bigger that the ones during maximums. pinatabo, mtst helens, krakatoa, 1991,1980, 1883 during maximums. Tambora 1815, Laki 1783 dalton and maunder mins. Tambora and Laki were so powerful that they created freezing summers.
So the warming probably isn't 'that' abnormal, it isn't 'that' much-considering the weather and seasons are currently stable, crop production the past few decades has been stellar and food is cheap. There hasn't been a big volcano for a while- a few years from now they probably start going off due to solar minimums.. and the warming is erased. There's no reason to think the greenhouse gas effect is so powerful that it can make warming continue despite such powerful forces.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:07 AM on 11 October 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #41
william @1, the rate at which CO2 is taken up into the ocean is primarilly governed by GMST relative to current CO2 concentrations. The result is that if you have a sequence of successively warmer years (such as 2012-2016), you will get a higher airborne fraction of CO2 in each successive year, with a consequent rapid increase CO2 concentration. Conversely, with succession of cooler years will result in a much reduced short term trend in CO2 concentration. Over the long term, however, CO2 concentration grows at approx 55% of industrial CO2 emissions (ie, those from fossil fuels and cement manufacture) or about 45% of all anthropogenic emissions including Land Use Change:
The upshot is that it is far to early to say that the recent more rapid increase in CO2 concentration is due to our having passed some tipping point and triggered a new feedback rather than just a response to the rapid increase in temperaure over the last few years.
-
Dcrickett at 08:37 AM on 11 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
Dr Abraham: Thank you for an interesting essay and bringing the book "Caring for Creation" to our attention, as well as a pithy description of what the book says.
By the way, there are also climate scientists who profess a faith other than Christianity (or none). Dr Saleemul Huq, for instance. (I am unaware of any book on AGW from a Moslem perspective. But hey, I am not a Moslem.)
Sadly, ignorance and bigotry on this issue are strong and vociferous. I read, for about 15 minutes, comments posted on the Guardian's posting of the complete article. A clear majority of commenters reminded me of the yahoos (as described in Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" 2nd book) who post comments on news articles on the website of Yahoo, the beleaguered internet company. The Religion Deniers can be (but by no means all are) as obnoxious as the Trumpkopfen yahoos.
-
nigelj at 07:55 AM on 11 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
Thank's for an informative article. So we appear to have a growing movement of Christians accepting climate science, and that we should reduce carbon emissions, and this is of course good to see. However while more Catholics and other mainstream religions appear to be accepting climate science, many Evangelical Christians are still very sceptical of climate change science, (although statistical analysis shows its not clear if this is due to religion or political beliefs of people in these churches, and other factors)
The following article discusses numbers and reasons for scepticism. (They are from a Pew survey in 2009, but more recent pew surveys find similar dismal numbers).
www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/global-warming-and-religi_b_864014.htm
The following is a very brief summary of points made in the above article on why evangelical christians in particular are sceptical. This includes their interpretation of the bible and other general objections.
1. Why worry about global warming if the kingdom of god is at hand? (My opinion: neglecting to mention that even Christians have no idea how close this is)
2.God told Noah he would never again destroy Earth by flood (Gen 8:21-22). This is interpreted to mean that “The earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth." (However this is stretching logic in my opinion)
3. This is a declaration from a specific Evangelical church group "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history." (My opinion: pure speculation)
So we still have a lot of unfortunate intepretations that also appear to mix religious and ideological objections. I'm an atheist, but I personally think the dominant message in both the old and new testament is to look after the planet. The following article is by a Dr Jim Denison, who is a Christian who believes we should accept the science of climate change. He has a look at Genesis and thinks it suggests we should care for the environment and reduce human caused global warming.
-
william5331 at 05:57 AM on 11 October 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #41
Sorry. Typo. 2016-2017
-
william5331 at 05:56 AM on 11 October 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #41
Has anyone noticed that despite a static or slightly decreasing world carbon dioxide output over the past couple of years, the ManaLoa Carbon dioxide web site shows a marked jump in the increase of Carbon dioxide as reported for pairs of months (Jan2015 to jan2016 etc). Has some sink closed down or is in the process of closing down. We will need the results from 2916-2017 to see if this is a trend or if we revert to the mean. If it is a trend, we have cut in half (approx.) the time to whatever level of Carbon dioxide you consider the ceiling absolute ceiling beyond which we must not go.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:38 PM on 10 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
michael sweet @386, while I agree with your emphasized point, I think the more germane point is that in the unadjusted data (red line), the 1930s are barely above late 19th century values. Indeed, given what we know about 19th century GMST from HadCRUT4, the unadjusted 1930s values more or less match the 1850s values. They are well below the 1940s/early 1980s values and even further behind late 20th, early 21st century values. These facts all directly contradict his attempt to portray the 1930s as "...probably the peak of several hundred years of warming".
-
michael sweet at 10:36 AM on 10 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
Tom @385,
Your post was well documented as usual, but I think you need to be more specific about your last graph to help Pink understand what it shows.
Your graph clearly shows that the adjustments to the raw temeprature record strongly lowers the amount of observed warming in the record since 1900 (it lowers it if you go back to the beginning of the record also). Thus the claim by Pink that adjustments have been made that raise the amount of observed warming is clearly contradicted by the data.
Claims by deniers like Goddard that the record has been altered to raise the amount of warming are deliberate lies. Goddard has seen your graph and knows that the data adjustments have lowered the amount of warming.
Moderator Response:[PS] From comments policy: "No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. You may critique a person's methods but not their motives."
-
Tom Curtis at 10:03 AM on 10 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
pink @379 thanks Eclectic and I for our extensive responses, and then proceeds to ignore nearly all of those reponses. In particular, he ignores the very clear evidence that Heller compares "apples to oranges", or more specifically, he compares a simple percentage of station data to a percentage of surface area covered. It is known that the meteorological stations in the US are not evenly distributed across the land mass, and that the regions of the 1930s warming are not those of the more recent warming in the CONUS. I repeat, "Not using percentage of land area rather than numbers of stations in making the comparison shows either an absolutely abysmal level of incompetence, or a very deliberate fraud." pink evidently wants to be party to either the incompetence or fraud, in his deliberate ignoring of this factor, even when it is brought to his/her attention.
He/she also persists without warrant in treating a percentage of stations (not area adjusted) exceeding an absolute temperature limit as a better proxy for Global Mean Surface Temperature than the actual GMST; and of treating the 1.58% of the Earth's surface represented by the CONUS as a better proxy of GMST than the mean surface temperature of the globe. He/she defends that last with some jingoistic nonsense about where did, and did not have significant temperature records in the 1930s. In fact, where did or did not have significant surface temperature records is a matter of record, and is well illustrated by a video from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project:
As can easily be seen, every continent except Antarctica has significant coverage by 1880 (the reason GISS and NOAA start there temperature records at that time). Sea Surface Temperature records are also extensive by 1880, such that HadCRUT4 shows 30-37% global coverage in 1880, rising to 61-66% by 1930 and 75-81% by 1960. So, at its best, pinks argument is that we should use only the CONUS temperature record (not weighted by surface area) as the gold standard because the 30-37% coverage by HadCRUT4 in 1880 doesn't cover sufficient of the globe to be relevant. I am unconvinced of the coherence of his/her case.
pink is also certain that the adjustments in temperature records to account for changes in equipment, observation times and station moves cannot be rellied on, but will be (I am certain) equally unwilling to accept the unadjusted GMST record (red line):
-
Dcrickett at 02:26 AM on 10 October 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #40
Re #1: Some Moslem women wear the various forms of dress because it makes them feel more comfortable. Period.
My daugher married into an immigrant semi-Moslem family. Her mother-in-law (Phi Beta Kappa, Bryn Mawr) wears a hijab to prayer, otherwise dresses like most American women (albeit more tastefully). One of her daughters is more conservative. My daughter and son-in-law are fully secular. A fine family.
My wife, who is Hispanic by upbringing and modest by nature, had trouble appearing in public in a traditional one-piece swimsuit. Her friends at church told her they'd die to have a figure like hers to show off in a swimsuit.
My daugher went to college in France for a couple of years. She and some Americans went to a beach topless. Today she laughs about it; she had a very difficult time being blasé about it at first, but then she got used to it; to the French girls in her group, the American girls were funny.
Leslie Graham: Cool it.
-
Eclectic at 22:42 PM on 9 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
Pink @379-382 , you will have to explain your ideas more clearly.
You seem to be stating that the world surface temperature has been swinging back and forth like a pendulum, between hotter and colder every few centuries.
But that's not really so. If you have a look at scientific temperature assessments of past times, you will see that the average worldwide temperature has been slowly falling during the last 6,000 years. There have been localised (regional) variations, particularly in parts of the Northern Hemisphere - but these have been very minor variations indeed (though often given very grand names, like "Roman This" or "Medieval That" or "Little Ice Age" etcetera, which make them sound far bigger and more important than they actually were). But overall there's been a slow cooling until now.
The major worldwide swings in heating/cooling have occurred on a scale of thousands and tens of thousands of years (including the "Ice Ages" = more correctly called the "Glacial Ages"). Those big swings have occurred for a reason - predominantly from subtle changes in Earth's tilt and orbit.
But nowadays we are in a completely new ball game : temperature rise very fast in the past 100+ years and being caused by a new factor - the new factor being a large rise in greenhouse gas effect from "fossil fuel" CO2. This really is very new and different, compared with recent millions of years.
Very strangely, Mr Heller/Goddard seems to be trying to misinform you and give you the impression that the world has been cooling since the 1930's. He couldn't be more wrong - and you can see the evidence that he's wrong, by looking yourself at all the melting ice and rising ocean level and all the other stuff that's going on to show that rapid global warming is occurring. Exactly as all the climate scientists are saying.
You would have to ask yourself why Mr Heller/Goddard is going against common sense!!
-
MA Rodger at 22:12 PM on 9 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
pink @382.
I don't know of evidence for a natural warm era of any significance for which "the 1930's was probably the peak of several hundred years of warming."
The IPCC graphic (AR5 Fig BoxTS5.1) below shows a NH temperature reconstruction. While this reconstruction does show a period of NH warming over the last 300-400 years, the top panel of the graphic shows the majot agent of forcing to be the "well mixed GHGs." So it is mostly not natural warming.
And do be mindful of the implications of your proposal. You suggestion is that man-made climate change is responsible not just for the +0.99ºC temperature rise 1934-2015, but also some additional warming to reverse the onset of your proposed "cold period." How much additional warming would depend on the strength of your proposed "cold period," the significance of which I couldn't begin to assess as your proposal in my view an entirely fanciful.
-
pink at 21:08 PM on 9 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
I didn't say it was a 'warm era', what I meant was that it was just the peak of THIS warm period. The Roman warm period, followed by the 'dark' cold period, followed by the medeival warm period, followed by the 'LIA' cold period, followed by the current warm period. The 1930's was probably the peak of several hundred years of warming.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is more sloganeering. Please back your assertion "the 1930's was probably the peak of several hundred years of warming" with some shred of evidence. As other commentators have shown, there is massive evidence against this.
-
MA Rodger at 19:59 PM on 9 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
pink @380.
The warm 1930s experienced by parts of the US does not constitute part of "another post Roman warm era, post medeival warm era." It was solely a regional warming. If you use this GISTEMP mapping tool, you will see that for the year 1934 it is only a tiny part of the globe, indeed only a tiny part of the USA that plots a temperature anomaly +2ºC (and the global average is -0.14ºC). But for last year 2015, the map shows the +2ºC area is much much greater (and the global average is +0.85ºC).
In the grand scheme of things, climate is a global thing. As such, it would be an utter fool who insisted that the global view should not be "your outlook."
-
pink at 18:40 PM on 9 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
1 other thing, his graphs are not showing that "we're going into an Ice Age" They just suggests that the 30's were the peak of the current warm period, which will naturally end as the Earth goes into another post Roman warm era, post medeival warm era, cold era. I take it you guys think that warm periods are now permanent and humans have to 'cap' the warm era so it doesn't get too warm, and they can do this by not burning stuff. Is that your outlook?
-
pink at 18:20 PM on 9 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
OK thank you for the extensive reply. Basically what your saying is that he uses the unadjusted temps and the noaa has adjusted historical temperatures for "systemic errors" and other things. But I would be suspicious that these 'hot daily lows' you mentioned are the result of black asphalt, concrete etc. at night time. I have personally felt this effect, riding a motorcycle in a built-up tourest area(small town) in a hot climate I went back to my bungalow at about sometime after 2am. driving down a narrow road surrounded by vegitation, I'm wearing only T-shirt & suddenly it gets very cold, like i have to slow down because suddenly i'm freezing. I'm skeptical that these adjustments can ever be accurate when we're only talking about a degree or so since the 1800's.
The only solution seems to be to use only very consistent climate network instrumentation in area's that are far from any human activity for a long time.
What you said about this only being the USA. What skeptics are saying about that is most countries have not been in the business of measuring climate other than the USA. Czarist Russia did not see measureing 'climate change' as a priority, neither was the German Kaiser. Lawerence of Arabia and King Faisal did not battle the Ottoman empire and take temperature readings.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is dangerously close to sloganeering. If you want to quote "pseudo-skeptics", make it a direct quote and cite. These sentences are unsubstantiated nationalist rhetoric and the last sentence absurb. I doubt Davy Crockett didnt battle with the Mexicans and took temperature readings either. The global tide gauge record and glacial retreat are consilient with the global instrument record and would strongly contradict a cooling since 1930s. Cherry picking of evidence in denier tactic. I am quite sure that the glories of Chinese science would be lauded if there was a Chinese record that suggested some cooling.
-
Tom Curtis at 17:00 PM on 9 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
pink @375:
1) First and most obviously, the data is for the contiguous USA alone, and is not indicative of global temperatures.
2) The 1930s were noted for some years with very large areas showing some of the hotest temperatures on record, along with months in the same years showing large extents of very cold temperatures. That shows up in a spike in maximum temperature records, and in a spike in minimum temperature records; but the end of the 20th century, both minimum and maximum temperatures have increased. That results in a stronger increase in the mean temperature than occured in the 1930s. Heller carefully selects data that obscures that fact.
In the post by Heller I found which discusses these charts, he actually compares directly the NOAA graph of hot daily highs, which he purports to reproduce. That graph, however, also shows hot daily lows, which obviously climb much more at the end of the century than in the 1930s; again resulting in a greater increase in mean temperatures at the end of the century.
3) Heller graphs a simple count of the number of USHCN stations, but compares it to a graph of the percentage of the CONUS surface area affected by hot temperatures. Given that USHCN stations are very unevenly scattered across the CONUS surface, the two would not have the same shape unless exactly the same regions experienced heat waves in the 1930s as at the end of the century. The map of areas of the US that have experienced more (red) or less (blue) high temperatures since 1948 shows clearly a decrease across the midwest and most eastern regions (which have a very high number of stations) whereas the increase has mostly been in the west (with a very few number of stations):
The 1930s heatwaves, in contrast, were centered on the midwest (with a high number of stations):
Not using percentage of land area rather than numbers of stations in making the comparison shows either an absolutely abysmal level of incompetence, or a very deliberate fraud.
4) Heller uses an asolute temperature criterion, whereas NOAA uses a criterion depending on the percentage of the time a station exceeds a particular temperature. That is because what counts as a heatwave in Maine might by considered a cool spell in Miami. Thus the annual mean temperature in 1936 for Florida is "Near Normal", despite being 12oF warmer than the "record warmest" temperature for Montana. Again, this change in method will distort the comparison unless the geographical pattern of temperature variation is identical in different years (as it clearly is not).
5) Heller probably uses unadjusted temperatures, despite there having being a clear downward bias in the raw data due to changes in instruments used, in times of observation, station moves, etc.
-
FrankShann at 16:36 PM on 9 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
James Hansen has recently suggested using an early-industrial baseline of 1880-1920 (rather than 1951-1980) to plot GISS temperature anomolies in "a better graph" (www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/ and http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/26/a-better-graph/).
To find how to convert from 1951-1980 baseline to 1880-1920, I calculated the mean anomoly for all 41 years of GISS for 1880-1920 to be -0.276 oC (and, reassuringly, 0 oC for 1951-1980) using the annual temperatures at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
Therefore, to calculate the change in temperature relative to 1880-1920 for GISS, do you add 0.28 oC to the temperatures at nasa.gov? For 2015, that gives 0.86 (from nasa.gov) + 0.28 = 1.14 oC which approximates the value for 2015 in the graph at columbia.edu.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:14 PM on 9 October 2016CO2 has a short residence time
Richard @151, to a first approximation, what happens is that CO2 concentrations fall as the ocean absorbs excess CO2 up to an equilibrium point. At the same time, the temperature response to the CO2 approaches equilibrium itself, a process that given constant CO2 concentration would see the temperaure response increase by about a third. The two processes have similar time scales, so that the temperature response in fact remains almost constant. This has now been shown by several teams, with slight divergences in the overall result. For instance, you may want to look at Frolicher and Joos (2010).
Of even more interest, however, is Friedlingstein et al (2011). That is because not only do they show the consequences of (the obviously impossible) complete cessation of emissions (a &b); but also the consequences of three plausible emissions reduction rates of 5, 3, and 1% per annum commenced immediately (c&d); and also of the 3% per annum reductions commenced 10, 20, and 30 years into the future (e&f):
They also show other permutations such as a 90% reduction (which shows an ongoing long term temperature rise) or 105% reduction (ie, net negative emissions, which show a long term decline in temperature, but not brining it below preindustrial levels for nearly a thousand years).
-
Eclectic at 15:57 PM on 9 October 2016Temp record is unreliable
Pink @ 375 , the guy called Tony Heller also calls himself Steve Goddard.
He is well-known for his "economy with the truth" - indeed, he is notorious for his misleading presentations. Pink, you should always look very skeptically and carefully at anything he presents (under either name).
Here, if we generously assume he has not presented false or distorted information, then we should next look to see :-
(a) if he used data which is out of date (outdated because the temperatures were not corrected for systematic errors in themselves, or in relation to worldwide standardising methods).
(b) if he has cherry-picked data which he thinks is good "denier" propaganda - while carefully avoiding presenting the vast amount of data which points in the opposite direction.
(c) if he has used only continental USA data and not worldwide data. The worldwide records show strong warming, and continental USA records being only 2% of global area, are therefore rather unimportant in comparison.
(d) if he has not been contradicting himself by also (elsewhere) claiming the denier meme that CONUS temperatures are showing higher over the past half-century but only because of the Urban Heat Island Effect. ( Pink, as a well-informed guy, you will of course be aware that "UHI Effect" has been completely debunked as a cause of apparent rising temperature records ). You have to laugh when you see deniers trying to play for both sides at the same time !
Another interesting point is that there certainly were some unusually hot summer days in central continental USA in the 1930's. It is uncertain if they were the entire cause of the Oklahoma-type droughts - or whether they were (in part) a consequence of desertifying effect from extensive poor management of those agricultural areas.
A further point, Pink, is to find comparable graphs of night-time low temperatures for summer , and also find graphs of day/night winter temperatures. You might find those to be very interesting, in comparison ! Has Mr Heller/Goddard supplied those, too ?
A final matter, Pink, is the important common sense test you yourself can apply to Mr Heller/Goddard's graphs - graphs which on first glance seem to indicate a rapid trend toward a New Ice Age. Look around you : warming changes are already happening within CONUS, and even more strongly in Alaska - and most of the "non-CONUS" world is recording higher temperatures and new records in heat waves. Sea levels are rising faster and faster; huge amounts of glacier and arctic ice are disappearing. The ocean is warming ( and acidifying from excess CO2 ).
Mr Heller/Goddard is clearly very wrong in what he is implying.
-
Richard13791 at 14:33 PM on 9 October 2016CO2 has a short residence time
Given that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a very long time, the present amount continues to cause warming. To set a lower boundary on the problem, let’s say that ALL new human-produced CO2 and methane added to the atmosphere is reduced to ZERO starting tomorrow. Using current models, what is then the predicted change in average global temperature in 2100? Has anyone run such a simulation?
Prev 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 Next
