Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  871  872  873  874  875  876  877  878  879  880  881  882  883  884  885  886  Next

Comments 43901 to 43950:

  1. The Consensus Project self-rating data now available

    Paul D @10, based on the interactive history, in the decade from 1961 to 1970, 20% of papers with a position where skeptical.  While still a majority opinion, that suggests acceptance of AGW was hardly a consensus at that stage.  Further, despite the evident overwhelming majority of papers endorsing the consensus from 1990, evidence from other sources suggest the consensus among scientists did not form until after 1995 and possibly not till after the Third Assessment report.  It is very evident, however, that once the number of studies per decade started increasing, the consensus formed very rapidly.

  2. Charles Krauthammer's flat-earther global warming folly

    men. Oops.

  3. Charles Krauthammer's flat-earther global warming folly

    The media outlets that carry such columns are in effect aiding and abetting the deniers. Krauthammer and George Will are two similar peas in the same pod when it comes to global warming denial. I take comfort that they are both old me.

  4. The Consensus Project self-rating data now available

    dana @9, the claim that "skeptics" are "more likely to pretend to endorse it in the abstract while claiming they rejected it in the full paper" is not supported by Poptech' sample.  One of Poptech's sample (Scaffeta) outrageously misrepresents the nature of the scientific consensus so that he can falsely claim an error in the abstract rating.  Shaviv's abstract, however, concludes:

    " Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19°K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 ± 0.04°K."

    The increase over the 20th century was 0.7 K, so the paper attributes greater than 50% of warming to natural causes under an assumption the authors are willing to entertain. That indicates the paper should be rated (IMO) as at most a 5 (implicitly rejects), and certainly not, as it was actually rated, at 2 (Explicitly endorses).

    In like manner, Idsos' abstract describes the impact of enhanced growth on the seasonal cycle in CO2 and should probably (and at most) have been rated neutral, but was actually rated 3 (implicitly endorses).

    These two examples represent genuine mistakes.  Of course, Poptech has only found two genuine errors from among a very large number of abstracts rated as endorsing the consensus.  As always, he avoids mentioning the denominator.

  5. William Haas at 07:13 AM on 11 July 2013
    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    The statement: " But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2." is wrong because the primary greenhouse gas in our atmosphere was not included.

  6. The Consensus Project self-rating data now available

    Nichol@5

    "How far would you need to go back to the time when there was still a reasonable controversy over climate change among climate scientists?"

    Try the An Interactive History of Climate Science gizmo.

    I suggest about 1900 or 1901 and the Angstrom/Arrhenius disagreement.

     

     

  7. James Madison at 04:47 AM on 11 July 2013
    Charles Krauthammer's flat-earther global warming folly

    ahh, I see, beer is not just for breakfast anymore, eh?

    If this is what one understands after reading the Krauthammer piece, then, well, one will never understand why climate change and its solutions are not taken seriously by the majority.

  8. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    #43 Amen.

  9. Dikran Marsupial at 04:22 AM on 11 July 2013
    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    Eclectikus, there are "skeptics" who claim that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, for example "Atmospheric "greenhouse forcing" does not warm the planet, never has and never will. In fact, the very idea that there is a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere is absurd.".  So while skeptics are generally letting go of climate myths such as "there is no empirical evidence" one by one, there is still a need to deal with these myths for the sake of those who have heard them from the misguided and want to hear the other side of the story.

    Please do not further disrupt the discussion of the science by trying to hold an off-topic meta discussion about what the site should be for.  SkS has been around for a while, and a fair bit of thought has gone into who the intended audience actually is, and which arguments ought to be addressed.

     

  10. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    Thanks heb0 #40. I'm an old reader of this blog, and just wanted to point out what I pointed out. In this case it's more like to tell my mechanic that the spark plug that he put to my car was secondhand. Question of nuances.

  11. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    DSL #37
    I understand that there is people with no background in Science, and that they form their opinion on the debate based on their political bias, but I did not know that this site was dedicated to those people, in fact, I'm pretty sure that that kind of people do not read these entries, and in the rare event that they stumble upon them, they will understand nothing. So if it comes to send a message, I think is better that the message be correct, and in someway to imply that skeptics discusses the anthropogenic CO2 causes some warming is fallacious. The dispute comes in how much warming, not in ellemental physics.

    Of course there has been a lot of improvement over the last years, in Climatology, and in all... but still we are in the first stadiums in terms of empiric verification, probably (surely) is not a scientists fault, is by the very nature of this Science. So a minimum of caution on predictions should be compulsory.

    If there were evidence of catastrophic character of the case, there would be no discussion, no one can be interested in destroying a planet or its inhabitants / customers. And use weather events of the present and the recent past does not seem very tight to the scientific method.

    Thanks for the link, I leave it as homework for tonight.

  12. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    @Eclectikus - The style of presentation of this website is to address specific myths about global warming. You're bringing up questions that this article doesn't claim to address and then comaplining whenever they aren't answered in it. A bit like throwing a fit at your local mechanic's shop because they don't stock croquet sets.

    If you're interested, there are other articles on this site that address the questions you're asking:

  13. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    In addition to the ASRB network [MeteoSwiss] reference @38 it may be useful to mention a very short and recently published overview [free access!] on the current status of measurements of radiation profiles by Philipona:

    Philipona, R., A. Kräuchi, and E. Brocard (2012)
    Solar and thermal radiation profiles and radiative forcing measured through the atmosphere
    Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L13806, doi:10.1029/2012GL052087

  14. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    bouke @26: I always thought it was too difficult to measure this accurately enough. Could you provide a reference to this?

    The "classic" reference would be:

    Philipona, R., B. Dürr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004)
    Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
    Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765.

  15. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    Eclectikus, "we" know it, but I talk with people every day who confidently claim that human CO2 does not contribute to global warming, and in fact that it's all a hoax.  This website is aimed partially at those people and partially at the people who are lying to to the claimers.

    I disagree on the no progress in thrity years claim.  Articulating the strength of the various forcings has come a very long way in thirty years.  You're going to have a hard time arguing that the last thirty years' worth of sensitivity, feedback, and modeling work has all been redundant and pointless.

    "catastrophic" as you define it is no definition.  All you're saying is "well, catastrophic as other people use and define it."  What does "catastrophic global warming" mean to you?

    Sure, CO2 concentrations are important for life at both ends of the ppm range.  Yet pushing the extremes of that range is not what the current problem is all about.  Within the context of rapid climate change via anthropogenic global warming, discussing the extreme ends of the range is irrelevant--basically a red herring made of straw.  Discussing the effect of the likely range of change on plant life is relevant.  

  16. Charles Krauthammer's flat-earther global warming folly

    Krauthammer is worried about the cost of transitioning to renewables because of "the problematic nature of contradictory data."  Is that like the data presented by weapons inspectors before the U.S. invasion to find Iraqi WMD?  The data that there WERE no WMD?  April22nd is now celebrated as 'Krauthammer Day', when he opined: "Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We’ve had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven’t found any, we will have a credibility problem." uhh... ok...

    http://crookedtimber.org/2010/04/22/have-a-blessed-charles-krauthammer-day/

    And what did Krauthammer learn after spending $3 trillion in Iraq to obtain zero WMD? In 2004, he opined "we should have invaded Iran"!!  It should be obvious that 'the problematic nature of contradictory data' has never bothered Krauthammer before, and does not now.

    Krauthammer: "I’m not against a global pact to reduce CO2. Indeed, I favor it."  I like these 'standard disclaimer' lines at the end his piece.  As in: "The science on global warming isn't sufficient to do anything about CO2  ...  except a GLOBAL PACT REDUCING IT!!"  (by force of American military might, perchance?  What's not to love, for a neocon like Krauthammer?). 

  17. The Consensus Project self-rating data now available

    Not only is Poptech's sample of 7 much smaller than our author self-rating sample of 1,200 (and over 2,100 papers), but his sample is biased toward "skeptics" who are more likely to reject the consensus, and also apparently more likely to pretend to endorse it in the abstract while claiming they rejected it in the full paper.  Not exactly a compelling argument against our paper and conclusions.

  18. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    DSL #35
    But that is not the point of this entry. To say that there is "empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming", is meaningless. Of course that human CO2 contributes to Global Warming, we know this from Arrhenius times. The discussion arise when we try to quantify the warming, and in that direction we have advanced little over the last thirty years, in terms of empirical evidence.

    Well, I mean "catastrophic" in the sense of need to scare people. And there is no need without empirical evidence.

    There is no basic misconception, CO2 concentrations are important for life not only in the terms you are pointing at, but also in absolute value. Both sides should be taken into account. And 400 ppm is only round number, nothing else.

  19. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    Eclectikus, no comprehensive counterargument that accounts for physics and observations has been offered by anyone.  No matter what other forcing is discovered, the enhanced GHE must be accounted for.  It's power is well-demonstrated to be within a range that would make it the dominant forcing of the last fifty years.  Solar variation (orbital + output) is the only other comparable forcing, and it has been flat or falling for fifty years.  

    As far as "catastrophic" is concerned, you're going to have to provide a definition.  Everyone who uses the word seems to have a different definition.  Some people even like to define it differently for different rhetorical objectives.  Also, you are under a basic misconception: the absolute ppm for CO2 is not the issue re extinction.  The issue is the rate of increase and the resulting rate of increase in global energy storage.

  20. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    If the avg temp of the moon is -36 C ((100 + -173)/2), why doesn't physics tell us that without an atmosphere the earth's temp wouldn't also be -36 C?  Something is missing from the presentation. 

  21. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    Just one straw man more, any skeptic would agree with the title of this post. What most skeptics thinks is that:

    - There are no empirical evidence that humans are the main factor caused the global warming of the second half of pass century.

    - There are no empirical evidence of that this small anthropic component global warming might become catastrophic, rather the opposite.

    And there isn't.

    Too much CO2 in the atmosphere? Come on, we are closest to the minimum needed for life existence (150 ppm?) that of where we are now from the real value of worries about extinctions (1000 ppm?). Try this.

  22. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    guinganbresil - In anticipation of possible comments (having Googled SkS for previous discussions on the subject and your comments), I will note that cloud changes would be a feedback to temperatures, not a forcing, and that despite attempts to show negative cloud feedback by Lindzen and Choi 2011, or Spencer and Braswell 2011, the evidence indicates that any such cloud feedback would be small and likely positive (as per Dessler 2011). 

    Spectral reductions in effective emissivity are indeed direct evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect. 

  23. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    stbloomfield, yah I'd agree with that.  Gpwayne probably didn't address it because for people who have been around the science for a while, the anthro element is bat-upside-the-head obvious.  Also, SkS regulars sometimes forget that not everyone looks through the whole (or even 1/100th of) site before commenting.  It's now huge.

    Moderator Response:

    [GPW]. I think the issues raised merit further consideration, but can I also point out that we're reading this rebuttal out of context - as a stand-alone post. Its primary use is as part of the multi-level rebuttal here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

    It strikes me that the discussion has been of an intermediate level, while the rebuttal is rather more basic. In context, the issues raised may be addressed in the intermediate version, which in context is only a tab away.

    Writing the basic level rebuttals always involves some compromise. They are circulated to many working scientists and science professionals for comment and approval prior to publication, and many who review the work want something added, some clarification, some elaboration. Of course, if we accomodated all the suggestions, the rebuttal would no longer be basic. 

    It seems that writing about science for the general public requires some compromises that will always be a little unsatisfactory. But thanks for all the constructive criticism. I'll have a think about them and see if I can improve the text.

  24. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    stbloomfield @28, while I will grant you the article glosses over the connection between human emissions and the rise in CO2 concentration, it nevertheless contains evidence of that connection in the second figure.  If you look carefully, you will see that the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by less than 1000 gigatonnes  (in fact by about 800 gigatonnes).  Meanwhile humans have emitted more than 1000 gigatonnes into the atmosphere (around 1200 gigatonnes according to the graph).  It follows that because human emissions exceed the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, net natural sources and sinks removed more CO2 than they emitted.  Ergo, absent human emissions, CO2 concentration would have fallen, or at best, stayed constant.

    Of course, much more evidence to this point is available elsewhere on this site as pointed out above.  However, the article contains sufficient evidence of that point, even if it could be spelt out a bit clearer.

  25. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    guinganbresil - Since the starting point for the emission spectra at TOA is constrained by blackbody emission, and since the changes in spectra have all been in the direction of reduced effective emissivity (less energy emitted at any particular temperature than before): 

    The predicted and observed change in emission spectra is negative ->is a reduction in outgoing energy -> hence leads to a TOA radiative imbalance -> and therefore a change in temperature. It really is that simple. 

    A reduced emission spectra to space requires (as per the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship) a higher average climate temperature to make outgoing energy equal to incoming energy - that spectral change is and of itself sufficient evidence of an enhanced greenhouse effect. 

  26. Charles Krauthammer's flat-earther global warming folly
  27. stbloomfield at 23:32 PM on 10 July 2013
    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    Thanks for some of your replies. The title of the article is "Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming" but to me it simply shows that CO2 causes warming and we have more CO2 in the atmosphere. The second figure doesn't show how we know it is human created CO2. Isn't there something like a particular carbon isotope that links it? I think it would help if there was more shown than inference. Perhaps that's not possible with a basic level article like this, I don't know. As it's written now, I think the title should be changed to "Empirical evidence that CO2 has increased" because I don't think it does a good job pinning it on humans.

  28. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    Bouke -- as I understand it, the measurements are indirect. I don't know of any actual measurement of radiation being re-radiated into space. What there is rather is measurement of heat energy being absorbed -- which is itself a really difficult measurement since it involves measurement ocean temperatures around the world and down the watere column. (This is the dominant contribution). If the ocean is heating more rapidly, then (on the assumption of roughly constant or even very slightly falling solar input) it is fair conclusion that there's less energy being radiated.

    A reference here would help, I agree! One possible reference is this NASA science brief: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/ which is a recent measurement. But even that is a tad problematic since the text of this post is refering to an observed gradual decrease -- which would need a continuous measurement of some kind, and I don't think we have that yet. The measurements is sufficiently difficult and dependent on quite recent data sources that my take is we are still working on getting good measurements. (BTW: this problem with measurement and with having the instruments to make measurements is the guts of "Trenberth's Travesty".)

    I think that phrase you have quoted from the blog post would be improved by replacing "seen" with "inferred". Perhaps this could be taken up in an "intermediate level" response which would be the place for being a little bit more precise.

     

     

     

  29. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space.

    I always thought it was too difficult to measure this accurately enough. Could you provide a reference to this?

  30. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    guinganbresil,

    Ignoring the fact that the total emission is out of balance with the incoming energy, it's not true to say that if there were not an energy imbalance at TOA then AGW would be "all bunkum". AGW predicts that if the forcing were to stop increasing then the energy imbalance would shrink until the climate reached a new equilibrium. All the energy imbalance tells us is that the climate is not yet in equilibrium with the current change in forcing.

  31. Dikran Marsupial at 16:48 PM on 10 July 2013
    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    stbloomfield That the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic is quite unequivocally established by the fact that atmospheric CO2 is rising more slowly than anthropogenic emissions, which means that (unless conservation of mass is violated) the natural environment is a net carbon sink and removes more CO2 from the atmosphere each year than it puts in.

    It is obviously more than just a correlation as we have direct observations of the causal mechanism, we know we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels!

  32. The Consensus Project self-rating data now available

    Rob Honeycutt @7. It doesn't surprise me that you are not getting a response. I was enjoying commenting on WUWT, and to give them there credit, they allowed me to have my say - up to a point. i think it gave them an opportunity to attack me personnally (including threats of violence). In the end it must have been too embarrassing for them as they have banned me from ever commenting again.

  33. guinganbresil at 14:05 PM on 10 July 2013
    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    DSL, I disagree that TOA energy imbalance is merely hard to measure corroborating evidence - it is critical to the whole theory.  A change in the shape of the OLR spectrum does not by itself cause a change in temperature - the total emission needs to be out of balance with the incoming energy...

  34. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    Another version of Brian: all of those things have happened at the same time in the past, and there was a physical mechanism in place that explains their occurrence.  All of those things are happening now, and no natural mechanism is available to explain them. An extremely fit explanation is the theory of the enhanced greenhouse effect.  Are we responsible for the enhancement?  Weigh the evidence, Terranova.  Or ignore it, but the ignorance is then your own, personal, conscious responsibility.  

  35. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    guinganbresil, I'd say that the system has a form of hysteresis.  There is a systemic lag between input and output, and the mechanisms that cause that lag are themselves integrated in a complex way.  I should perhaps rather have said, "That there is a measurable delay in response highlights the difficulty in using the TOA imbalance trend to say anything more than 'GW continues.'"  Of course, the theory of the greenhouse effect is not dependent on the TOA energy imbalance.  It's physics.  TOA imbalance provides corroborating evidence, but the difficulty in making a meaningful reading of TOA imbalance and quantitatively connecting it with the enhanced GHE (with feedbacks), with natural forcings (and their feedbacks) separated, is difficult (as Trenberth and climate modelers would undoubtedly point out).  

  36. Climate Change Denial now available as Kindle ebook

    c.change,

    Following your suggestion that the book should be available for free for those who canot affords otherwise, I sugest you go to your local library, and suggest them to purchase a copy if they haven;t done yet: that's a great way to propagate knowledge in your community. Accordingly, the libarary in my council purchased this book following the suggestions:

    library.ryde.nsw.gov.au item search

    Thank you, City of Ryde.

  37. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    Terranova:

    Problem is that when those events occurred in the past, they gnerally occurred over a geological time scale.  

  38. guinganbresil at 12:42 PM on 10 July 2013
    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    DSL @ 5

    I concur - the TOA energy imbalance is the root of the matter.  If it is there, AGW.  If not, it is all bunkum.

    It is clear that a change in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause a change in the spectrum as seen from space, but that does not necessarily mean that there is an overall energy imbalance.  Throw in a process with hysteresis and all bets are off.

  39. Rob Honeycutt at 11:09 AM on 10 July 2013
    The Consensus Project self-rating data now available

    Peeve @6...  It's been asked many times of Andrew, who and how many scientists did he email?  His response has been that he won't divulge that information because it's part of a piece of work that he's doing.  

    I've told him numerous times that his issues with Cook13 are addressed within the paper itself.  But thus far my comments have fallen on deaf ears.  It should be a little more difficult for him (and others) to ignore this obvious fact now that John has made this post.

  40. Brian Purdue at 10:56 AM on 10 July 2013
    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    Terranova @ 17

    Yes, they have happened before but always because the global climate was forced to change.

    What is your reason for it changing this time? Please check out the myth section of SkS before replying.

    Science says there is a new forcing agent on the block – human activity and specifically the burning of fossil fuels.

  41. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    John at 15

    Are you saying that none of those have happened before?  That is untrue and weakens your position.   

  42. The Consensus Project self-rating data now available

    Just checking the WUWT site where the seven scientists actually had to say about the way their papers were assessed. The quest poster 'Andrew from Popular Technology' says 'To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper.'

    I am not sure of Andrew's statistical skills but seven is hardly a representative sample of scientists reviewed By Cook. But putting that aside, I read a few of the comments by these seven scientists and i was surprised to read they openly ADMIT their papers support AGW. The deception was the use of the word 'accurate'. They all went on to discuss the other effects that would account for tHe warming, but all stated there was something else was causing the increase in themperature and didn't deny it was humans who were responsible.

    As an aside, when looking for 'Andrew from Popular Technology' post, I noticed many WUWT posts actually imply that the world is warming. But the gist of their posts is that it is 'good'. For instance, less Artic ice has caused the polar bear population to increase. it is obviously getting harder and harder to ignore the obvious.

  43. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    stbloomfield @11, I am not clear which correlation you are referring to, and hence which link between human activity and global warming you are calling into question.  

    Do you call into question the link between anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and the rise in CO2 concentrations?  In that case you need to examine the ten lines of evidence that conjointly make it certain that humans are in fact the cause of the recent rise in CO2 concentration.  The evidentiary support of those lines of evidence for various alternative hypotheses is summarized in the chart below.  Curiously, I have never seen a "skeptical" scientist discuss all ten lines of evidence, or indeed more than one or two, and then not the relevant ones compared to the hypothesis they prefer.  (The one, honourable exception is Ferdinand Engelbeen who has always been quite clear on the overwhelming nature of the evidence that humans are responsible for the CO2 increase, and actively corrects people making these errors on major "skeptical" blogs.)

    Or is it something else you are questioning?

  44. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    stbloomfield:

    There are no known natural cycles which explain the following changes in the Earth's climate system.

    -The disappearing Arctic sea ice

    -The melting Greenland ice sheet

    -Melting alpine glaciers

    -The warming and expanding troposphere

    -The warming global ocean system

    -The cooling and shrinking stratosphere

    -The melting permafrost in Canada, Alaska, and
    Siberia

    -Rising sea levels

    The above listed observed and measured changes are all being caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by mankind's continuing release of greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere.

  45. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    True, stbloomfield, but then again you have no empirical evidence that the food you eat each day provides you with energy.  Sure, theoretically it's possible and highly probable, yet you can't directly observe the process.  Eating and energy availability are only strongly correlated.  So why eat?  It's really expensive.  

    Am I being silly?  Sure, but every day you intuit and act on correlations that are much, much weaker than the connection between human emitted CO2 and the rise in atmospheric CO2.  If you choose to deny the connection, I'm curious as to how you erase human-sourced CO2 from the physical equation.

  46. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    stbloomfield:

    You'll have to forgive my asperity, however saying humans are behind the recent global warming is a bit like saying the ocean is full of water.

    1. Humans have been emitting increasing amounts of carbon dioxide since the start of the Industrial Revolution (if memory serves, we now produce CO2 in sufficient quantity to increase the proportion in the atmosphere by 3 ppm per annum) by burning fossil fuels or changing land use.
    2. No other source of CO2 has been shown to exist that can account for the observed rise while simultaneously sequestrating away all the human-emitted CO2.
    3. As shown in the OP, CO2's atmospheric greenhouse properties are well-validated by physics theory, experiment, and observation.

    Bluntly put, in order for humans to not be responsible for global warming, an enormous body of atmospheric and radiative physics, atmospheric chemistry, and empirical measurements would have to be completely upended.

  47. jeff_from_ky at 06:50 AM on 10 July 2013
    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    stbloomfield

    Did you miss the second figure in the post?

  48. stbloomfield at 05:22 AM on 10 July 2013
    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    I'm missing the link to humans in this article. The rise in the last 150 years is only a correlation and is not necessarily caused by humans. 

  49. The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.

    KK Tung.
    I must admit to an error I made @170. The inter-annual wobbles from HadCRUT4 that I show on the graph linked @170 do not mysteriously feature on Tung&Zhou2013 Fig 5B. The data actually was scaled from Fig 2B from your first SkS post on this subject. I apologise for this error. (The appearance of the HadCRUT4 inter-annual wobbles in Fig 2B still remain unexplained but it is less 'mysterious' occurring on that graph than on Fig 5B.)

     

    So I have double-checked and hope I make no error now, as I introduce another graph showing the data from Tung&Zhou2013 Figs 5A&B. It presents quite a few questions but I will kick off here by asking about the wobbles in the blue trace. This blue trace is the 10-year rolling average of residuals from the MLR obtained by subtracting the QCO2(t) function (introduced in your first SkS post) from the data presented in Fig 5B, and obviously re-based for clarity's sake.

    According to Zhou &Tung 2013 which covers your MLR analysis more fully than T&Zh13 "The residual ... should only consist of climate noise if the MLR is successful..." This conforms to my understanding of it.
    Yet the blue trace showing the residuals from the MLR analysis in Tung&Zhou2013 shows a lot more than "noise." There are distinct wobbles and these are not small wobbles being 43% that of the original HadCRUT4 wobbles (red trace). The reiduals thus contain a very significant part of the HadCRUT4 signal which the MLR analysis has failed to attribute.


    A cynic would point to such wobbles within the residuals as being indicative of curve-fitting.
    For myself, I am more charitable and rather see the problem being that these wobbles have gone unreported in Tung&Zhou2013. Indeed, a very similar trace can also be derived from Fig 1B Zhou&Tung2013 yet that paper says of the data in Fig 1B "The global-mean temperature adjusted this way shows mostly a monotonic trend with some scatter." This blue trace is definitely not "scatter."
    (Note that the graph below features data derived from your Fig 5A&B in Tung&Zhou2013 as there are other feature beyond the blue trace that I see requiring explanation & which I hope we can address in later comments.)


    Could you thus explain why this wobble is present in the residuals and why its presence has remained unreported?

    AMO00000

    Graph link

  50. Climate Change Denial now available as Kindle ebook

    John, you might want to mention that our textbook, "Climate Chance Science: A Modern Synthesis" is also available in a Kindle edition.  Of course, we authors have no control over the price which is set by the publisher.  An amazing amount of work goes into publication of a book.  The authors, publisher, editors, formatters, "typesetters", printers, and distribitors go through many iterations before release.  Then we must sort through all the personal attacks from deniers, etc.  It's not always fun but well worth the effort.  Our textbook could not have been done without the internet with yours truly in New Mexico (USA), you in Queensland (and traveling to the US, around Australia and Europe), Springer in The Netherlands, the printers in India, others in Germany, and distribution throughout the world.  One earns every cent derived from the sale of the books one writes.  

Prev  871  872  873  874  875  876  877  878  879  880  881  882  883  884  885  886  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us