A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
David Wrightsays
I think you guys are finally coming around to a practical use for climate models. The 10 year climate model seems to be a reasonable extension of our current limit of a 10 day weather forecast. Trying to predict and warn of something 100 years down the road is not very useful.
Furthermore, we do not have the right nor the responsibility to legally bind our grandchildren. That’s what we did with the ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare, and look where that has taken us. Our children and grandchildren will have to pay for those mistakes. Simple insurance policies would have done a better job.
A. Opinionsays
Can you really say with a straight face that clouds are not a forcing of the climate system? No wonder your models are so inaccurate
B. Rosssays
Carlin said it best, “Ask those folks in Pompeii frozen in all those positions if they think they are a threat to the earth.” Human influence on enviornmental effect is a discussion mainly of HUGE ego, political bunk and a forum for those w…hom have no purpose but to create discord….. and money. This planet has existed for BILLIONS of years before us and will exist BILLIONS of years after we are long forgotten as a presence. This planet will warm and cool, freeze and burn to a cinder in it’s own CYCLES. To even think that we have contributed the slightest of irreversable effects is just plain delusional.
Girmasays
Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data as a Pendulum
The implication of this line of investigation is that paleoclimate may no longer be solely attributable to CO2 levels. And hence sensitivity based on paleoclimate is no longer a justifiable result.
Arctic Kittysays
UH OH Bongo!!! Yte another stitch of clothing falls from the emperor.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!
“What people have objected to in Svensmark’s work is … the ridiculous overselling of their results, the inappropriate manipulation of data, and the lack of predictability of any of their proposed correlations when new data arrives. ”
– Gavin
Agreed. You list the same objection that some of the more sane people on the skeptical side of the argument have with AGW theory, which is why I was just pointing out that the science is not settled, overwrought hyperbole or not.
Petersays
Wow! Seems like almost everyone could care less about the impact of cloud formation on Albedo.
Q? What mechanism caused the glaciers to recede?
Q? How large a Volcano, or how many smaller ones would it take, to render inquiry into the recent ‘warming’ (I prefer to call it “variation”) Moot?
Just wondering.
An interested carbon-based non-scientist life-form.
KeithWoollardsays
Sorry Gavin, but I’m with Roger (#13) here. Human CO2 effects are just noise. You need to see the big picture.
Girmasays
Dhogaza #27 & Robert #26
I accept the global mean temperature (GMT) data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
What the GMT data tells us is that every 30-years the GMT has a cyclic cooling and warming of 0.5 deg C with a steady warming of 0.18 deg C as shown in the following graph. http://bit.ly/ps8Vw1
The above GMT data also shows that it has an upper boundary line that has never been exceeded for long in the last 130 years.
The above GMT data also shows the long-term global warming rate is only 0.06 deg C per decade.
The above GMT data pattern indicates global cooling in the next two decades, which contradicts IPCC’s 0.2 deg C per decades warming projection as shown in the following graph. http://bit.ly/n1S1Jf
Girmasays
The graph in this article shows the Ice volume for the 30-years period from 1980 to 2010.
Could you please also plot the same graph for the previous 30-years warming period from 1910 to 19040 so that we can compare oranges to oranges?
Titussays
I commented a few months ago on a similar thread. I have an old 1950’s encylopedia which talks about the Russians developing shipping trade along it’s northern coast from about 1920 till the the 1950’s (publication date). It appears that this has only recently got going again.
I remember very limited reports that Artic ice increased dramatically in the mid 1950’s and is now declining again.
These are real world observations and I’m wondering how they fit in. The whole process appears to be much more cyclic in nature.
Vlastasays
What a bunch of uneducated alarmists , the biggest reason that Arctic ice has been declining is the increase of traffic there . Not just tourists on a Russian icebreaker . Include scientists from NCIDC , headed by M Serreze , how many times they have been there to observe the “rotting ice ” for their vacation ?
gruntsays
We need to counter AGW by becoming vegetarian and using the surviving pigs to airlift a giant leftover meat pie in the sky to shade the earth from the sun.
Petter Hedbergsays
The volume graph seams to show that the current melting season is over, and the graph is going up now. Is this an indication that it is not likely that the area graph will hit a new minimum this year?
I check that these wrasslers make not a peep when the Law of the Land can be a direct contradiction of a fundamental Law of Physics.
In particular, our EPA has ruled that 33.7 kWhr of elecgricity is equivalent to a gallon of gasoline, thereby making electric cars look very good indeed. The fact that by decreeing that 33.7 kWhr of heat can be transformed into 33.7 kWhr of electricity they repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The failure of scientists to react to this attests to the existence of a safe ivory tower where real physics can be ignored. This does not auger well for the quality of our scientists. And even worse is the showing of our engineers.
Hanssays
You AGW guys are beginning to look a little desperate these days. The contortions of logic must be painful. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your review of Spencer’s paper? The entire foundation of AGW theory rests on correlation equaling causation. There’s only so much longer you can continue acting like nothing has changed. Like the geocentrists of old, your faith-based approach to science is destined for failure.
Richard Birdsays
“dhogaza”: not a helpful reply. Are you a climate scientist? Or a dogmatist? Is ‘questioning’ the same as’denial’ in your vocabulary? Or do you consider that ‘we know all there is to know ‘ about physics, climate and the biosphere? I seem to recall that phrase was used around 1899. I have no time for your agendas and no wish to hear your views.
Hank Roberts: noted thanks.
A. Opinionsays
I think the resignation was the only thing that was political. Since when do web blogs trump peer review? Climate science is a joke. And Dessler 2011 is more evidence of the farce.
barn E. rubblesays
RE: “The primary question of course is why an editor would resign over a published paper.”
From a Canadian perspective and can think of only 2 reasons a team would their goalie; and neither happen when you’re winning. Just saying . . .
-barn
Dennissays
It sounds like Dessler, is making some changes based on errors pointed out by Spencer. Things that should have been obvious to a competent peer reviewer. Will anyone at GRL be resigning over this review failure? Perhaps a letter of apology should be sent to Watts?
Septic Matthewsays
Back to agnotology.
Reviewing (cataloging, etc.) the omissions and inaccuracies of a body of science is a part of science. Here it is called “agnotology”.
Samiumsays
Ray,
I’m not interested in religion.
As for correlations between GCRF and temperature, I think I’ve offered arguments you don’t take into account.
So, continuer en français, why not, mais pas sur la base d’arguments d’autorité.
L’expertise m’intéresse beaucoup, par contre. Why would you want to get stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming together? But I suppose you’re talking about what is observed. And why exactly is that we can’t have it with GCR agent? Thanks.
Samiumsays
(It’s written down: real climate from scientists, not for scientists, so I dare come an discuss (I’m just a mechanical engineer). Anyway, any scientist go on learning, especially in ‘climatology’ for there are plenty of matters involved.
The monitoring of sea ice in the northern hemisphere is interesting and important. It seems clear that the extent of the ice is at an unusually low level. But it is a bit strange that a parallel discussion of the Antarctic sea ice extent is much rarer. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to always discuss the two in pairs. It is especially interesting since the Antarctic sea ice doesn’t in any way appear to be in retreat, quite the contrary [see e.g. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png%5D. Isn’t the discussion of the situation around just one of the planets two poles a prime example of cherry picking?
Jasonsays
2007 was the “record low” (read since 1979), and this was caused I believe by changes in wind and current patterns?
So how do these compare in 2011? Just a thought, rather than immediately blaming it on catastrophic AGW.
I don’t know if I got censored but I still maintain that the “ongoing sea ice loss”, that the article mentions, is, in fact, only going on in the northern hemisphere whereas it is not happening in the southern one, see eg. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png . Both hemispheres should discussed simultaneously if we are discussing a warming planet. Anything else is cherry picking. Why is the north getting warmer but not the south is the key question? Winds, streams?
orsonne brownsays
Another effect if CLIMATE CHANGE !!
The reports of Arctic Sea Ice demise are greatly exagerated.
Looking at the current Arctic Sea Ice Extent shows that the ice is now GROWING again marking the end of the melt season (two weeks earlier than recent years and at about the same time as the 1979 to 2000 average. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_std
But even if the climate changed enough to have no summertime Arctic Sea Ice AND it was due to humans does anyone really think that the worldwide CO2 emissions is going to decline?t
FPsays
Why does Hoerling appear to be backpedaling from his early work: Hoerling and Kumar (Science, 2003) on the cuase of the recent Texas Drought?
“…even a 10% loss this century would be devastating…”
And also surprising, considering NSIDC’s estimate of 0.1% loss over the past 12 years.
George W Nixonsays
The realists amongst us are prepared to acknowledge that the many physical factors that influence Earth’s climate, stems from the fundamental, dynamic realities that when combined, constitutes what we call physics. Irrespective of which discipline you may be associated with, they all conform to the basic requirements of physics.
With regards to climate and the parameters involved with producing the variability of its realities; the realities principally being the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the phase changes of the H2O molecule due to the addition or subtraction of what is called heat energy. The climate debate then can be divided into two main categories; the consequence of the addition or removal of the phenomenon (assumed to be understood) we call heat energy to or from the various gas molecules in the atmosphere. Also, the various phase changes of the H2O molecule when heat energy is added or subtracted. Both studies are physically complex and not fully understood. Both have far reaching diverse consequences.
With regards to the atmosphere, we are all well aware of the fact that the argument over the effects on climate of the CO2 molecule has been extended to thermal conditions on the Earth becoming similar to on Venus, a planet that may be alien to the solar system especially due to its direction of rotation and length of day relative to its distance from the Sun.
With regards to CO2 molecules and their magnitude of thermal effect, I would make the following comment. I have great faith in the precise settings of our mighty thermostats that have enabled life forms to flourish over such a long period of time, despite large changes to the amount of that molecule in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The complexities of the H2O molecule undergoing its phase changing of states has been subjected to much research and measurement and conclusions drawn from the results of experiments. The main query is with the latent heat of fusion; what happens during the transition, and how is the heat energy hidden to enable a reappearance due to changed consequences at a later date? Presently, with the change from the water state to that of vapour in the form of steam, the heat energy is believed to be converted to non sensible internal motions of the molecules. That is a reasonable assumption under the circumstances. However, if such a conversion is not the correct reason then we are missing some vital information.
To prevent this comment from excessive extension, I will directly quote from the results of my 65 years of work on the fundamental dynamic realities of the mass of that we call matter.
It appears to me that the present concept of heat energy does not assist with arriving at correct conclusions regarding any phenomena where heat is involved, and that includes most question regarding climate. The rapidity of the random motions of molecules indicates the dynamic thermal state of a body. The rate of change of separation distance between particles involves and dictates both the amount of mass loss reappearing in the form of infrared radiation and frequency in conformatity with the law of the conservation of energy. The last statement is dependent on momentum verses Coulomb force. Momentum being due to the balance of Particle force + …. (presently not acknowledged) acting on a given quantity of mass.
Pursuant to the parameters extant and dictating the energy density of a matter particle, then matter to matter contact is not permitted in nature and would result in explosive annihilation of some of the mass back to an energy state; for instance the known results of neutron-neutron collision. What prise would you offer for the physical existence of Black Holes and their dominance in the physical literature?
Science has to evolve by discarding that which is found to be incorrect and by critically examining the new ideas. Climate science is just beginning.
I grow tired and the subject is vast, so will finish this comment with what I believe caused the resent slight warming, also cooling of our Planet. It resulted from the great Planets cohabiting in a confined volume of the solar system space and thereby causing an extension of the Earth’s elliptical orbit. Any changing of the gravitational potential by any cause results in activating what my work describes as the Gravitational Thermal Effect. The rotation of the earth relative to the position of the moon and sun is also involved with the referred to gravitational thermal effect.
The Gravitational Thermal Effect referred to above can be checked for veracity by a simple and very inexpensive experiment requiring a sensitive thermometer to be placed at the bottom of a disused portion of a mine; getting the experiment performed has proven to be a thankless task. The thermometer in question must not be of the cryogenic compensated thermocouple type because both sides of the couple would be similarly affected by the Gravitational Thermal – either warming or cooling – Effect.
The explanation of such an effect stems from a postulation of a quantum friendly base for physics, through to the nature of an electron and so on. The work has been condensed into 168 page paperback book titled Matter and Associated Mysteries Explained.
@21 I refered for given reasons to the Hadley SST data . The trends are not alleged – they are there in the data. There is no empirical correlation between CO2 and temperature. At all time scales CO2 always follows temperature not vice versa The general temperature rise from the little Ice age can reasonably be attributed to longer term solar cycles. These can be identified by power spectrum and wavelet analysis of the temperature time series. The last decades of the 20th century were about at the peak of a millenial cycle cf the MWP and Roman climate optimum. For a good review of this type of analysis at the sub centennial scale see http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
Here he deals with centennial and shorter cycles- but if you read it carefully he implies the possible effect of longer term cycles such as the ones here suggested.
ldavidcookesays
Re:328
Hey tamino,
So which part is wrong the Nibus, ACRIM, ACRIM-II, or EOS values betweem min.-max. As for have a problem obviously why else would I be here taking what could be termed abuse if I did not want to understand.
My intent is not to critique, I gave that up for Lent three years ago; but, to understand. It is clear to me that the disparity even within the same community may point to there is a disjoiner between some of the data sets and the logical explanation. I am trying to comprehend why, what is it not being said, that reveals the truth or enlightens me.
Not that I am unwilling to do the work, I have read several hundred papers over the last 10 years, not excluding referenced several current data bases and both plotted the changes in the records and perfomed statistical evaluations of data sets. Given this the issues of rate of change for 135ppm CO2 appear to demonstrate a failure to directly warm Earths surface. As Dr. Hoffman suggested to me 4 years ago the observations show that there balance of concentration of CO2 appears in whisps or rivers at the edges of wv flow following the air currents at roughly 4km or roughly 500mb. Given this it would appear the energy added is not a static radiant source. We change it for the purposes of simplicity of presentation and modeling.
Not a problem, however, when we look for answers as to how the process actually is working in a dynamic mode it is hard to bridge from the models to the real world which is my focus. My simple desire is the drive to understand how the science or theory is manifest in the real world.
I attempt to be a practical sort, or maybe empirical rather then theoritical, hence the lack of ability to ferret answers on my own.
It does not mean I am dense, it is just that I do not understand small elements that do not fit the logic. To me great teachers are those who know their subject so well they can help bridge the gaps, I am simply asking the experts here for that help
ldavidcookesays
RE:329
Hey CM,
Okay, I will attempt simplicity or directness though that may fail.
The comparison of the two eras, regarding CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the resultant temperatures appear disconnected. I understand the energy budget, the issue is the disconnect in proxy measures of the PETM era not tracking the current polar amplification. The assumption is that there must be other anthropogenic contributions amplifying the effects.
“Interference” partially references negative forcing elements for which the science research is on going. It also includes the tendency for some research to appear to confound rather then support theory. IE: Clouds, they are warm wv, compared to a clear night sky, hence at night reduce the radiant lw emisson; yet by day reduce sw input. To a large degree act inverse to the mechanics of CO2.
As to the solar variations just simple grade school, if the energy of Sol at the top of the atmosphere is demonstrated by the near 40 years of satellite observation to peak at 1366.5w/m^2 with a min. of 1363.5w/m^2 would suggest a 3w/m^2 differential though the peak/valleys appear to average out to a 2.75w/m^2 differential. If we consider a 30% albedo at the surface, full disk (your number not mine), would suggest a differential of 1.9w^m2 at the surface.
(I mentioned that there may be some issues with the albedo as deforestation and desertification have added albedo without limiting energy from reaching the ground. Where as a recent paper, which I cannot recall suggests a reduction in cloud cover, whether due to heat, aerosols or GCR Neucleation does not matter.)
The 1.9w/m^2 is in accurate as it is not in the global equivalent input of 1.85w/m^2 that CO2 is. (Though we might be able to substitute a value for direct radiant CO2, that is not how most people here reference it.) So we then have to distribute the solar maximum 1.9w/m^2 globally. First by halfing it to cover both sides of the disk then reduce it by 1/3rd to convert from a two dimensional disk to a three dimensionsl globe. Finally I need to account for obliquity which changes from 0 to +23 degrees for 1/2 the year to 0 to -23 degrees for 1/2 the year. Suggesting a range from 77-90 degrees with the balance of the heating being towards the 77 degree point suggesting on a two dimensional disk that insolation would be limited to rough a average of 83 degrees, (though you might be able to perform a Euler analysis and get a more accurate value.)
The point being there is already a pre-1950 radiant variation that can be used to define how aatheoritical warming from CO2 can be proxied into the real world. If we can discern a weather pattern effect for solar maximum variations, could we not then push those effects by the CO2 contribution to improve modeling resolution reducing parametric adjustment?
As to your final question I return to my first paragraph, given the change in CO2, the relation between CO2 as a atmospheric heat containment adding to the heat energy there and as a radiant source appear confusing. The question I have is if the work performed by one component is exclusive of the work of the other component would that not account for differences in observeable effect? Which is where the dynamics versus static heat flow become confusing as I have not seen this well discussed.
My thanks for your patients and time, even a doctor has a doctor. I only come here for the best medicine, I just wish I had not made it quite so bitter due to my own ignorance and a failure to know it at the time.
Re Eric Response to 16.
I agree with you re CO2 — temperature response. My comments are based on solar activity. However the IPCC – Al Gore AGW paradigm ,the policies of the EPA and Western European governments are based on the delusional notion that just such a relationship exists so that they can dial up a given temperature response by setting CO2 limits.
The 2020 number simply allows for the inertial time lag of ocean reponse to solar activity which is already built into the system my the decrease in solar activity in the 23/24 solar minimum. This is not silly but a perfectly reasonable suggestion.
@ *21 The cooling is not alleged – it is there in the SST data. Just go to the Hadley digital Global SST file.
There is no empirical causal correlation between CO2
and tempertaure. At all time scales from annual to the Milankovich cycles CO2 follows temperature. The longer period increase is mainly due to a +/- millenial solar cycle with peaks in the last decades of the 20th century,- at the MWP and at the Roman Climate Optimum.
Girmasays
Why are people surprised for the snow to melt during the global warming phase from 1970 to 2000?
“In modern times, such speculative mappings, both early and contemporary, have been used by some to disprove global warming, advocate for the continent of Atlantis, and prove that space aliens mapped the earth in antiquity.”
My comment #2, questioning the one-sided slam at climate skeptics, elicited the usual snarky comments (#s 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9) on RC. Author Kevin Brown’s parting shot at skeptics is ironic, as the speculative mapping he writes about was eagerly applauded by AGW proponents before its errors were uncovered. The fact is that speculative claims are routinely made on both sides of the climate debate…and the Times Atlas map is simply the latest one.
Septic Matthewsays
95, Martin Vermeer: SM #79, mike is pulling your leg, making fun of you unearthing, with unerring ‘skepticism’, the one paper that is seriously flawed…
The reading list I am compiling, including some of the items provided by Hank Roberts, is getting long. The paper linked by mike showed up in another list. It’s high on my reading list because I learned of it here. High on the list only implies that I’ll read it early, not that I’ll end up with great respect.
“The one paper that is seriously flawed”? You have got to be kidding. Every paper in climate science is seriously flawed.
101, Hank Roberts: His presentations have long been popular in, er, uncertain circles.
That’s hard to understand unless all they care about is short term, because his conclusion seems to always be along the lines ‘We ain’t seen nothin’ YET but for sure it is a’comin’ …’
Since reading Padilla et al, I have collecting as much as I can relevant to transient climate sensitivity. So what you have written is a recommendation.
He is one of the Speakers at the Santa Fe Institute referred to above where Christopher Monckton is also speaking. Compared to their stated purpose, it seems to have a fairly skeptical lineup. But I am not opposed to skepticism.
Jack Maloneysays
Ray Ladbury, I’d be glad to answer, but the moderator is afraid to post anything that challenges RealClimate orthodoxy.
I said nothing about “agenda.” What I attempted to post hours ago (it would have been comment #13) was this:
“In modern times, such speculative mappings, both early and contemporary, have been used by some to disprove global warming, advocate for the continent of Atlantis, and prove that space aliens mapped the earth in antiquity.”
My comment #2, questioning the one-sided slam at climate skeptics, elicited the usual snarky comments (#s 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9) on RC. Author Kevin Brown’s parting shot at skeptics is ironic, as the speculative mapping he writes about was eagerly applauded by AGW proponents before its errors were uncovered. The fact is that speculative claims are routinely made on both sides of the climate debate…and the Times Atlas map is simply the latest one.
isotopioussays
No problem Gavin, just making sure the irony is not lost on you, that the CO2 record itself does not rule out the possiblity that the ocean has never stopped warming since 20000 years ago, and that you are denying warming.
The vast anti AGW industry (commercial, academic and political)and the economically suicidal CO2 reduction policies of many western governments have been built on the delusional notion that our knowledge of the climate sensitivity to CO2 is currently so precise that we can dial up a desired temperature at the earths surface by controlling CO2 emissions at some suitable level. Much of the discussion on this thread suggests that the establishment climate scientists ( eg IPCC authors and editors )might be well advised to gently suggest to the political powers that be that since there is some question as to what the best metric is for even defining global warming our knowledge of the system is perhaps insufficient to justify the drastic actions contemplated .
Back at *80 I said “What is the best metric for measuring global warming or cooling.? I submit that the Hadley global SST fits the bill as well as anything.The Oceans occupy 70% of the surface and SST’s while not perfect avoid the problems raised by the UHI effect and more importantly they avoid the problem caused by the fact that the land temperature data does not measure the enthalpy of the system which is the really significant number.Since the sea is 100% saturated with H20 the changing temperature is a good relative measure of the change in enthalpy.”
After all the posts since – all that is obvious is that we know so little about the factors controlling OHC
that the best proxy for it is probably MSL after guesstimating the other MSL change contributors and subtracting to get the thermal expansion.
The deep ocean does provide a convenient hole in which to bury climate model errors without much fear of contradiction – a bit like dark matter!
The SSTs- because of the thermal inertia of the oceans also smooth out short term noise – clearly the best metric for climate change discussion.
Jacob Macksays
Roger is dead on. Heat flow is very important a measure. The issue I have with temperature data is we need far more areas measured to determine actual temperature changes. Heat flow must be looked at,as heat moves, one object/substance/body is cooled while another is warmed.As delta t changes delta q does and vice versa. As Roger and Gavin both agree temperature and heat are different measurable quantities. Temperature is a statistical property, an averaging of molecular motions. Heat and changes in heat delta/q are changes in energy transfer due to temperature differences.Units of heat are the way to go in such measurements.There has not been a way as of yet to get a large enough sample for even North America, let alone, South America to measure micro-climates and look at other regional averages of temps to be reliable enough to state with confidence that a given range of temp increases has occurred or if they have, are they really driven by C02, and other greenhouse gases. C02 is certainly a greenhouse gas, and it produces a greenhouse effect, but a global warming has yet to be truly verfied beyond doubt. s = q/t (2nd law) shows why we cannot just measure all temperatures and compute a confidence interval of temperatures largely “driven” or”caused” by greenhouse gas emissions. There are probably some weather changes due to such emissions but nothing seems to be extreme in comparison to the past 100-150 years of weather.
There is no meaning in the wedges unless they are clearly stated and realistically evaluated. The discussions at climateprogress never accomplished this; instead they were asserted as dogma. Neither have we been able to get very far here at realclimate.org; efforts to do so have repeatedly met with disdain or outright rejection after excessive moderation.
And of course, we found no welcome to suggestions of additional wedges, such as standing forests using new thinking about water distribution and stimulation of plankton.
At least the discussion here today shows how foolishly the CO2 versus actual carbon is handled. The EPA actually talks about ‘carbon’ but quotes data in ‘tons of CO2’, thus misleading the audience.
PaulCsays
A bit biased? You have know idea how biased you (as a group) come across.
isotopioussays
I do understand why some may not like Muller’s approach. The Wall St. Ed. is a dagger to the heart for the anthropogenic crowd, because it states the insultingly obvious ‘there is global warming’, then hints denial ‘it might not be us’. Such confident messaging exercises are usually only crafted by the AGW lobby, let alone skeptics such as Muller. What does he have up his sleeve? Maybe earth is about to enter into an ice age initiated by an intergalactic mushroom cloud that we all haven’t seen yet?
Someone who is familiar with the concept of ‘being debunked’, ‘a beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact’, etc… should surely know better?
Then again, don’t you AGW guys believe that because the proxy records contain dramatic climate changes, that the climate system is sensitive to external forcing, even though there are no credible sources of forcing which can explain those dramtic changes? => lol
I think the ‘science of climate change’ is dogmatic garbage, and the only thing that separates you from Muller is the fact that he knows it.
SirChargesays
“Climate change is already having consequences–serious consequences–and it has just begun!”
Yes, because, already the sea levels have increased by 20cm in the last 100 years. At this rate Los Angeles city hall will be under water 35,500 years from now. Well, technically it wouldn’t be completely underwater, just water up to its base. But we need to act immediately or at this rate in the year 37,512 the mayor of Los Angeles will have wet loafers every time he exits city hall.
tomsays
Ray :
With regard to temp reconstruction,” I think we know #$%^- all about temps > 100 years.” Ring a bell?
With regard to models, I think the Douglass study was not so favorable.
I can’t speak for any ‘denialist community”, but I sure have concerns about the reliability of the current surface records. Anybody who doesn’t, given the know problems with stations, I would say their objectivity needs to be examined. Does the Best project resolve these issues? We don’t know-it has yet to be peer reviewed.
Gerry Quinnsays
If there were no random variation at all, combined with a warming trend of 0.0001 degrees per century, a new extreme temperature record would be set every second. A terrifying prospect!
I hope this analysis will be used to inform the public about the nature of statistics, rather than as confirmatory evidence for dubious theories of ‘weather weirding’ and the like.
I think you guys are finally coming around to a practical use for climate models. The 10 year climate model seems to be a reasonable extension of our current limit of a 10 day weather forecast. Trying to predict and warn of something 100 years down the road is not very useful.
Furthermore, we do not have the right nor the responsibility to legally bind our grandchildren. That’s what we did with the ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare, and look where that has taken us. Our children and grandchildren will have to pay for those mistakes. Simple insurance policies would have done a better job.
Can you really say with a straight face that clouds are not a forcing of the climate system? No wonder your models are so inaccurate
Carlin said it best, “Ask those folks in Pompeii frozen in all those positions if they think they are a threat to the earth.” Human influence on enviornmental effect is a discussion mainly of HUGE ego, political bunk and a forum for those w…hom have no purpose but to create discord….. and money. This planet has existed for BILLIONS of years before us and will exist BILLIONS of years after we are long forgotten as a presence. This planet will warm and cool, freeze and burn to a cinder in it’s own CYCLES. To even think that we have contributed the slightest of irreversable effects is just plain delusional.
Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data as a Pendulum
http://bit.ly/o7w5fq
The implication of this line of investigation is that paleoclimate may no longer be solely attributable to CO2 levels. And hence sensitivity based on paleoclimate is no longer a justifiable result.
UH OH Bongo!!! Yte another stitch of clothing falls from the emperor.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Here is something for you to disown:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/25/hurricane-irene-can-be-tied-to-global-warming-says-bill-mckibben.html
“What people have objected to in Svensmark’s work is … the ridiculous overselling of their results, the inappropriate manipulation of data, and the lack of predictability of any of their proposed correlations when new data arrives. ”
– Gavin
Agreed. You list the same objection that some of the more sane people on the skeptical side of the argument have with AGW theory, which is why I was just pointing out that the science is not settled, overwrought hyperbole or not.
Wow! Seems like almost everyone could care less about the impact of cloud formation on Albedo.
Q? What mechanism caused the glaciers to recede?
Q? How large a Volcano, or how many smaller ones would it take, to render inquiry into the recent ‘warming’ (I prefer to call it “variation”) Moot?
Just wondering.
An interested carbon-based non-scientist life-form.
Sorry Gavin, but I’m with Roger (#13) here. Human CO2 effects are just noise. You need to see the big picture.
Dhogaza #27 & Robert #26
I accept the global mean temperature (GMT) data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
What the GMT data tells us is that every 30-years the GMT has a cyclic cooling and warming of 0.5 deg C with a steady warming of 0.18 deg C as shown in the following graph.
http://bit.ly/ps8Vw1
The above GMT data also shows that it has an upper boundary line that has never been exceeded for long in the last 130 years.
The above GMT data also shows the long-term global warming rate is only 0.06 deg C per decade.
The above GMT data pattern indicates global cooling in the next two decades, which contradicts IPCC’s 0.2 deg C per decades warming projection as shown in the following graph.
http://bit.ly/n1S1Jf
The graph in this article shows the Ice volume for the 30-years period from 1980 to 2010.
Could you please also plot the same graph for the previous 30-years warming period from 1910 to 19040 so that we can compare oranges to oranges?
I commented a few months ago on a similar thread. I have an old 1950’s encylopedia which talks about the Russians developing shipping trade along it’s northern coast from about 1920 till the the 1950’s (publication date). It appears that this has only recently got going again.
I remember very limited reports that Artic ice increased dramatically in the mid 1950’s and is now declining again.
These are real world observations and I’m wondering how they fit in. The whole process appears to be much more cyclic in nature.
What a bunch of uneducated alarmists , the biggest reason that Arctic ice has been declining is the increase of traffic there . Not just tourists on a Russian icebreaker . Include scientists from NCIDC , headed by M Serreze , how many times they have been there to observe the “rotting ice ” for their vacation ?
We need to counter AGW by becoming vegetarian and using the surviving pigs to airlift a giant leftover meat pie in the sky to shade the earth from the sun.
The volume graph seams to show that the current melting season is over, and the graph is going up now. Is this an indication that it is not likely that the area graph will hit a new minimum this year?
Russell (#19)
Thanks for the Sturgeon-Minsky wisdom.
So how do we measure strength of the wrasslers?
I check that these wrasslers make not a peep when the Law of the Land can be a direct contradiction of a fundamental Law of Physics.
In particular, our EPA has ruled that 33.7 kWhr of elecgricity is equivalent to a gallon of gasoline, thereby making electric cars look very good indeed. The fact that by decreeing that 33.7 kWhr of heat can be transformed into 33.7 kWhr of electricity they repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The failure of scientists to react to this attests to the existence of a safe ivory tower where real physics can be ignored. This does not auger well for the quality of our scientists. And even worse is the showing of our engineers.
You AGW guys are beginning to look a little desperate these days. The contortions of logic must be painful. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your review of Spencer’s paper? The entire foundation of AGW theory rests on correlation equaling causation. There’s only so much longer you can continue acting like nothing has changed. Like the geocentrists of old, your faith-based approach to science is destined for failure.
“dhogaza”: not a helpful reply. Are you a climate scientist? Or a dogmatist? Is ‘questioning’ the same as’denial’ in your vocabulary? Or do you consider that ‘we know all there is to know ‘ about physics, climate and the biosphere? I seem to recall that phrase was used around 1899. I have no time for your agendas and no wish to hear your views.
Hank Roberts: noted thanks.
I think the resignation was the only thing that was political. Since when do web blogs trump peer review? Climate science is a joke. And Dessler 2011 is more evidence of the farce.
RE: “The primary question of course is why an editor would resign over a published paper.”
From a Canadian perspective and can think of only 2 reasons a team would their goalie; and neither happen when you’re winning. Just saying . . .
-barn
It sounds like Dessler, is making some changes based on errors pointed out by Spencer. Things that should have been obvious to a competent peer reviewer. Will anyone at GRL be resigning over this review failure? Perhaps a letter of apology should be sent to Watts?
Back to agnotology.
Reviewing (cataloging, etc.) the omissions and inaccuracies of a body of science is a part of science. Here it is called “agnotology”.
Ray,
I’m not interested in religion.
As for correlations between GCRF and temperature, I think I’ve offered arguments you don’t take into account.
So, continuer en français, why not, mais pas sur la base d’arguments d’autorité.
L’expertise m’intéresse beaucoup, par contre. Why would you want to get stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming together? But I suppose you’re talking about what is observed. And why exactly is that we can’t have it with GCR agent? Thanks.
(It’s written down: real climate from scientists, not for scientists, so I dare come an discuss (I’m just a mechanical engineer). Anyway, any scientist go on learning, especially in ‘climatology’ for there are plenty of matters involved.
The monitoring of sea ice in the northern hemisphere is interesting and important. It seems clear that the extent of the ice is at an unusually low level. But it is a bit strange that a parallel discussion of the Antarctic sea ice extent is much rarer. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to always discuss the two in pairs. It is especially interesting since the Antarctic sea ice doesn’t in any way appear to be in retreat, quite the contrary [see e.g. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png%5D. Isn’t the discussion of the situation around just one of the planets two poles a prime example of cherry picking?
2007 was the “record low” (read since 1979), and this was caused I believe by changes in wind and current patterns?
So how do these compare in 2011? Just a thought, rather than immediately blaming it on catastrophic AGW.
I don’t know if I got censored but I still maintain that the “ongoing sea ice loss”, that the article mentions, is, in fact, only going on in the northern hemisphere whereas it is not happening in the southern one, see eg. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png . Both hemispheres should discussed simultaneously if we are discussing a warming planet. Anything else is cherry picking. Why is the north getting warmer but not the south is the key question? Winds, streams?
Another effect if CLIMATE CHANGE !!
The reports of Arctic Sea Ice demise are greatly exagerated.
Looking at the current Arctic Sea Ice Extent shows that the ice is now GROWING again marking the end of the melt season (two weeks earlier than recent years and at about the same time as the 1979 to 2000 average. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_std
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
But even if the climate changed enough to have no summertime Arctic Sea Ice AND it was due to humans does anyone really think that the worldwide CO2 emissions is going to decline?t
Why does Hoerling appear to be backpedaling from his early work: Hoerling and Kumar (Science, 2003) on the cuase of the recent Texas Drought?
Or is he being misrepresented here: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/09/19/global-warming-hysteria-no-texas-drought-not-climate-change/
“…even a 10% loss this century would be devastating…”
And also surprising, considering NSIDC’s estimate of 0.1% loss over the past 12 years.
The realists amongst us are prepared to acknowledge that the many physical factors that influence Earth’s climate, stems from the fundamental, dynamic realities that when combined, constitutes what we call physics. Irrespective of which discipline you may be associated with, they all conform to the basic requirements of physics.
With regards to climate and the parameters involved with producing the variability of its realities; the realities principally being the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the phase changes of the H2O molecule due to the addition or subtraction of what is called heat energy. The climate debate then can be divided into two main categories; the consequence of the addition or removal of the phenomenon (assumed to be understood) we call heat energy to or from the various gas molecules in the atmosphere. Also, the various phase changes of the H2O molecule when heat energy is added or subtracted. Both studies are physically complex and not fully understood. Both have far reaching diverse consequences.
With regards to the atmosphere, we are all well aware of the fact that the argument over the effects on climate of the CO2 molecule has been extended to thermal conditions on the Earth becoming similar to on Venus, a planet that may be alien to the solar system especially due to its direction of rotation and length of day relative to its distance from the Sun.
With regards to CO2 molecules and their magnitude of thermal effect, I would make the following comment. I have great faith in the precise settings of our mighty thermostats that have enabled life forms to flourish over such a long period of time, despite large changes to the amount of that molecule in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The complexities of the H2O molecule undergoing its phase changing of states has been subjected to much research and measurement and conclusions drawn from the results of experiments. The main query is with the latent heat of fusion; what happens during the transition, and how is the heat energy hidden to enable a reappearance due to changed consequences at a later date? Presently, with the change from the water state to that of vapour in the form of steam, the heat energy is believed to be converted to non sensible internal motions of the molecules. That is a reasonable assumption under the circumstances. However, if such a conversion is not the correct reason then we are missing some vital information.
To prevent this comment from excessive extension, I will directly quote from the results of my 65 years of work on the fundamental dynamic realities of the mass of that we call matter.
It appears to me that the present concept of heat energy does not assist with arriving at correct conclusions regarding any phenomena where heat is involved, and that includes most question regarding climate. The rapidity of the random motions of molecules indicates the dynamic thermal state of a body. The rate of change of separation distance between particles involves and dictates both the amount of mass loss reappearing in the form of infrared radiation and frequency in conformatity with the law of the conservation of energy. The last statement is dependent on momentum verses Coulomb force. Momentum being due to the balance of Particle force + …. (presently not acknowledged) acting on a given quantity of mass.
Pursuant to the parameters extant and dictating the energy density of a matter particle, then matter to matter contact is not permitted in nature and would result in explosive annihilation of some of the mass back to an energy state; for instance the known results of neutron-neutron collision. What prise would you offer for the physical existence of Black Holes and their dominance in the physical literature?
Science has to evolve by discarding that which is found to be incorrect and by critically examining the new ideas. Climate science is just beginning.
I grow tired and the subject is vast, so will finish this comment with what I believe caused the resent slight warming, also cooling of our Planet. It resulted from the great Planets cohabiting in a confined volume of the solar system space and thereby causing an extension of the Earth’s elliptical orbit. Any changing of the gravitational potential by any cause results in activating what my work describes as the Gravitational Thermal Effect. The rotation of the earth relative to the position of the moon and sun is also involved with the referred to gravitational thermal effect.
The Gravitational Thermal Effect referred to above can be checked for veracity by a simple and very inexpensive experiment requiring a sensitive thermometer to be placed at the bottom of a disused portion of a mine; getting the experiment performed has proven to be a thankless task. The thermometer in question must not be of the cryogenic compensated thermocouple type because both sides of the couple would be similarly affected by the Gravitational Thermal – either warming or cooling – Effect.
The explanation of such an effect stems from a postulation of a quantum friendly base for physics, through to the nature of an electron and so on. The work has been condensed into 168 page paperback book titled Matter and Associated Mysteries Explained.
@21 I refered for given reasons to the Hadley SST data . The trends are not alleged – they are there in the data. There is no empirical correlation between CO2 and temperature. At all time scales CO2 always follows temperature not vice versa The general temperature rise from the little Ice age can reasonably be attributed to longer term solar cycles. These can be identified by power spectrum and wavelet analysis of the temperature time series. The last decades of the 20th century were about at the peak of a millenial cycle cf the MWP and Roman climate optimum. For a good review of this type of analysis at the sub centennial scale see http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
Here he deals with centennial and shorter cycles- but if you read it carefully he implies the possible effect of longer term cycles such as the ones here suggested.
Re:328
Hey tamino,
So which part is wrong the Nibus, ACRIM, ACRIM-II, or EOS values betweem min.-max. As for have a problem obviously why else would I be here taking what could be termed abuse if I did not want to understand.
My intent is not to critique, I gave that up for Lent three years ago; but, to understand. It is clear to me that the disparity even within the same community may point to there is a disjoiner between some of the data sets and the logical explanation. I am trying to comprehend why, what is it not being said, that reveals the truth or enlightens me.
Not that I am unwilling to do the work, I have read several hundred papers over the last 10 years, not excluding referenced several current data bases and both plotted the changes in the records and perfomed statistical evaluations of data sets. Given this the issues of rate of change for 135ppm CO2 appear to demonstrate a failure to directly warm Earths surface. As Dr. Hoffman suggested to me 4 years ago the observations show that there balance of concentration of CO2 appears in whisps or rivers at the edges of wv flow following the air currents at roughly 4km or roughly 500mb. Given this it would appear the energy added is not a static radiant source. We change it for the purposes of simplicity of presentation and modeling.
Not a problem, however, when we look for answers as to how the process actually is working in a dynamic mode it is hard to bridge from the models to the real world which is my focus. My simple desire is the drive to understand how the science or theory is manifest in the real world.
I attempt to be a practical sort, or maybe empirical rather then theoritical, hence the lack of ability to ferret answers on my own.
It does not mean I am dense, it is just that I do not understand small elements that do not fit the logic. To me great teachers are those who know their subject so well they can help bridge the gaps, I am simply asking the experts here for that help
RE:329
Hey CM,
Okay, I will attempt simplicity or directness though that may fail.
The comparison of the two eras, regarding CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the resultant temperatures appear disconnected. I understand the energy budget, the issue is the disconnect in proxy measures of the PETM era not tracking the current polar amplification. The assumption is that there must be other anthropogenic contributions amplifying the effects.
“Interference” partially references negative forcing elements for which the science research is on going. It also includes the tendency for some research to appear to confound rather then support theory. IE: Clouds, they are warm wv, compared to a clear night sky, hence at night reduce the radiant lw emisson; yet by day reduce sw input. To a large degree act inverse to the mechanics of CO2.
As to the solar variations just simple grade school, if the energy of Sol at the top of the atmosphere is demonstrated by the near 40 years of satellite observation to peak at 1366.5w/m^2 with a min. of 1363.5w/m^2 would suggest a 3w/m^2 differential though the peak/valleys appear to average out to a 2.75w/m^2 differential. If we consider a 30% albedo at the surface, full disk (your number not mine), would suggest a differential of 1.9w^m2 at the surface.
(I mentioned that there may be some issues with the albedo as deforestation and desertification have added albedo without limiting energy from reaching the ground. Where as a recent paper, which I cannot recall suggests a reduction in cloud cover, whether due to heat, aerosols or GCR Neucleation does not matter.)
The 1.9w/m^2 is in accurate as it is not in the global equivalent input of 1.85w/m^2 that CO2 is. (Though we might be able to substitute a value for direct radiant CO2, that is not how most people here reference it.) So we then have to distribute the solar maximum 1.9w/m^2 globally. First by halfing it to cover both sides of the disk then reduce it by 1/3rd to convert from a two dimensional disk to a three dimensionsl globe. Finally I need to account for obliquity which changes from 0 to +23 degrees for 1/2 the year to 0 to -23 degrees for 1/2 the year. Suggesting a range from 77-90 degrees with the balance of the heating being towards the 77 degree point suggesting on a two dimensional disk that insolation would be limited to rough a average of 83 degrees, (though you might be able to perform a Euler analysis and get a more accurate value.)
The point being there is already a pre-1950 radiant variation that can be used to define how aatheoritical warming from CO2 can be proxied into the real world. If we can discern a weather pattern effect for solar maximum variations, could we not then push those effects by the CO2 contribution to improve modeling resolution reducing parametric adjustment?
As to your final question I return to my first paragraph, given the change in CO2, the relation between CO2 as a atmospheric heat containment adding to the heat energy there and as a radiant source appear confusing. The question I have is if the work performed by one component is exclusive of the work of the other component would that not account for differences in observeable effect? Which is where the dynamics versus static heat flow become confusing as I have not seen this well discussed.
My thanks for your patients and time, even a doctor has a doctor. I only come here for the best medicine, I just wish I had not made it quite so bitter due to my own ignorance and a failure to know it at the time.
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Re Eric Response to 16.
I agree with you re CO2 — temperature response. My comments are based on solar activity. However the IPCC – Al Gore AGW paradigm ,the policies of the EPA and Western European governments are based on the delusional notion that just such a relationship exists so that they can dial up a given temperature response by setting CO2 limits.
The 2020 number simply allows for the inertial time lag of ocean reponse to solar activity which is already built into the system my the decrease in solar activity in the 23/24 solar minimum. This is not silly but a perfectly reasonable suggestion.
@ *21 The cooling is not alleged – it is there in the SST data. Just go to the Hadley digital Global SST file.
There is no empirical causal correlation between CO2
and tempertaure. At all time scales from annual to the Milankovich cycles CO2 follows temperature. The longer period increase is mainly due to a +/- millenial solar cycle with peaks in the last decades of the 20th century,- at the MWP and at the Roman Climate Optimum.
Why are people surprised for the snow to melt during the global warming phase from 1970 to 2000?
http://bit.ly/ocY95R
“In modern times, such speculative mappings, both early and contemporary, have been used by some to disprove global warming, advocate for the continent of Atlantis, and prove that space aliens mapped the earth in antiquity.”
My comment #2, questioning the one-sided slam at climate skeptics, elicited the usual snarky comments (#s 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9) on RC. Author Kevin Brown’s parting shot at skeptics is ironic, as the speculative mapping he writes about was eagerly applauded by AGW proponents before its errors were uncovered. The fact is that speculative claims are routinely made on both sides of the climate debate…and the Times Atlas map is simply the latest one.
95, Martin Vermeer: SM #79, mike is pulling your leg, making fun of you unearthing, with unerring ‘skepticism’, the one paper that is seriously flawed…
The reading list I am compiling, including some of the items provided by Hank Roberts, is getting long. The paper linked by mike showed up in another list. It’s high on my reading list because I learned of it here. High on the list only implies that I’ll read it early, not that I’ll end up with great respect.
“The one paper that is seriously flawed”? You have got to be kidding. Every paper in climate science is seriously flawed.
101, Hank Roberts: His presentations have long been popular in, er, uncertain circles.
That’s hard to understand unless all they care about is short term, because his conclusion seems to always be along the lines ‘We ain’t seen nothin’ YET but for sure it is a’comin’ …’
Since reading Padilla et al, I have collecting as much as I can relevant to transient climate sensitivity. So what you have written is a recommendation.
He is one of the Speakers at the Santa Fe Institute referred to above where Christopher Monckton is also speaking. Compared to their stated purpose, it seems to have a fairly skeptical lineup. But I am not opposed to skepticism.
Ray Ladbury, I’d be glad to answer, but the moderator is afraid to post anything that challenges RealClimate orthodoxy.
I said nothing about “agenda.” What I attempted to post hours ago (it would have been comment #13) was this:
“In modern times, such speculative mappings, both early and contemporary, have been used by some to disprove global warming, advocate for the continent of Atlantis, and prove that space aliens mapped the earth in antiquity.”
My comment #2, questioning the one-sided slam at climate skeptics, elicited the usual snarky comments (#s 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9) on RC. Author Kevin Brown’s parting shot at skeptics is ironic, as the speculative mapping he writes about was eagerly applauded by AGW proponents before its errors were uncovered. The fact is that speculative claims are routinely made on both sides of the climate debate…and the Times Atlas map is simply the latest one.
No problem Gavin, just making sure the irony is not lost on you, that the CO2 record itself does not rule out the possiblity that the ocean has never stopped warming since 20000 years ago, and that you are denying warming.
Cheers.
The vast anti AGW industry (commercial, academic and political)and the economically suicidal CO2 reduction policies of many western governments have been built on the delusional notion that our knowledge of the climate sensitivity to CO2 is currently so precise that we can dial up a desired temperature at the earths surface by controlling CO2 emissions at some suitable level. Much of the discussion on this thread suggests that the establishment climate scientists ( eg IPCC authors and editors )might be well advised to gently suggest to the political powers that be that since there is some question as to what the best metric is for even defining global warming our knowledge of the system is perhaps insufficient to justify the drastic actions contemplated .
Back at *80 I said “What is the best metric for measuring global warming or cooling.? I submit that the Hadley global SST fits the bill as well as anything.The Oceans occupy 70% of the surface and SST’s while not perfect avoid the problems raised by the UHI effect and more importantly they avoid the problem caused by the fact that the land temperature data does not measure the enthalpy of the system which is the really significant number.Since the sea is 100% saturated with H20 the changing temperature is a good relative measure of the change in enthalpy.”
After all the posts since – all that is obvious is that we know so little about the factors controlling OHC
that the best proxy for it is probably MSL after guesstimating the other MSL change contributors and subtracting to get the thermal expansion.
The deep ocean does provide a convenient hole in which to bury climate model errors without much fear of contradiction – a bit like dark matter!
The SSTs- because of the thermal inertia of the oceans also smooth out short term noise – clearly the best metric for climate change discussion.
Roger is dead on. Heat flow is very important a measure. The issue I have with temperature data is we need far more areas measured to determine actual temperature changes. Heat flow must be looked at,as heat moves, one object/substance/body is cooled while another is warmed.As delta t changes delta q does and vice versa. As Roger and Gavin both agree temperature and heat are different measurable quantities. Temperature is a statistical property, an averaging of molecular motions. Heat and changes in heat delta/q are changes in energy transfer due to temperature differences.Units of heat are the way to go in such measurements.There has not been a way as of yet to get a large enough sample for even North America, let alone, South America to measure micro-climates and look at other regional averages of temps to be reliable enough to state with confidence that a given range of temp increases has occurred or if they have, are they really driven by C02, and other greenhouse gases. C02 is certainly a greenhouse gas, and it produces a greenhouse effect, but a global warming has yet to be truly verfied beyond doubt. s = q/t (2nd law) shows why we cannot just measure all temperatures and compute a confidence interval of temperatures largely “driven” or”caused” by greenhouse gas emissions. There are probably some weather changes due to such emissions but nothing seems to be extreme in comparison to the past 100-150 years of weather.
There is no meaning in the wedges unless they are clearly stated and realistically evaluated. The discussions at climateprogress never accomplished this; instead they were asserted as dogma. Neither have we been able to get very far here at realclimate.org; efforts to do so have repeatedly met with disdain or outright rejection after excessive moderation.
And of course, we found no welcome to suggestions of additional wedges, such as standing forests using new thinking about water distribution and stimulation of plankton.
At least the discussion here today shows how foolishly the CO2 versus actual carbon is handled. The EPA actually talks about ‘carbon’ but quotes data in ‘tons of CO2’, thus misleading the audience.
A bit biased? You have know idea how biased you (as a group) come across.
I do understand why some may not like Muller’s approach. The Wall St. Ed. is a dagger to the heart for the anthropogenic crowd, because it states the insultingly obvious ‘there is global warming’, then hints denial ‘it might not be us’. Such confident messaging exercises are usually only crafted by the AGW lobby, let alone skeptics such as Muller. What does he have up his sleeve? Maybe earth is about to enter into an ice age initiated by an intergalactic mushroom cloud that we all haven’t seen yet?
Someone who is familiar with the concept of ‘being debunked’, ‘a beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact’, etc… should surely know better?
Then again, don’t you AGW guys believe that because the proxy records contain dramatic climate changes, that the climate system is sensitive to external forcing, even though there are no credible sources of forcing which can explain those dramtic changes? => lol
I think the ‘science of climate change’ is dogmatic garbage, and the only thing that separates you from Muller is the fact that he knows it.
“Climate change is already having consequences–serious consequences–and it has just begun!”
Yes, because, already the sea levels have increased by 20cm in the last 100 years. At this rate Los Angeles city hall will be under water 35,500 years from now. Well, technically it wouldn’t be completely underwater, just water up to its base. But we need to act immediately or at this rate in the year 37,512 the mayor of Los Angeles will have wet loafers every time he exits city hall.
Ray :
With regard to temp reconstruction,” I think we know #$%^- all about temps > 100 years.” Ring a bell?
With regard to models, I think the Douglass study was not so favorable.
I can’t speak for any ‘denialist community”, but I sure have concerns about the reliability of the current surface records. Anybody who doesn’t, given the know problems with stations, I would say their objectivity needs to be examined. Does the Best project resolve these issues? We don’t know-it has yet to be peer reviewed.
If there were no random variation at all, combined with a warming trend of 0.0001 degrees per century, a new extreme temperature record would be set every second. A terrifying prospect!
I hope this analysis will be used to inform the public about the nature of statistics, rather than as confirmatory evidence for dubious theories of ‘weather weirding’ and the like.