A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
bobsays
I do believe the real climate folks have there 7th grade headline finaly!!
Scientists warn winter ‘superstorm’ could strike CA…
The ARkStorm Scenario… ROFLMAO
Isotopioussays
Good news people. The long-awaited Isotopious’ “Guide to Global Temperature for the next 115 years” is complete.
Here are my predictions (I think you will be pleasantly surprised):
The Decadal Global (Land & Ocean) Temperature Anomaly
(relative to 1901 -2000 base period) centered on:
2015: +0.9 Degrees Fahrenheit
2023: +0.5 Degrees Fahrenheit
2028: 0 Degrees Fahrenheit
2065: -1.1 Degrees Fahrenheit
2095: 0 Degrees Fahrenheit
2125: +1.5 Degrees Fahrenheit
These predictions are based on a mathematical model of the PDO, and do not contain climate forcings.
bobsays
Real Climate in the last 2 days have had a lot of headline news \ Ca super storms,ark study,Hanson china lover, Trenberth.somerville,\. Why are these subjects not open for debate on overheard in the news room. Could it be why the public does not trust sites like real climate who only discuss there side of the subject ??
bobsays
Jim what part of your forum is not for stupidy and lies ?? Only those parts that agree with you ?? I fully understand from your “civil” response. that people that dare question your position and or belief are automaticaly categorize as stupid and liars. Shure does make a lot of us maybe even a majority in that catergory.
[Response: Nothing automatic about it pardner. We just read what you write and go from there.–Jim]
Magnussays
[Response: Yeah, if you keep posting enough, you can probably sneak one through for a few minutes. Nice try. RC is not a forum for denialist stupidity and lies… that’s what Watts’ blog is for.–Jim]
You realize that you are censoring the opposing views? How could anyone who claims to be a scientist actually do this? Are you afraid of “stupidity”? It might not be stupidity, but a simple misunderstanding from someone working in a different field than “climate science”. I am not a denier, but I get uneasy with all the censorship. Makes the whole thing seems like a movement (house of cards?) rather than a theory backed by robust scientific body of evidence.
Stephensays
Wow, Bob (Sphaerica). If only everyone in the world was as massively intelligent as you, eh? Being as you are in the top 1% of the smartest people in the US, and the top 0.0001% of the smartest people in the world. Part of the tiny, elite group that is clever enough to distinguish between science and magic.
I’ve tried to resist posting on this thread, really, I have. But your comments are the last straw. I echo Julie/FurryCatHerder’s comments at #86 above about the arrogant stench of the original “article” (which could be boiled down to “Why aren’t stupid journalists as smart as us? Idiots.”) and many of the comments.
You think you have a communication issue and that people aren’t listening? Take a look at yourselves, seriously. Nobody likes to be lectured or hectored by people who come across as arrogant, elitist ivory-tower dwellers. And frankly, the lack of diversity of opinion on this blog only serves to reinforce narrow-minded thinking.
Magnussays
And frankly, the lack of diversity of opinion on this blog only serves to reinforce narrow-minded thinking.
Not a “skeptic”, but as someone concerned about the state of methodology in climate science: oh my god, QFT!
Magnussays
“The problem is that they have chosen to wear ideological blinkers. They refuse to look at the evidence, so it is pointless to try and explain the evidence to them.”
This is true. But on both sides of this debate. One must be extremely huble when apporaching the task of predicting future events in a chaotic system. There can never be conducted an experiment with atmospheric levels of CO2 on the planet to conclude with statements about cause and effect. What is making people critical of criticism in this field is the enormously catastrophic predictions being made – it is as if one is operating without time to be critical of ones findings. This leads to errors in judgement because a theory, in ANY branch of science, should actively and with strong effort be tried proven false.
A serious concern.
For me, the more recent predictions of GCMs provide little hope for our future. like Lovelock has said – enjoy life while it lasts. It seems to be the only good solution to predictions of 2.4 degrees celsius by 2020 and so forth.
Dr. Shooshmon, phd.says
Ray
What is greener, hand dryers or paper towels? If you could point to some peer reviewed papers on the subject, I would be very greatful.
cumfysays
The author appears to have limitted powers of analysis.
The only “reason” the report has been published is she is CEO of the organisation.
Dan H.says
Hank and Didactylos,
Do you have an issue with the temperature data? Maybe you prefer to use the trend from 2009-2010? Does that give you the number you desire. Maybe we should just throw out all the temperature data, because it is yielding trends much lower than the models calculate. And we know the models must be right!
Fred Knellsays
In reply to ~53 John W you Gavin said: There are very clear fingerprints of change [sic] that are only associated with changes [sic] via increasing CO2 etc. – gavin]
Well, Gavin, I would really like to see here the printouts of your own regression analysis of CHANGES in GMT (eg GISTEMP) since 1958 with respect to CHANGES in atmospheric CO2 since 1958. Mine yield R2s that do NOT confirm IPCC AR4 WG1 that most of observed temperature change is due to anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2.
Gavin, if you extended your regressions to bivariate regressors (atmospheric CO2 PLUS atmospheric H2O) to any location on earth you will find that CO2 plays no role at all in explaining temperature change.
John A. Jaureguisays
Does anyone have the latest status of the Landscheidt Grand Minimum and its impact manifested as this winter’s severe weather anomalies and how this it might affect spring planting and summer crop production?
J. Bobsays
#55 Allen
As per your comments on the flattened temperature slope over the past decade or so, here are a couple of graphs which might help. They show the HadCRUT3gl global temperature with two different MOV “spans” of 10 & 30 yrs. The filters use 0.1 & 0.03 cyc/yr respectively. The two filters were a 2-pole Butterworth ( zero ripple Chevushev) “filtfilt” and a Fourier convolution.
The top graph uses 10 yr (0.1 cyc/yr) filters to include higher freq., while the 30 yr (0.03 cyc/yr) provides longer period information. From the 10 yr. plot, one can see the ‘flattening” you mentioned. It also seems to extend farther in time then previous “toppings”. The second point, the top graph show a similarity of the ~1870 – ~1940 to the ~1940 – 2010 period. One could do a correlation to get a qualitative value, but they sure look very similar. Considering the accuracy of the measurements, the peak to peak change of the ~60 cycle wave also quite close.
The bottom graph shows the primary ~60 yr. cycle, and it shows the decreasing slope over the past ~15 years, indicating a possible topping. The question then is if the CO2 is driving the warming, the slope should be increasing, but it’s not.
My thought is that there is a longer period wave in here, that’s causing the upward trend. Unfortunately with the limited data it’s hard to prove one way or another.
Alan Millarsays
94 Ray Ladbury
“No, Alan, the modeler will not decide on a “value” at all, but will instead model the processes using the best possible physics available. There will be a degree of subjectivity in selecting which physics is “best”, but once selected, that’s it for the model.”
Well Ray why do we have a number, of these modelled processes, have their values in the model basically flat lining from the late 80s. Are you really saying that all these forcings suddenly flat lined from the same date without the intervention of the modeller. That wouldn’t be credible would it?
One of the flat lining forcings for instance is black carbon which up to that time showed a quite strong constant rising effect.
I don’t understand why it is shown a strong rising trend up to then anyway as Greenland ice cores show them peaking around 1920 and having a declining trend since.
What can the explanation be?
Alan
Alfred Holzheusays
I am curious, after spending sometime looking at the various info sites and links in your website, the only study that I can find quantifying the mechanism for declaring CO2 a Greenhouse gas was done in the late 1800’s. I would imagine that science since then could do a better job. Everyone mainly talks about statistical linkages, but no has looked at how a parts per million gas, that is constantly moving in a dynamic carbon cycle can create this heat trapping blanket.
Jsays
Bad News: You haven’t a clue.
Good News: No one is listening to you anymore.
Dan H.says
It seems that several people have attacked Alan for pointing out the obvious. Yes, CRU shows the lowest temperature trend (cooling), but none of the others show increased warming. From this site, you can view the temperature records with the moving averages. They all show a relatively flat temperature profile since 2002, with a peak average somewhere between 2002 and 2006. (Spencer’s data actually shows one of the higher increases). Now, can someone tell me why we see a temperature dip every 8 years in every graph?
#55 Allen
As per your comments on the flattened temperature slope over the past decade or so, here are a couple of graphs which might help. They show HadCRUT3gl global temperature with two different MOV “spans” of 10 & 30 yrs. The other filters used with 0.1 & 0.03 cyc/yr cut-offs respectively. They were a 2-pole Butterworth ( zero ripple Chebushev) “filtfilt” and a Fourier convolution.
The top graph uses 10 yr (0.1 cyc/yr) filters to include higher freq., while the 30 yr (0.03 cyc/yr) provides longer period information. From the 10 yr. plot, one can see the ‘flattening” you mentioned. It also seems to extend farther in time then previous “toppings”. The second point, the top graph show a similarity of the ~1870 – ~1940 to the ~1940 – 2010 period. One could do a correlation to get a qualitative value, but they sure look very similar. Considering the accuracy of the measurements, the peak to peak change of the ~60 cycle wave also quite close.
The bottom graph shows the primary ~60 yr. cycle, and it shows the decreasing slope over the past ~15 years, indicating a possible topping. The question then is if the CO2 is driving the warming, the slope should be increasing, but it’s not.
My thought is that there is a longer period wave in here, that’s causing the upward trend. Unfortunately with the limited data it’s hard to prove one way or another.
Isotopioussays
105
Ray, will 2011 be in the top 5 warmest years, or the top 10 warmest years?
That is the question. Pretend it’s an exam (your life depends on it).
The reason you can’t answer it is because you have a deep misunderstanding of climate.
Only considering the statistics in the long run is a form of cheating, because you know there is a trend.
Unless you show your working out, you will not get any marks.
Alfred Holzheusays
The straight facts regarding the role of CO2 in AGW, starting with the “accepted” view. The third answer below is the clearest explanation of CO2’s role (or lack of) in global warming done from a purely scientific approach. I looked this up because I always wondered how a trace gas in the atmosphere could cause any significant anything, especially when it is so overshadowed by water vapor and Nitrogen and Oxygen, etc, etc, etc, etc…… The first two answers are the traditional answers which just did not make sense to me.
From: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_Carbon_dioxide_a_greenhouse_gas
A1:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it increases the temperature level of the earth in the same way the heat is generated inside the greenhouse where plants are grown. Greenhouses or glass houses trap the heat within thereby increasing the temperature within the glasshouse. In the same way, CO2 acts like a blanket in the earth atmosphere and prevents the heat from escaping from the earth’s surface, leading to a rise in global temperatures.
A2:
Shortwave energy (that emitted by the sun) passes through the atmosphere pretty much unimpeded, ultimately to be intercepted by the ground. The warm ground emits longwave radiation in proportion to the fourth power of its temperature. In a completely dry, CO2-less and ozone-less atmosphere, this upwelling longwave radiation would all be lost to space. Carbon dioxide absorbs upwelling long wave radiation and re-emits it back to the ground, thereby reducing the amount of heat that escapes to space, warming the planet. The warmer planet evaporates more water, and the water vapor absorbs even more longwave radiation than the carbon dioxide, warming the planet even more.
A3:
The two answers above are not quite correct. This is how it works.
Incoming solar radiation is widely distributed across the electromagnetic spectrum. Some wavelengths (mostly visible light) get through the atmosphere to the surface, some don’t. Of the radiation that gets through, some is reflected and some is absorbed by the surface of the earth. The reflected radiation is not an issue, because it goes right back into space at the same wavelengths that it came in at, unimpeded, just like on the way in. It is only the absorbed radiation that is a problem. This radiation is later re-emitted, but in the form of Infrared Radiation (IR).
Certain atmospheric gases, known as “greenhouse gases”, absorb IR, then re-emit it back into the atmosphere. Some percentage of this re-emitted IR (after a long sequence of re-absorptions and re-emissions by other greenhouse gas molecules) eventually works its way back down to the lower atmosphere and is said to “warm” the surface. This is the “greenhouse effect”. The “greenhouse effect”, in and of itself, is a completely natural thing, and also a very good thing. Without it, the surface would be far too cold for life as we know it to exist.
At this point, it must be emphasized that carbon dioxide (CO2) is just one of many “greenhouse gases”. It is not the most important, nor the most abundant. That distinction belongs to water vapor. Even without carbon dioxide, water vapor alone would cause enough of a greenhouse effect to keep us very near the warm temperatures that we enjoy. Also worth emphasizing is the fact that greenhouse gasses do not “trap” IR. They absorb, then re-emit the IR, in a completely random direction. It could go up, down, sideways, or any direction in between. Re-absorption by other greenhouse gas molecules complicates the path and destination of an individual unit of IR, but what it all boils down to is that something less than half of the IR absorbed by greenhouse gases eventually finds its way back to the surface, with the remainder escaping into space.
Though the greenhouse effect itself is completely natural, and very beneficial, global warming scientists believe that anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of carbon dioxide (mostly from burning fossil fuels) have increased CO2 in the atmosphere to a point where we are now experiencing what could be called an “enhanced greenhouse effect”. This artificial enhancement of the greenhouse effect, could cause significant warming of the atmosphere and the surface, over and above what the natural greenhouse effect causes. Though such additional warming will have both positive and negative consequences for human beings and other life on the planet, global warming scientists believe that the negative consequences far outweigh the positive consequences. (However, in reality, they have no scientific basis for that belief – they just believe, just because it’s “man-made”, just because it’s not “natural”, that it must be “bad”. Even the alarmist IPCC admits that no one can be certain which effects will dominate, but, in true alarmist fashion choose to err on the side of pessimism. But that is a completely different discussion, not appropriate to the question at hand.)
Now, here’s an important point that global warming scientists don’t mention. Though carbon dioxide definitely absorbs IR, it only absorbs IR in two very narrow ranges of wavelengths, one between 2.5 and 3 microns, and another between 4 and 5 microns. This is a small percentage of the total IR emitted by the surface. I don’t know exactly how small (because I can’t find any source for the wavelength distribution of IR emitted from the surface), but it’s probably less than 10%, and perhaps as low as 4%. And even in those ranges, CO2 has to compete with water vapor, which also absorbs 2.5-3-micron IR. So, even if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased a thousand-fold, and even if there was no water vapor, there is a limit to how much IR CO2 can absorb, and that limit is 10% (or less) of all the IR emitted from the surface. And of that 10%, over half of it still ends up escaping into space.
This limit of absorptivity is important because some skeptics argue that, between water vapor and CO2, every available ray of IR within the absorption ranges of CO2 is already being absorbed. Additional molecules of CO2, therefore, will havezero effect on the total absorption of IR. So future warming due to CO2 is simply not possible. The only way CO2 could absorb any more IR than it is already absorbing is if 1) the surface started re-emitting more IR, which could only happen if more sunlight reached the surface, or 2) atmospheric water vapor levels dropped, freeing up more IR to be absorbed by CO2, in which case, warming would not occur, because that radiation was already being absorbed by the water vapor that disappeared. In fact, if the second option occurred, temperatures would in fact drop, because water vapor absorbs IR over a much wider range than CO2, and therefore, CO2 cannot completely offset the loss of IR absorption by water vapor. However, the existence of CO2, replacing the IR absorption of some of the lost water vapor, would mitigate this temperature drop. Therefore, at current levels, CO2 could be said to be somewhat of a stabilizer of the greenhouse effect, taking up part of the slack when water vapor levels drop too low. In this respect, it is good to have an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It is also possible that, even at pre-industrial concentrations of atmospheric CO2, we were already above the “saturation point” of IR absorption by CO2, and therefore, even the warming that has occurred in the last 150 years could not have been caused by carbon dioxide.
1) A global warming rate of 0.07 deg C per decade for the period from 1980 to 1990
2) A global warming rate of 0.25 deg C per decade for the period from 1990 to 2000
3) A global warming rate of 0.03 deg C per decade for the period from 2000 to 2010
According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, Gavin’s “continue” means to “remain in a specified position or state.”
According to the data above, to say “global warming continues” the global warming rate for the period 2000 to 2010 should have been 0.25 deg C per decade. However, instead, it is only 0.03 deg C per decade, which is nearly no global warming in the last decade.
As a result, Gavin should have concluded “the global warming rate has significantly reduced.”
Dr. Radicalsays
the decaying ice caps will provide many opportunities for the violent overthrow of a decadent civilization..
Jacob Macksays
A recent peer reviewed paper showed how the GCM’s even did poorly in hindcasting, let alone projections. The journal of atmospheric physics, and the journal of atmospheric chemistry have excellent peer reviewed articles showing two things:
(1.) Aerosols can and often do, warm and not just cool.
(2.)Reflective effects of aerosols recently directly observed have reflected much radiation back to space, reducing warming effects, not just slowing them down.
The peer reviewed journals in oceanography show many long term cooling effects of oceans that show not just slowing of warming but actual reversing and to date, significant trends in reduction in warming. Links? Sure, I am compiling them now, and I will post them by next week, with all relevant references/bibliographies in the peer review only.
Laynesays
Gavin, if the temperature rise isn’t accurate, any discussion of impacts of said rise is moot. 2020 surface temps may well be below the la nina temps we’re experiencing now.
DERR UFOsays
I can see from both sides now in the weather debate and I admit in the beginning of my reading this website I was also very much assuming the world might be warming. But I have been able to learn from both sides in this debate and lest we forget in all the arguing, if both sides had not tried so hard to be heard and worked on their reports we would not be having intelligent discussion at all… We must always honor the Researchers from both sides of the debate. It is only fair. – DERR UFO
Gillessays
Tamino : all this discussion about prior, posterior, bayesian, Cauchy stuff is very interesting. Just for fun, I suggest you to apply this mathematical considerations to another problem : what is the sensitivity of the world energy consumption per capita to the distance of Pluto ? I’m sure you will find interesting results -mathematically speaking, of course.
Jacob Macksays
Ray Ladbury #257. I am not a big fan of consensus as the reason for something being claimed as true. I think that as something is truly evidenced or proven to be true, it is shown to be so. I am not say all of climate science is wrong, bad or dishonest. Even if I have an opinion that some may be dishonest, it is not just that I am looking at. I have looked at Dr. Lindzen’s work and I find it to look compelling, very much so. This does not mean I do not look at Tamino’s or Gavin’s work and learn new things. I look at the work in atmospheric physics and chemistry journals and even some work at NASA that show global warming is more a natural phenomenon and that the greenhouse effect, though very real,is perhaps being taken a step too far with some of the AGW claims made. I suspect based upon my analysis to date that some of the parameterizations in GCM’s, lack of enough data and too much uncertainty even for statistics play roles in such potentialities. Also recent peer reviewed journals show how much of the heat waves and cooling phases are more due to chaotic weatehr and not greenhouse gases, though yes, greenhouse gases contribute to some more chaotic weather at times. As my pilot friend reminds me, most weather is very flyable and just fine around the world. The 59F/15C, is a standard day for international standard at sea level, so I fail to see a problem with a global average, of 59F/15C. I also fail to see how anyone can make the claim they actually know what the global average temps reall are for a given year, decade or century. There are too many variables, too many sources, too many sinks, etc… I am not a parrot of Watts or Lindzen, either, and no, not everything stated there is correct, but some of the reporting there is dead on. My chemical engineer friend who flies small airplanes, studies meteorology and he has definitely enlightened me to some rudimentary facts, that I learned in undergraduate courses, but failed to make the connection. The second law of thermodynamics applies weather performing work and machines, weather, dissipates heat, entropy still rises and goes to space. The long answer to that is VERY long, but we can always go over that in bits and pieces. Suffice to say, weather performs work and excess energy is released in all directions. I know we are used to looking at entropy in terms of machines and various closed systems, but it also applies to open systems, but again, that is a bit of a conversation for later on. I want to reiterate I am relying upon around 120 textbooks, many peer reviewed journals and friends of mine who have areas of expertise I do not, and recent course work, real work I have done in my neck of the woods.
Ray, I am not working in climate science either, but at this point, that does not stop me from doing some of my own calculations, some serious self critiquing and taking a chance on sharing my interpretations of data and numerical results. My Irish temper can sometimes get the best of me, but I assure you, I am here to discuss these matters, and take a risk of being wrong, right, half right, partially right, not even wrong…etc… I am confident though I always have a lot to learn, I have learned a lot over these past several years, especially, as I am sure you have too. Show some work:)
Ray Ladbury #258: A true blackbody in nature does not really exist. Now, some assumptions can be made in physics, like the five postulates of quantum mechanics that give real world results, but a blackbody is probably not a good one. Using Stefan-Boltzman or Planck’s constant for total earth radiation budget also are not completely useful, either.
Bob Galushasays
Gavin, I am a contrarian, age 81, retired electronic engineer (Do I hear derisive snickers?). In the early 1960s, I commenced reading reports from scientists predicting a coming ice age and also those who proclaimed Arrhenius was right. A warming trend stilled the icers and Mother Nature now beckons believers in global warming (original definition) to a similar comeuppance.
I read Lord Blagger’s comment (2) and thought if Gavin was my son I’d speak to him about being courteous. Blagger asked the question “How can this be the case?” Your reply was from the gutter coached in prep boy English. Well you are not and I won’t, but I can say this.
The previous election created a Congress unfavorable to your views. You may be contemptuous, but the voters are not stupid and do understand human nature. They inherently know any question can be answered succinctly by knowledgeable people. Lack of knowledge is immediately suspected when someone uses ridicule, insults and suggests impossible feats instead of answering.
Your computer can provide only your opinions, not facts. You do the programming, select input data including assumptions and tweak the output. It does not take a PhD to understand the product is what you want it to be. Trenberth did all that and now wonders where the warming went. Mann did all that and he ended up cherry picking bristlecone pines. Look at the graph above which appears to be a shotgun blast and you proclaim it is a true prediction?
But who gets the glory for trying to save the earth; why Gore, a non scientist and some scientists at the IPCC who don’t do research. BTW, did you ever challenge Gore to correct the many erroneous claims he made which didn’t correlate with IPCC predictions? No, you let non scientists such as environmentalists and self promoters like Gore attempt to scare the citizenry. Gore and others They and some politicians get power and money and you get paid chicken feed.
My advice to you is to drop the smartest guy in the room attitude and answer hard questions courteously. You really don’t want to end up like your boss, thirty years in the same position without a promotion.
Stephensays
Did you miss this week’s good news from Nature that Greenland glaciers appear to slow down in warmer temperatures:
seemingly ruling out unexpected large additions to sea level rise from accelerated melting of Greenland glaciers?
Luis Diassays
Really lame try. Try again, next time with a little more flavour, wit and less irritability. Perhaps then I’ll mind to read it to the bloody end ;).
jacob macksays
dhogaza, #259,no. There are thousands of scientists who are collecting data, and statisticians/mathematicians, performing analysis with very different results. Even quite a bunch of climate scientists besides Lindzen et., al. In addition I know engineers, chemists and physicists not in climate science,but skeptical, just the same, due to related knowledge areas and working expertise. Oh,yes, and meteorologists too.
jacob macksays
No dhogaza. Many scientists share my views
John Wsays
RE 58 ghost
Well, no I’m not a Chemist. I’m one of those odd fellows whose education and career path don’t line up. Life is funny that way. My professional career is in Electroplating Process Control; Chemical Wastewater Treatment; and Environmental Controls & Compliance (20+ years) even though my education was in Engineering (many many moons ago). Two of the three require considerable understanding of inorganic chemistry especially pertaining to aqueous solutions.
My education in biology is pretty much limited to a year’s worth in college, the discovery channel, and my own experiments (with my wife, eh eh).
I come into contact with a wide variety of applied science practitioners of many disciplines including biologists, engineers of several flavors, chemists, etc. etc. and I only know one that is not basically what I believe is termed a “lukewarmer” and the one person (professional) that’s not skeptical is a environmental scientist (and he debates like a wet noodle, all he’ll say is most climatologists agree …..; to which I reply most crypto-zoologists agree that the North American wood ape …..) Anyway, these are not dumb people and are certainly not paid by “big oil”. From what I understand there’s a great deal of skepticism among meteorologists as well. Can we all be just too dumb, lazy, incompetent, unbalanced, loons, nuts, etc…..? Maybe, maybe not. Amazingly enough, I don’t know any climatologists. Hmmmm. Perhaps we all just like being a “lukewarmer”; it reminds us of Star Wars.
A hint about ocean acidification: alkalinity not pH. (No, they’re not the same thing.)
donald mooresays
FALSE PROPHETS,a biblical test would be that if what they say and prophesy comes to pass regard what they say but if it doesn’t then don’t listen to them.This seems to me the obvious approach to climate science and in fact all science and self evident as the way in which most people react.Crying wolf even if the wolf was there but keeps disappearing will lose the present scientific comunity credibility.Credibility in science is more important than risky prophesy which may give people a warning and may not,so that when scientists are reasonably sure[as in beyond reasonable doubt] they will be believed and their warnings acted upon.Better be an honest scientist than a lucky guesser.
donald mooresays
I have suggested before on this web site that i believe that global warming and melting ice caps will convert to an increase in cloud volume equivalent to the volume of ice loss,and there has been no attempt to measure this just cloud cover.If i am right action to cool the climate will lead to an increase in flooding and sea rise only equivalent to expansion due to temperature rise.If i am wrong then total sea rise will cover ice loss and thermal expansion surely this can be measured.This is very important which way we go as recent floods accross the world can be very expensive to our economy and way of life.perhaps we may need a ‘steady as she goes’approach rather than a ‘cool the globe one.
John Wsays
RE: #73 Ray Ladbury
And here I thought your offer for Q&A was sincere, silly me; thankfully Chris Colose and Gavin did answer my question. I made no “strongly stated position” and I suppose obsrvations aren’t evidence unless they’re in a computer model; you sir are no longer worth reading and this post belongs in the bore hole.
I never did get a chance to ask this question, and I don’t recall seeing an answer or explanation —
Why does it appear that GISS and HadCRU are diverging? The agreement between NCDC and HadCRUT3 appear to be far better than the agreement between GISS and HadCRUT3. Is there an explanation that doesn’t involve hand waving or Proof by Repeated Assertion? The explanation given in the lead-in strikes me as hand-waving on both sides since both involve assumptions, so repeating it isn’t the answer I’m looking for.
CoolRanchersays
Spielhagen has some explaining to do, in 2008 a peer reviewed study appeared in the “Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences”. From their conclusion…
“The Holocene record from site HLY0501-05 illustrates the sensitivity of hydrographical conditions in the western
Arctic Ocean. The data show a long-term warming that is opposite to what is reconstructed for the eastern Arctic and
point to a bipolar behavior of the Arctic Ocean at the timescale of the Holocene. The millennial-scale variability in the eastern Chukchi Sea is characterized by quasi-cyclic periods
of high SSS, high SST, and reduced sea-ice cover, which most probably reflects variations in the stratification of the
upper water column. Such changes maybe related to tidal forcing and (or) large-scale mechanisms, such as AO/NAOlike
oscillations. It is important to note that the amplitude of these millennial-scale changes in sea-surface conditions far exceed those observed at the end of the 20th century.”
>>>>>”whether climate is chaotic (perhaps as a function of the base state) is very much an open question. ”
And you think you have it figured out? You know enough to manage the climate now? Know enough to dictate public policy? Know enough that your public policy – i.e., force – would even have an effect? Know enough that your desired force, er, policy, will do more good than harm?
Yeah, sure.
What you think you know is enough to make politicians salivate for using you to control the “ignorant masses.”
It ain’t working for you any more.
Even on sites where you control the information.
Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.
Georgesays
More to #99
OK, so I looked at your graph above and the 2007 post. Scenario B shows a 25 yr trend of 0.27 deg C/decade. GISStemp and Hadcrut show a 25yr trend of 0.19 and 0.18 per decade which appear to be slightly lower than Scenario C(which are about .1 deg C lower than in 2007). So Scenario B has an anomaly .25 deg C higher than data. Scenario A has an anonmaly 0.55 deg C higher than the data. This all shows that Scenario B, Scenario C, and the two datasets are not significantly different.
Quote from today:”As before, it seems that the Hansen et al ‘B’ projection is likely running a little warm compared to the real world.” One could just as easily say that Scenario C seems to be doing a better job of matching the data to date. Even though CO2 is still tracking upwards at ~1.15 ppm/yr. in a linear fashion. The data even appears to be possibly matching the leveling off show by Scenario C post 2005. That is quite an accomplishment since it assumes the model forcings levelled out in 2000.
No one is arguing that temperatures appear to still be creeping upwards. Just that the modelling and datasets still don’t show enough change to make any kind of attribution or substantive predictions. As the 2007 post said, the data is pretty noisy hear to year(weather). In the next 10-20 years it should become apparent might be happening to the climate and whether or not it is bad or good.
Are you implying billionaire fossil fuel corporation executives driven by a culture of ruthless, rapacious, relentless, reactionary corporate greed are responsible for the hostility towards climate scientists and denial of climate science? If that true, then it logically follows that you believe corporate greed is the only purpose for burning of fossil fuel.
Of course that isn’t true. If Industry had continued the transition from coal burning plants to nuclear power plants which was underway mid 20th Century, and developed hydrogen powered vehicles, we wouldn’t have a CO2 problem today.
It is remarkable that many contrarians say just the opposite; that greedy politicians are the driving force behind AGW research and the real purpose is to levy a new tax.
Gavin:
You say the role of human-produced CO2 in affecting climate is well-understood. No, you have an opinion that is well understood, but other just as well educated and experienced disagree.
Industry picked a solution which insofar as they were permitted to go has worked just fine. They used the very best of scientific effort in its development. The politicians did not like the plan and scared people into bringing it to a halt. Now they want a rerun and are using scientists to again scare people. The leveling you speak of brings trillions of dollars to a political party. Do you favor that?
Andreas Ksays
This is off-topic but there’s one dilemma regarding CO2 and warming that I have never seen answered: how exactly are we to reduce CO2 \pollution\, considering the rapid increase of CO2 \pollution\ in Asia due to ongoing industrialization process there. Maybe we could reduce our own levels thanks to inventions and negative population growth, but what about Asia?
We have China with 1.3 billion and India who isn’t far behind. As well as other countries in the region with growing economies.
To me it seems IMPOSSIBLE to reduce world-wide CO2… HOW would we do it?
Point being, yes there is global warming, but we can’t do anything about the increase in CO2 pollution so why don’t we direct our efforts elsewhere? Like start preparing for the global warming and its consequences…
HRsays
With respect to
Paleoclimate:
1.A new study by Spielhagen and co-authors
I found a very similar reconstruction (using Dinocysts) located on the West Spitzbergen margin in the Fram Strait which comes to very different conclusions.
Title: Variability of sea-surface temperature and sea-ice cover in the Fram Strait over the last two millennia
Author(s): Bonnet, S; de Vernal, A; Hillaire-Marcel, C, et al.
Source: MARINE MICROPALEONTOLOGY Volume: 74 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 59-74 Published: 2010
What are we to make of that?
Christopher Hogansays
Taking two series for one location, separately de-meaning them, then analyzing the trend at that one location, seems to me to be the same as making an assumption of zero trend at that location, and embedding that assumption in the analysis. That’s not a valid methodological choice, that’s an error. I understand that just splining the series is an assumption of zero calibration error, but at least that’s a presumably random error. Separately de-meaning them biases the results toward a finding of zero trend, and it means that the magnitude of the findings is an artifact of the (arbitrary) timing of when the first series ended (with “right in the middle of the time period” imparting the greatest bias).
I do believe the real climate folks have there 7th grade headline finaly!!
Scientists warn winter ‘superstorm’ could strike CA…
The ARkStorm Scenario… ROFLMAO
Good news people. The long-awaited Isotopious’ “Guide to Global Temperature for the next 115 years” is complete.
Here are my predictions (I think you will be pleasantly surprised):
The Decadal Global (Land & Ocean) Temperature Anomaly
(relative to 1901 -2000 base period) centered on:
2015: +0.9 Degrees Fahrenheit
2023: +0.5 Degrees Fahrenheit
2028: 0 Degrees Fahrenheit
2065: -1.1 Degrees Fahrenheit
2095: 0 Degrees Fahrenheit
2125: +1.5 Degrees Fahrenheit
These predictions are based on a mathematical model of the PDO, and do not contain climate forcings.
Real Climate in the last 2 days have had a lot of headline news \ Ca super storms,ark study,Hanson china lover, Trenberth.somerville,\. Why are these subjects not open for debate on overheard in the news room. Could it be why the public does not trust sites like real climate who only discuss there side of the subject ??
Jim what part of your forum is not for stupidy and lies ?? Only those parts that agree with you ?? I fully understand from your “civil” response. that people that dare question your position and or belief are automaticaly categorize as stupid and liars. Shure does make a lot of us maybe even a majority in that catergory.
[Response: Nothing automatic about it pardner. We just read what you write and go from there.–Jim]
[Response: Yeah, if you keep posting enough, you can probably sneak one through for a few minutes. Nice try. RC is not a forum for denialist stupidity and lies… that’s what Watts’ blog is for.–Jim]
You realize that you are censoring the opposing views? How could anyone who claims to be a scientist actually do this? Are you afraid of “stupidity”? It might not be stupidity, but a simple misunderstanding from someone working in a different field than “climate science”. I am not a denier, but I get uneasy with all the censorship. Makes the whole thing seems like a movement (house of cards?) rather than a theory backed by robust scientific body of evidence.
Wow, Bob (Sphaerica). If only everyone in the world was as massively intelligent as you, eh? Being as you are in the top 1% of the smartest people in the US, and the top 0.0001% of the smartest people in the world. Part of the tiny, elite group that is clever enough to distinguish between science and magic.
I’ve tried to resist posting on this thread, really, I have. But your comments are the last straw. I echo Julie/FurryCatHerder’s comments at #86 above about the arrogant stench of the original “article” (which could be boiled down to “Why aren’t stupid journalists as smart as us? Idiots.”) and many of the comments.
You think you have a communication issue and that people aren’t listening? Take a look at yourselves, seriously. Nobody likes to be lectured or hectored by people who come across as arrogant, elitist ivory-tower dwellers. And frankly, the lack of diversity of opinion on this blog only serves to reinforce narrow-minded thinking.
And frankly, the lack of diversity of opinion on this blog only serves to reinforce narrow-minded thinking.
Comment by Stephen — 20 Jan 2011 @ 6:01 AM
========================================================
Not a “skeptic”, but as someone concerned about the state of methodology in climate science: oh my god, QFT!
“The problem is that they have chosen to wear ideological blinkers. They refuse to look at the evidence, so it is pointless to try and explain the evidence to them.”
This is true. But on both sides of this debate. One must be extremely huble when apporaching the task of predicting future events in a chaotic system. There can never be conducted an experiment with atmospheric levels of CO2 on the planet to conclude with statements about cause and effect. What is making people critical of criticism in this field is the enormously catastrophic predictions being made – it is as if one is operating without time to be critical of ones findings. This leads to errors in judgement because a theory, in ANY branch of science, should actively and with strong effort be tried proven false.
A serious concern.
For me, the more recent predictions of GCMs provide little hope for our future. like Lovelock has said – enjoy life while it lasts. It seems to be the only good solution to predictions of 2.4 degrees celsius by 2020 and so forth.
Ray
What is greener, hand dryers or paper towels? If you could point to some peer reviewed papers on the subject, I would be very greatful.
The author appears to have limitted powers of analysis.
The only “reason” the report has been published is she is CEO of the organisation.
Hank and Didactylos,
Do you have an issue with the temperature data? Maybe you prefer to use the trend from 2009-2010? Does that give you the number you desire. Maybe we should just throw out all the temperature data, because it is yielding trends much lower than the models calculate. And we know the models must be right!
In reply to ~53 John W you Gavin said: There are very clear fingerprints of change [sic] that are only associated with changes [sic] via increasing CO2 etc. – gavin]
Well, Gavin, I would really like to see here the printouts of your own regression analysis of CHANGES in GMT (eg GISTEMP) since 1958 with respect to CHANGES in atmospheric CO2 since 1958. Mine yield R2s that do NOT confirm IPCC AR4 WG1 that most of observed temperature change is due to anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2.
Gavin, if you extended your regressions to bivariate regressors (atmospheric CO2 PLUS atmospheric H2O) to any location on earth you will find that CO2 plays no role at all in explaining temperature change.
Does anyone have the latest status of the Landscheidt Grand Minimum and its impact manifested as this winter’s severe weather anomalies and how this it might affect spring planting and summer crop production?
#55 Allen
As per your comments on the flattened temperature slope over the past decade or so, here are a couple of graphs which might help. They show the HadCRUT3gl global temperature with two different MOV “spans” of 10 & 30 yrs. The filters use 0.1 & 0.03 cyc/yr respectively. The two filters were a 2-pole Butterworth ( zero ripple Chevushev) “filtfilt” and a Fourier convolution.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/filter_comp_10_30yr-QBs7t.jpg
The top graph uses 10 yr (0.1 cyc/yr) filters to include higher freq., while the 30 yr (0.03 cyc/yr) provides longer period information. From the 10 yr. plot, one can see the ‘flattening” you mentioned. It also seems to extend farther in time then previous “toppings”. The second point, the top graph show a similarity of the ~1870 – ~1940 to the ~1940 – 2010 period. One could do a correlation to get a qualitative value, but they sure look very similar. Considering the accuracy of the measurements, the peak to peak change of the ~60 cycle wave also quite close.
The bottom graph shows the primary ~60 yr. cycle, and it shows the decreasing slope over the past ~15 years, indicating a possible topping. The question then is if the CO2 is driving the warming, the slope should be increasing, but it’s not.
My thought is that there is a longer period wave in here, that’s causing the upward trend. Unfortunately with the limited data it’s hard to prove one way or another.
94 Ray Ladbury
“No, Alan, the modeler will not decide on a “value” at all, but will instead model the processes using the best possible physics available. There will be a degree of subjectivity in selecting which physics is “best”, but once selected, that’s it for the model.”
Well Ray why do we have a number, of these modelled processes, have their values in the model basically flat lining from the late 80s. Are you really saying that all these forcings suddenly flat lined from the same date without the intervention of the modeller. That wouldn’t be credible would it?
One of the flat lining forcings for instance is black carbon which up to that time showed a quite strong constant rising effect.
I don’t understand why it is shown a strong rising trend up to then anyway as Greenland ice cores show them peaking around 1920 and having a declining trend since.
What can the explanation be?
Alan
I am curious, after spending sometime looking at the various info sites and links in your website, the only study that I can find quantifying the mechanism for declaring CO2 a Greenhouse gas was done in the late 1800’s. I would imagine that science since then could do a better job. Everyone mainly talks about statistical linkages, but no has looked at how a parts per million gas, that is constantly moving in a dynamic carbon cycle can create this heat trapping blanket.
Bad News: You haven’t a clue.
Good News: No one is listening to you anymore.
It seems that several people have attacked Alan for pointing out the obvious. Yes, CRU shows the lowest temperature trend (cooling), but none of the others show increased warming. From this site, you can view the temperature records with the moving averages. They all show a relatively flat temperature profile since 2002, with a peak average somewhere between 2002 and 2006. (Spencer’s data actually shows one of the higher increases). Now, can someone tell me why we see a temperature dip every 8 years in every graph?
http://www.climate4you.com/
Steve,
There has been no discernable temperature trend in Antarctica.
http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/05/09/antarctic-temperature-trends/
Several Arctic graphs look something like this from GISS:
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic1880-2004_1.gif
or this:
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
Sadly, Ireland’s economic state will be in an even bigger mess by 2020 aswell, thanks to the latest Climate Change Bill being pushed through.
http://www.insideireland.ie/index.cfm/section/news/ext/climatechange005/category/896
#55 Allen
As per your comments on the flattened temperature slope over the past decade or so, here are a couple of graphs which might help. They show HadCRUT3gl global temperature with two different MOV “spans” of 10 & 30 yrs. The other filters used with 0.1 & 0.03 cyc/yr cut-offs respectively. They were a 2-pole Butterworth ( zero ripple Chebushev) “filtfilt” and a Fourier convolution.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/filter_comp_10_30yr-QBs7t.jpg
The top graph uses 10 yr (0.1 cyc/yr) filters to include higher freq., while the 30 yr (0.03 cyc/yr) provides longer period information. From the 10 yr. plot, one can see the ‘flattening” you mentioned. It also seems to extend farther in time then previous “toppings”. The second point, the top graph show a similarity of the ~1870 – ~1940 to the ~1940 – 2010 period. One could do a correlation to get a qualitative value, but they sure look very similar. Considering the accuracy of the measurements, the peak to peak change of the ~60 cycle wave also quite close.
The bottom graph shows the primary ~60 yr. cycle, and it shows the decreasing slope over the past ~15 years, indicating a possible topping. The question then is if the CO2 is driving the warming, the slope should be increasing, but it’s not.
My thought is that there is a longer period wave in here, that’s causing the upward trend. Unfortunately with the limited data it’s hard to prove one way or another.
105
Ray, will 2011 be in the top 5 warmest years, or the top 10 warmest years?
That is the question. Pretend it’s an exam (your life depends on it).
The reason you can’t answer it is because you have a deep misunderstanding of climate.
Only considering the statistics in the long run is a form of cheating, because you know there is a trend.
Unless you show your working out, you will not get any marks.
The straight facts regarding the role of CO2 in AGW, starting with the “accepted” view. The third answer below is the clearest explanation of CO2’s role (or lack of) in global warming done from a purely scientific approach. I looked this up because I always wondered how a trace gas in the atmosphere could cause any significant anything, especially when it is so overshadowed by water vapor and Nitrogen and Oxygen, etc, etc, etc, etc…… The first two answers are the traditional answers which just did not make sense to me.
From: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_Carbon_dioxide_a_greenhouse_gas
A1:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it increases the temperature level of the earth in the same way the heat is generated inside the greenhouse where plants are grown. Greenhouses or glass houses trap the heat within thereby increasing the temperature within the glasshouse. In the same way, CO2 acts like a blanket in the earth atmosphere and prevents the heat from escaping from the earth’s surface, leading to a rise in global temperatures.
A2:
Shortwave energy (that emitted by the sun) passes through the atmosphere pretty much unimpeded, ultimately to be intercepted by the ground. The warm ground emits longwave radiation in proportion to the fourth power of its temperature. In a completely dry, CO2-less and ozone-less atmosphere, this upwelling longwave radiation would all be lost to space. Carbon dioxide absorbs upwelling long wave radiation and re-emits it back to the ground, thereby reducing the amount of heat that escapes to space, warming the planet. The warmer planet evaporates more water, and the water vapor absorbs even more longwave radiation than the carbon dioxide, warming the planet even more.
A3:
The two answers above are not quite correct. This is how it works.
Incoming solar radiation is widely distributed across the electromagnetic spectrum. Some wavelengths (mostly visible light) get through the atmosphere to the surface, some don’t. Of the radiation that gets through, some is reflected and some is absorbed by the surface of the earth. The reflected radiation is not an issue, because it goes right back into space at the same wavelengths that it came in at, unimpeded, just like on the way in. It is only the absorbed radiation that is a problem. This radiation is later re-emitted, but in the form of Infrared Radiation (IR).
Certain atmospheric gases, known as “greenhouse gases”, absorb IR, then re-emit it back into the atmosphere. Some percentage of this re-emitted IR (after a long sequence of re-absorptions and re-emissions by other greenhouse gas molecules) eventually works its way back down to the lower atmosphere and is said to “warm” the surface. This is the “greenhouse effect”. The “greenhouse effect”, in and of itself, is a completely natural thing, and also a very good thing. Without it, the surface would be far too cold for life as we know it to exist.
At this point, it must be emphasized that carbon dioxide (CO2) is just one of many “greenhouse gases”. It is not the most important, nor the most abundant. That distinction belongs to water vapor. Even without carbon dioxide, water vapor alone would cause enough of a greenhouse effect to keep us very near the warm temperatures that we enjoy. Also worth emphasizing is the fact that greenhouse gasses do not “trap” IR. They absorb, then re-emit the IR, in a completely random direction. It could go up, down, sideways, or any direction in between. Re-absorption by other greenhouse gas molecules complicates the path and destination of an individual unit of IR, but what it all boils down to is that something less than half of the IR absorbed by greenhouse gases eventually finds its way back to the surface, with the remainder escaping into space.
Though the greenhouse effect itself is completely natural, and very beneficial, global warming scientists believe that anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of carbon dioxide (mostly from burning fossil fuels) have increased CO2 in the atmosphere to a point where we are now experiencing what could be called an “enhanced greenhouse effect”. This artificial enhancement of the greenhouse effect, could cause significant warming of the atmosphere and the surface, over and above what the natural greenhouse effect causes. Though such additional warming will have both positive and negative consequences for human beings and other life on the planet, global warming scientists believe that the negative consequences far outweigh the positive consequences. (However, in reality, they have no scientific basis for that belief – they just believe, just because it’s “man-made”, just because it’s not “natural”, that it must be “bad”. Even the alarmist IPCC admits that no one can be certain which effects will dominate, but, in true alarmist fashion choose to err on the side of pessimism. But that is a completely different discussion, not appropriate to the question at hand.)
Now, here’s an important point that global warming scientists don’t mention. Though carbon dioxide definitely absorbs IR, it only absorbs IR in two very narrow ranges of wavelengths, one between 2.5 and 3 microns, and another between 4 and 5 microns. This is a small percentage of the total IR emitted by the surface. I don’t know exactly how small (because I can’t find any source for the wavelength distribution of IR emitted from the surface), but it’s probably less than 10%, and perhaps as low as 4%. And even in those ranges, CO2 has to compete with water vapor, which also absorbs 2.5-3-micron IR. So, even if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased a thousand-fold, and even if there was no water vapor, there is a limit to how much IR CO2 can absorb, and that limit is 10% (or less) of all the IR emitted from the surface. And of that 10%, over half of it still ends up escaping into space.
This limit of absorptivity is important because some skeptics argue that, between water vapor and CO2, every available ray of IR within the absorption ranges of CO2 is already being absorbed. Additional molecules of CO2, therefore, will havezero effect on the total absorption of IR. So future warming due to CO2 is simply not possible. The only way CO2 could absorb any more IR than it is already absorbing is if 1) the surface started re-emitting more IR, which could only happen if more sunlight reached the surface, or 2) atmospheric water vapor levels dropped, freeing up more IR to be absorbed by CO2, in which case, warming would not occur, because that radiation was already being absorbed by the water vapor that disappeared. In fact, if the second option occurred, temperatures would in fact drop, because water vapor absorbs IR over a much wider range than CO2, and therefore, CO2 cannot completely offset the loss of IR absorption by water vapor. However, the existence of CO2, replacing the IR absorption of some of the lost water vapor, would mitigate this temperature drop. Therefore, at current levels, CO2 could be said to be somewhat of a stabilizer of the greenhouse effect, taking up part of the slack when water vapor levels drop too low. In this respect, it is good to have an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It is also possible that, even at pre-industrial concentrations of atmospheric CO2, we were already above the “saturation point” of IR absorption by CO2, and therefore, even the warming that has occurred in the last 150 years could not have been caused by carbon dioxide.
Gavin writes: “global warming continues.”
http://bit.ly/e7staX
Let us verify Gavin’s statement.
Let us look at the last 30 years data and compare the three decadal trends.
Here is the plot for the data from the Climate Research Unit:
http://bit.ly/hEDm6f
It shows the following results:
1) A global warming rate of 0.07 deg C per decade for the period from 1980 to 1990
2) A global warming rate of 0.25 deg C per decade for the period from 1990 to 2000
3) A global warming rate of 0.03 deg C per decade for the period from 2000 to 2010
According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, Gavin’s “continue” means to “remain in a specified position or state.”
According to the data above, to say “global warming continues” the global warming rate for the period 2000 to 2010 should have been 0.25 deg C per decade. However, instead, it is only 0.03 deg C per decade, which is nearly no global warming in the last decade.
As a result, Gavin should have concluded “the global warming rate has significantly reduced.”
the decaying ice caps will provide many opportunities for the violent overthrow of a decadent civilization..
A recent peer reviewed paper showed how the GCM’s even did poorly in hindcasting, let alone projections. The journal of atmospheric physics, and the journal of atmospheric chemistry have excellent peer reviewed articles showing two things:
(1.) Aerosols can and often do, warm and not just cool.
(2.)Reflective effects of aerosols recently directly observed have reflected much radiation back to space, reducing warming effects, not just slowing them down.
The peer reviewed journals in oceanography show many long term cooling effects of oceans that show not just slowing of warming but actual reversing and to date, significant trends in reduction in warming. Links? Sure, I am compiling them now, and I will post them by next week, with all relevant references/bibliographies in the peer review only.
Gavin, if the temperature rise isn’t accurate, any discussion of impacts of said rise is moot. 2020 surface temps may well be below the la nina temps we’re experiencing now.
I can see from both sides now in the weather debate and I admit in the beginning of my reading this website I was also very much assuming the world might be warming. But I have been able to learn from both sides in this debate and lest we forget in all the arguing, if both sides had not tried so hard to be heard and worked on their reports we would not be having intelligent discussion at all… We must always honor the Researchers from both sides of the debate. It is only fair. – DERR UFO
Tamino : all this discussion about prior, posterior, bayesian, Cauchy stuff is very interesting. Just for fun, I suggest you to apply this mathematical considerations to another problem : what is the sensitivity of the world energy consumption per capita to the distance of Pluto ? I’m sure you will find interesting results -mathematically speaking, of course.
Ray Ladbury #257. I am not a big fan of consensus as the reason for something being claimed as true. I think that as something is truly evidenced or proven to be true, it is shown to be so. I am not say all of climate science is wrong, bad or dishonest. Even if I have an opinion that some may be dishonest, it is not just that I am looking at. I have looked at Dr. Lindzen’s work and I find it to look compelling, very much so. This does not mean I do not look at Tamino’s or Gavin’s work and learn new things. I look at the work in atmospheric physics and chemistry journals and even some work at NASA that show global warming is more a natural phenomenon and that the greenhouse effect, though very real,is perhaps being taken a step too far with some of the AGW claims made. I suspect based upon my analysis to date that some of the parameterizations in GCM’s, lack of enough data and too much uncertainty even for statistics play roles in such potentialities. Also recent peer reviewed journals show how much of the heat waves and cooling phases are more due to chaotic weatehr and not greenhouse gases, though yes, greenhouse gases contribute to some more chaotic weather at times. As my pilot friend reminds me, most weather is very flyable and just fine around the world. The 59F/15C, is a standard day for international standard at sea level, so I fail to see a problem with a global average, of 59F/15C. I also fail to see how anyone can make the claim they actually know what the global average temps reall are for a given year, decade or century. There are too many variables, too many sources, too many sinks, etc… I am not a parrot of Watts or Lindzen, either, and no, not everything stated there is correct, but some of the reporting there is dead on. My chemical engineer friend who flies small airplanes, studies meteorology and he has definitely enlightened me to some rudimentary facts, that I learned in undergraduate courses, but failed to make the connection. The second law of thermodynamics applies weather performing work and machines, weather, dissipates heat, entropy still rises and goes to space. The long answer to that is VERY long, but we can always go over that in bits and pieces. Suffice to say, weather performs work and excess energy is released in all directions. I know we are used to looking at entropy in terms of machines and various closed systems, but it also applies to open systems, but again, that is a bit of a conversation for later on. I want to reiterate I am relying upon around 120 textbooks, many peer reviewed journals and friends of mine who have areas of expertise I do not, and recent course work, real work I have done in my neck of the woods.
Ray, I am not working in climate science either, but at this point, that does not stop me from doing some of my own calculations, some serious self critiquing and taking a chance on sharing my interpretations of data and numerical results. My Irish temper can sometimes get the best of me, but I assure you, I am here to discuss these matters, and take a risk of being wrong, right, half right, partially right, not even wrong…etc… I am confident though I always have a lot to learn, I have learned a lot over these past several years, especially, as I am sure you have too. Show some work:)
Ray Ladbury #258: A true blackbody in nature does not really exist. Now, some assumptions can be made in physics, like the five postulates of quantum mechanics that give real world results, but a blackbody is probably not a good one. Using Stefan-Boltzman or Planck’s constant for total earth radiation budget also are not completely useful, either.
Gavin, I am a contrarian, age 81, retired electronic engineer (Do I hear derisive snickers?). In the early 1960s, I commenced reading reports from scientists predicting a coming ice age and also those who proclaimed Arrhenius was right. A warming trend stilled the icers and Mother Nature now beckons believers in global warming (original definition) to a similar comeuppance.
I read Lord Blagger’s comment (2) and thought if Gavin was my son I’d speak to him about being courteous. Blagger asked the question “How can this be the case?” Your reply was from the gutter coached in prep boy English. Well you are not and I won’t, but I can say this.
The previous election created a Congress unfavorable to your views. You may be contemptuous, but the voters are not stupid and do understand human nature. They inherently know any question can be answered succinctly by knowledgeable people. Lack of knowledge is immediately suspected when someone uses ridicule, insults and suggests impossible feats instead of answering.
Your computer can provide only your opinions, not facts. You do the programming, select input data including assumptions and tweak the output. It does not take a PhD to understand the product is what you want it to be. Trenberth did all that and now wonders where the warming went. Mann did all that and he ended up cherry picking bristlecone pines. Look at the graph above which appears to be a shotgun blast and you proclaim it is a true prediction?
But who gets the glory for trying to save the earth; why Gore, a non scientist and some scientists at the IPCC who don’t do research. BTW, did you ever challenge Gore to correct the many erroneous claims he made which didn’t correlate with IPCC predictions? No, you let non scientists such as environmentalists and self promoters like Gore attempt to scare the citizenry. Gore and others They and some politicians get power and money and you get paid chicken feed.
My advice to you is to drop the smartest guy in the room attitude and answer hard questions courteously. You really don’t want to end up like your boss, thirty years in the same position without a promotion.
Did you miss this week’s good news from Nature that Greenland glaciers appear to slow down in warmer temperatures:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7331/full/nature09740.html
seemingly ruling out unexpected large additions to sea level rise from accelerated melting of Greenland glaciers?
Really lame try. Try again, next time with a little more flavour, wit and less irritability. Perhaps then I’ll mind to read it to the bloody end ;).
dhogaza, #259,no. There are thousands of scientists who are collecting data, and statisticians/mathematicians, performing analysis with very different results. Even quite a bunch of climate scientists besides Lindzen et., al. In addition I know engineers, chemists and physicists not in climate science,but skeptical, just the same, due to related knowledge areas and working expertise. Oh,yes, and meteorologists too.
No dhogaza. Many scientists share my views
RE 58 ghost
Well, no I’m not a Chemist. I’m one of those odd fellows whose education and career path don’t line up. Life is funny that way. My professional career is in Electroplating Process Control; Chemical Wastewater Treatment; and Environmental Controls & Compliance (20+ years) even though my education was in Engineering (many many moons ago). Two of the three require considerable understanding of inorganic chemistry especially pertaining to aqueous solutions.
My education in biology is pretty much limited to a year’s worth in college, the discovery channel, and my own experiments (with my wife, eh eh).
I come into contact with a wide variety of applied science practitioners of many disciplines including biologists, engineers of several flavors, chemists, etc. etc. and I only know one that is not basically what I believe is termed a “lukewarmer” and the one person (professional) that’s not skeptical is a environmental scientist (and he debates like a wet noodle, all he’ll say is most climatologists agree …..; to which I reply most crypto-zoologists agree that the North American wood ape …..) Anyway, these are not dumb people and are certainly not paid by “big oil”. From what I understand there’s a great deal of skepticism among meteorologists as well. Can we all be just too dumb, lazy, incompetent, unbalanced, loons, nuts, etc…..? Maybe, maybe not. Amazingly enough, I don’t know any climatologists. Hmmmm. Perhaps we all just like being a “lukewarmer”; it reminds us of Star Wars.
A hint about ocean acidification: alkalinity not pH. (No, they’re not the same thing.)
FALSE PROPHETS,a biblical test would be that if what they say and prophesy comes to pass regard what they say but if it doesn’t then don’t listen to them.This seems to me the obvious approach to climate science and in fact all science and self evident as the way in which most people react.Crying wolf even if the wolf was there but keeps disappearing will lose the present scientific comunity credibility.Credibility in science is more important than risky prophesy which may give people a warning and may not,so that when scientists are reasonably sure[as in beyond reasonable doubt] they will be believed and their warnings acted upon.Better be an honest scientist than a lucky guesser.
I have suggested before on this web site that i believe that global warming and melting ice caps will convert to an increase in cloud volume equivalent to the volume of ice loss,and there has been no attempt to measure this just cloud cover.If i am right action to cool the climate will lead to an increase in flooding and sea rise only equivalent to expansion due to temperature rise.If i am wrong then total sea rise will cover ice loss and thermal expansion surely this can be measured.This is very important which way we go as recent floods accross the world can be very expensive to our economy and way of life.perhaps we may need a ‘steady as she goes’approach rather than a ‘cool the globe one.
RE: #73 Ray Ladbury
And here I thought your offer for Q&A was sincere, silly me; thankfully Chris Colose and Gavin did answer my question. I made no “strongly stated position” and I suppose obsrvations aren’t evidence unless they’re in a computer model; you sir are no longer worth reading and this post belongs in the bore hole.
When will RC resume commenting on real science?
I never did get a chance to ask this question, and I don’t recall seeing an answer or explanation —
Why does it appear that GISS and HadCRU are diverging? The agreement between NCDC and HadCRUT3 appear to be far better than the agreement between GISS and HadCRUT3. Is there an explanation that doesn’t involve hand waving or Proof by Repeated Assertion? The explanation given in the lead-in strikes me as hand-waving on both sides since both involve assumptions, so repeating it isn’t the answer I’m looking for.
Spielhagen has some explaining to do, in 2008 a peer reviewed study appeared in the “Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences”. From their conclusion…
“The Holocene record from site HLY0501-05 illustrates the sensitivity of hydrographical conditions in the western
Arctic Ocean. The data show a long-term warming that is opposite to what is reconstructed for the eastern Arctic and
point to a bipolar behavior of the Arctic Ocean at the timescale of the Holocene. The millennial-scale variability in the eastern Chukchi Sea is characterized by quasi-cyclic periods
of high SSS, high SST, and reduced sea-ice cover, which most probably reflects variations in the stratification of the
upper water column. Such changes maybe related to tidal forcing and (or) large-scale mechanisms, such as AO/NAOlike
oscillations. It is important to note that the amplitude of these millennial-scale changes in sea-surface conditions far exceed those observed at the end of the 20th century.”
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf
Add to that, pictures of the USS Skate surfacing at the North pole to very little ice on March 17, 1959 conflict with these findings
A comment I posted earlier w.r.t. the Spielhagen article ended up in the Bore Hole section (https://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=6013). Could you explain why? Thanks in advance.
>>>>>”whether climate is chaotic (perhaps as a function of the base state) is very much an open question. ”
And you think you have it figured out? You know enough to manage the climate now? Know enough to dictate public policy? Know enough that your public policy – i.e., force – would even have an effect? Know enough that your desired force, er, policy, will do more good than harm?
Yeah, sure.
What you think you know is enough to make politicians salivate for using you to control the “ignorant masses.”
It ain’t working for you any more.
Even on sites where you control the information.
Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.
More to #99
OK, so I looked at your graph above and the 2007 post. Scenario B shows a 25 yr trend of 0.27 deg C/decade. GISStemp and Hadcrut show a 25yr trend of 0.19 and 0.18 per decade which appear to be slightly lower than Scenario C(which are about .1 deg C lower than in 2007). So Scenario B has an anomaly .25 deg C higher than data. Scenario A has an anonmaly 0.55 deg C higher than the data. This all shows that Scenario B, Scenario C, and the two datasets are not significantly different.
Quote from today:”As before, it seems that the Hansen et al ‘B’ projection is likely running a little warm compared to the real world.” One could just as easily say that Scenario C seems to be doing a better job of matching the data to date. Even though CO2 is still tracking upwards at ~1.15 ppm/yr. in a linear fashion. The data even appears to be possibly matching the leveling off show by Scenario C post 2005. That is quite an accomplishment since it assumes the model forcings levelled out in 2000.
No one is arguing that temperatures appear to still be creeping upwards. Just that the modelling and datasets still don’t show enough change to make any kind of attribution or substantive predictions. As the 2007 post said, the data is pretty noisy hear to year(weather). In the next 10-20 years it should become apparent might be happening to the climate and whether or not it is bad or good.
Clean wind-energy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
Re 30 and 33:
SecularAnimis:
Are you implying billionaire fossil fuel corporation executives driven by a culture of ruthless, rapacious, relentless, reactionary corporate greed are responsible for the hostility towards climate scientists and denial of climate science? If that true, then it logically follows that you believe corporate greed is the only purpose for burning of fossil fuel.
Of course that isn’t true. If Industry had continued the transition from coal burning plants to nuclear power plants which was underway mid 20th Century, and developed hydrogen powered vehicles, we wouldn’t have a CO2 problem today.
It is remarkable that many contrarians say just the opposite; that greedy politicians are the driving force behind AGW research and the real purpose is to levy a new tax.
Gavin:
You say the role of human-produced CO2 in affecting climate is well-understood. No, you have an opinion that is well understood, but other just as well educated and experienced disagree.
Industry picked a solution which insofar as they were permitted to go has worked just fine. They used the very best of scientific effort in its development. The politicians did not like the plan and scared people into bringing it to a halt. Now they want a rerun and are using scientists to again scare people. The leveling you speak of brings trillions of dollars to a political party. Do you favor that?
This is off-topic but there’s one dilemma regarding CO2 and warming that I have never seen answered: how exactly are we to reduce CO2 \pollution\, considering the rapid increase of CO2 \pollution\ in Asia due to ongoing industrialization process there. Maybe we could reduce our own levels thanks to inventions and negative population growth, but what about Asia?
We have China with 1.3 billion and India who isn’t far behind. As well as other countries in the region with growing economies.
To me it seems IMPOSSIBLE to reduce world-wide CO2… HOW would we do it?
Point being, yes there is global warming, but we can’t do anything about the increase in CO2 pollution so why don’t we direct our efforts elsewhere? Like start preparing for the global warming and its consequences…
With respect to
Paleoclimate:
1.A new study by Spielhagen and co-authors
I found a very similar reconstruction (using Dinocysts) located on the West Spitzbergen margin in the Fram Strait which comes to very different conclusions.
Title: Variability of sea-surface temperature and sea-ice cover in the Fram Strait over the last two millennia
Author(s): Bonnet, S; de Vernal, A; Hillaire-Marcel, C, et al.
Source: MARINE MICROPALEONTOLOGY Volume: 74 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 59-74 Published: 2010
What are we to make of that?
Taking two series for one location, separately de-meaning them, then analyzing the trend at that one location, seems to me to be the same as making an assumption of zero trend at that location, and embedding that assumption in the analysis. That’s not a valid methodological choice, that’s an error. I understand that just splining the series is an assumption of zero calibration error, but at least that’s a presumably random error. Separately de-meaning them biases the results toward a finding of zero trend, and it means that the magnitude of the findings is an artifact of the (arbitrary) timing of when the first series ended (with “right in the middle of the time period” imparting the greatest bias).