A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
Euan Mearnssays
@ Sloop
I see you are trying to undermine the contribution of Dr Best by simply insulting him. I have to admit that I am most surprised that a comment such as yours gets posted on this web site that claims to be Real.
Dr Best’s CV reads as follows….
“I have a Bsc in Physics and a PhD in High Energy Physics and have worked as a research fellow at CERN for 3 years, Rutherford Lab for 2 years and the JET Nuclear Fusion experiment for 5 years.” Whilst I have not checked the veracity of these claims, I have no reason to doubt them. Sloop, would you care to provide evidence of your professional credentials? Personally I have a BSc honours in Geology and a PhD in isotope geochemistry. I would hope that the mods here NEVER see fit to censor anything I post here – lest it smack of manipulation of the literature and media – god forbid!
Doug Bostrom,
While I am an unaffiliated voter it still annoys me when people misrepresent the GOP on matters relating to climate and energy policy. Inhofe and a growing number of people on both sides of the aisle think that the money currently being wasted on “Climate Science” should be redirected to weather forcasting:
You do not have to go to a remote part of Norway to conduct the chemical and thermal analyses or study geological history to determine that man’s carbon dioxide is just barely enough to help the farmers of the world to keep up with the demand for quality crops to feed the world’s exploding population.
Thrinaxodonsays
@Roberts:
It’s undeniable that AGW is not real. The evidence contradicts it:
Glaciers have been growing in Norway.
Dan H.says
Bernberb,
I think that many of the denialists are arguing that the increased CO2 concentrations arose from ocean warming. This has been shown to have occurred during past warming episodes, but this overlooks the large amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere through the burning of carbon-based fuels. Yes, simple experiments show a roughly one degree of warming associated with doubling CO2 concentrations. The much more complex experiment currently being performed on our own atmosphere is completely different. Understanding the simple experiment, does not imply understanding of the complex. Hence, the wide range of positions taken by scientists on this issue.
Dan H.says
Radge,
So true. There are those who fail to acknowledge the science, in favor of their own passion or ideology. They want it to be true, therefore it becomes true in their own mind.
Dan H.says
Kevin,
I will disagree that their main objective was to “cast doubt.” That seems a bit accusative to me. It may well be an “over-reach” to apply these results to the post-1980 Arctic. However, that does not negate the potential comparison to previous time periods. Suggestion that their results were “pre-ordained” implies that they have little scientific integrity. Perhaps, this is what you want to believe.
Dan H.says
Rob,
Kevin linked to an article that made your correlation. That was not my explanation. How you got from their conclusion are guarded to actual causation was quite a leap.
Kevin,
We may never know the true picture of historic sea ice extent. We had poor records prior to the satellite data, let alone centuries prior. Know one knows how many herring lived there, let alone their color.
Myrrhsays
I forgot to add, when are all you CAGWs and AGWs going to stop pretending you know anything about climate, when you show abyssmal ignorance of the basic physics of matter and energy?
What Greenhouse Effect?
From real physics:
Temperature of Earth with voluminous real gas atmosphere with mass therefore weight under gravity, mainly condensable nitrogen and oxygen: 15°C
Temperature of Earth without atmosphere: -18°C
Compare with the Moon without atmosphere: -23°C
Temperature of the Earth with real gas atmosphere of mainly condensable nitrogen and oxygen, but, without water, think deserts: 67°C
Which is the real “thermal blanket” around the Earth?
Where is the physical process of the Greenhouse Effect claim that “greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33°C from the -18°C it would be without them?
At best this is mass delusion, at worst, this is “scientists” without even an elementary grasp of the physical properties and processes of matter and energy:
who cannot tell the difference between real gases and the fictional ideal;
who have not noticed the whole of the Water Cycle is missing from their models;
who have not noticed they have no rain in their Carbon Cycle;
who have zilch capacity for sense of scale and cannot tell the difference between their claimed trace gas carbon dioxide which is practically 100% hole in the atmosphere “thermal blanket” and the real gas air nitrogen and oxygen with mass therefore weight under gravity which weighs down on us around 14lbs per square inch, a ton on our shoulders;
who think our Sun is a cold star of 6000°C, which is around the temp of the Earth’s innards;
who think our real millions of degree hot Star the Sun therefore radiates insignificant amounts of longwave infrared heat, which they have, it has to be said, idiotically calculated by some ‘planckian’ method based on the thin 300 mile wide visible light atmosphere around our millions of degree hot Sun;
or, who claim there is some “invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA preventing direct thermal infrared from the Sun entering”, unknown to real physics;
who have not noticed the Solar Constant, which is the measurement of how much direct longwave infared heat energy from the Sun arrives at the surface by the amount it heats matter at the surface, has been moved in their GHE energy budget to TOA and misattributed to visible light from the Sun;
who claim it is visible light from the Sun which heats matter, which is a physically impossibility, etc., etc.,
Do the rest of us in the world a favour, who rely on you for accuracy as you claim to be scientists – stop your posturing. You have no knowledge of physics basics.
The Greenhouse Effect is an Illusion, it is not physically possible, it does not exist, it is hoax to promote AGW.
It is the biggest science fraud to date and the longer you continue to promote it in any shape or form the longer the fraud will continue to the detriment of real science, and real scientists.
There is no physical process to get the “33°C warming by greenhouse gases”, its an illusion created by the science fraud of misappropriating the minus 18°C and applying it where it does not belong..
Arno Arraksays
Let me disabuse you of the thought that Arctic warming is caused by greenhouse warming. It is not, because there is no greenhouse warming now and there has not been any for the last 15 years. Despite that fact, Arctic today is the only place on earth that is still warming. It all started at the turn of the twentieth century, after two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. There was no parallel increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide and this rules out the greenhouse effect. Laws of physics just don’t permit it. That is because the absorbency of carbon dioxide in the infrared is a property of the gas and cannot be changed. You must add more absorbing molecules to start a warming. The only logical source for such a sudden warming is a reorganization of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that started to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. This would also explain why it is still warming while the rest of the world is not. From the start, this warming has been faster than model predictions. But in mid-century it paused for thirty years, then resumed, and is still going strong. A direct measurement of water temperature reaching the Arctic in 2010 showed that it exceeded anything there within the last 2000 years. The warming pause most likely was caused by a temporary return of the former flow pattern of currents. It was accompanied by cooling at the rate of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade. If such a cooling should return even temporarily it would complicate any plans made for exploitation of the warming Arctic. Read E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2011).
vukcevicsays
Global temperature sensitivity for the doubling of CO2 = 0.7C ?
Calculations from the correlation of global land temperature to the geomagnetic Ap index indicates it to be so. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap_LT.htm
Global Land Temperature (HadCru3) for the period 1880-1990 rose about 0.8C, it could be concluded that half of this is due to solar activity (via geomagnetic storms as measured by the Ap index) and the other half had to be attributed to all other factors including the CO2 rise.
Isotopioussays
I am always perplexed by the advocacy issue, since it would be terribly difficult to prove that a scientist such as gavin is an advocate of anything.
It’s a red herring. One does not need to advocate anything to intimidate prospective young-ling soon to be “scientists”.
The mere presence of someone like gavin (or any other contributor to this site) is enough of of a deterrent to question what gavin (or the like) dare not to question themselves.
It’s not advocacy, it’s duress. That’s the true impact of calling someone a “denier”, whether they are or not is irrelevant.
Dan H.says
JBL,
Well said. Anyone shuld be able to look at the data, determine that it is likely to be accurate, but realize that they are looking at a a single week in years worth of data. Perspective is the issue here. Yes, it was a cold week. Big deal! COmpare it to the year, decade, century, etc.
Any explanation for Arctic Sea Ice. The Arctic Sea Ice blog recently wrote, “I don’t know what is going on over at Cryosphere Today, but the melting has come to a complete standstill. In the past 10 days the ice pack has not lost, but gained 20K km2! That’s so crazy for this phase of the melting season that I barely have words for it.”
Dan H.says
Good point Jim,
That was the approximate population during the Roman era, and I do not think that anyone would consider that anywhere near extinction. Although I image it would get quite difficult for governments to keep track of us.
Steve Fishsays
Re- Comment by prokaryotes — 11 Aug 2013 @ 12:19 AM
You say- ‘… this figure indicates how intimidation of climate science after 1983 has induced researchers to adopt “least drama” SLR projections with lower “High” projections.’
This is an accusation of misbehavior by scientists. Where did you find reliable evidence that climate scientists have been bowing to intimidation and altering their data and data reporting for the last 30 years? I think you should provide your evidence or apologize.
Steve
Dan H.says
Anders,
Your graphs for ocean warming, mountain glaciers, and Greenland look quite reasonable. How do you come about your graph for Antarctica? Many other predictions claim that much greater warming would need to occur before Antarctica ceases to accumulate ice, and instead starts losing. Others even state that Antarctica will increase its growth rate, due to increased snowfall and ice accumulation as the warming oceans add moisture to the surrounding air. Please expound. Thank you.
Titussays
Actual observation tells us that sea levels have been rising on average 2mm/yr (0-4mm/yr). This has been the result since records began and agrees with this articles assessment of 0.2m/century. It’s currently at the low end with some place seeing a negative increase.
As AGW did’nt get started till the middle of last century I see no link at all of AGW to sea level rise.
Geological and gravitational changes have an enormous affect and not taking acount of all combination of every parameter (incl. unknowns) makes this, in my mind a puerile and unconvincing study.
How much did SL rise during the medieval warming period that allowed the Vikings to grow food in Greenland?
Titussays
What happem to my comment back at #20?? It appeared ok after I posted it.
Dan H.says
Jon,
I echo your sentiments, and thanks for the link. Some models tend to treat Antarctic as a whole, but different processes affect different regions. You may find the following interesting:
Where’s my comment that was posted around #20? Second time of asking
Dan H.says
Jon,
I agree, and thanks for the link. Some models tend to treat Antarctic as a whole, but different processes affect the regions differently. You may find the following interesting:
Alan Miller @93 you say:
“Now look at the disaster that is upon us, look at what has happened to temperatures since the start of this century, look and weep.”
The current consensus is that temperatures have been flat for this century. In fact th last few years have seen a decrease and some scientists suggesting we will have cooling for the next 20-30yrs.
Obviously the cataclismic predictions you quote from last century have been totally wrong. I would have thought we should at least be pleased (or rejoicing). Why would you weep?
It seems to me the temperature curve is derived from a model based GMT-Prognosis. Its standing on very shaky ground.
T Marvellsays
Sea level rise will probably mean that many cities will be abandoned or surrounded by dykes. Beyond that, the topic is beyond the expertise of climite scientists. They cannot address the question of what the overall practical impact will be. History is full of examples of cities being destroyed (e.g., WWII) or requiring major protection (e.g. defensive walls in middle ages). The question whether that hindered human progress in the long run is a topic for economists, historians, etc.
PAbersays
Susan, what exactly do you have in mind?
Which industrial-strength falsehood? (I recall that only a couple years ago the statements confirming a “pause” in temperature were considered falsehood. Now we begin to study not its existence but origins. And this is good scientific practice, especially in the light of the “mismatch” between observations and models.)
What do you mean about “soldiering on”? Are you waging a war? Against whom (in the context of publishing research papers, because this is what I thought was the topic of the discussion)?
timwellssays
Which ever way we slice or dice it,it certainly does not look like we will have a problem with SLR in this century and probably next as well.Surely that is a good thing,isnt it?
AJsays
@pete best #67, that article raises important points that cannot be dismissed by a glib, unscientific throwaway. For instance, it points out that billions of dollars were invested on the basis of predictions from climate models. These predictions were incorrect.
It also points out the existence of an IPCC “crisis meeting”, the very existence of which calls into questions the 95% certainty claim that the majority of changes in our climate system are the result of human influence.
These are legitimate questions. Credibility hinges on the existence of legitimate answers.
Dan H.says
sidd,
Be careful when using these types of accelerations, as the SLR has gone through accel/decl periods over the entire record in an apparent oscillating fashion.
Pete,
When it come to reporting in the press, hype sells better than fact. Last year’s new record low made headlines across the globe, while this year, the large relative “recovery” is the best they can print. Long, slow trends do not make for good headlines. Claims of an ice-free Arctic in 2013 or 2016 made for a better news story than sometime in the 2050s.
“The longterm trend has short-term variations, and “rabbit” fell for people promoting short-term variation as a trend. ‘rabbit’ should read the science — and take Statistics 101.”
In my post I said it could well be a short-term high-frequency fluctuation. Next time read what people write, rather than reflexively attacking any piece of data that seems to imperil your point of view.
And in all likelihood I know far more statistics than you ever will.
rabbitsays
“I then actually checked Mr. Leuliette’s historical reading list to find out a little more about this gentleman.”
You’re really big on attacking people’s motives, aren’t you?
But this report is from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency. Had these figures been made up or distorted by Leuliette, presumably they would not have published it.
I’m sorry if the report makes you uncomfortable.
Dan H.says
Ironic that they claim that a rise in food prices triggered the Arab uprising, when the rise in food prices was caused by the hike in oil prices.
rabbitsays
Moderator:
I notice that you post responses to my comment, but no longer post my rebuttals to these.
It would appear you can not tolerate evidence or argument that runs counter to your beliefs. This despite that fact that I fully admitted that the last seven years might well be due to short-term variation. Even evidence from NOAA, a federal agency which is certainly not in the “denier” camp, is rejected if it doesn’t fall into line.
Fine. As you wish. It’s your blog.
But to be scientific, one must allow evidence and argument which both supports and counters ones viewpoints. To close your eyes to one side is to refuse to face reality full on. But reality is a notorious attention seeker, and has a habit of biting such people on the arse.
The science over climate change has become horribly politicized, with both sides becoming entrenched in their beliefs, rejecting out of hand evidence to the contrary no matter how mild. This blog, apparently, is part of that.
Have a nice day.
Dan H.says
Rabbit,
That is a frequent occurrance here. But as you stated, it is their blog. I have encountered a similar intolerance of evidence that runs counter to their beliefs, even if said evidence is from their own people.
Your error is assuming that this is scientific. If it were, then evidence and arguments which both supports and counters ones viewpoints would be allowed. Alas, that is not the case here, nor will you find it on other similarly biases sites. Your analysis of reality is quite accurate.
I wholeheartely agree with your statement about the science becoming horribly politicized. Objectivity has been tossed aside in favor of belief entrenchment.
The IPCC is not, nor does it claim to be, anything but a policy making body. I stand by my quotation. It says nothing about denial btw.
Dan H.says
Ray,
While I agree that the cost of some events, like a large asteroid impact would be unacceptable, the costs of mitigation may also be unacceptable. Using threat avoidance for mitigation as the only viable option because the risk cannot be bounded, is a poor response. The portion of the risk that can be bounded (in the case of SLR), can be weighed in terms of risk and cost. The SLR example is unbounded, based solely on the tipping point idea, which is contentious.
Not that I advocate doing nothing. Rather, risk assessment is essential to this cause, as both the costs and consequences have the potential to be exorbinant.
That link shows we weren’t burning enough coal in the 1850’s to give a grasshopper black lung disease. Locomotives ran on wood and homes were heated by peat, candles were made of tallow and whale oil. We didn’t start burning petroleum until the 1903 Oldsmobile curved dash, maybe a few Peugeots and a Benz or two. Take a look at that link and tell me why sea levels were already rising at .2 m per century in the 1800’s, long before humans put a gnat’s breath of CO2 into the atmosphere.
199 Mal. Mixing metaphors is fun. Don’t count your chickens when the bottom line isn’t even in the ball park. But it’s not fun to mix data sets. It goes against the scientific method, which requires that “all other things be held equal.” Church and White look like they are trying to lose weight by switching from pounds to kilograms. “Look Martha. I used to weigh 249 but now I’m only 148. Boy, I sure love the metric system. Tell Doctor Oz about my new weight loss program.”
No seriously. If satellite data measures the sea level in the open ocean, that is great. It’s very exciting new information. But you can’t compare it to land based data any more than you can compare data from one land base with another. It goes against everything scientists believe in. You need to reduce all variables to a minimum.
The satellite data from 1992 to 2013, when compared only with itself, shows no acceleration. It’s a line as straight as a cue stick. Land based data also shows lines as straight as cue sticks. Now you take two cue sticks, break them and glue them back together crooked, and you get a piece of sporting equipment even more useless than a hockey stick. At least with a hockey stick, you can play hockey. What can you do with a broken cue stick glued crooked?
It’s not the scientific method, which requires that “all other variables be held equal.” Satellite data measures the sea level in the open ocean, and you can’t compare it to land based data any more than you can compare data from one land base with another.
The above link: satellite data from 1992 to 2013, when compared only with itself, shows no acceleration. It’s a line as straight as a cue stick. Land based data also shows lines as straight as cue sticks. You take two cue sticks, break them and glue them back together crooked, you get a piece of sporting equipment even more useless than a hockey stick. At least with a hockey stick, you can play hockey.
Mal, it’s not the scientific method, which requires that “all other variables be held equal.” Satellite data measures the sea level in the open ocean, and you can’t compare it to land based data any more than you can compare data from one land base to another.
Indigosays
So, if the model doesn’t work, there’s nothing to worry about?
[Response: No. If there is a mismatch, there is maybe an interesting reason for it, and people should try and find out what it is. – gavin]
Er,er, I thought the science was SETTLED??????????????
Oh dear, reading todays comments, seems like the fox is in the hen house.
Madman2001says
The worrisome thing is that the models have NOT improved over time. For example, they continue to project substantial temperature increases even while we’re in this global warming pause. If this pause lasts for too much longer — 5 years? 15 years? you tell me — we have to start wondering whether one or more fundamental assumptions within these models are wrong.
Anonymoussays
As economics learned in teh 1970s, garbage in, garbage out.
Tad Boydsays
It appears from the graph (Figure 3 blue line) that the unique rapid rise started in the late 1800’s.
1.) Does this suggest that humans were already putting out enough CO2 to cause global warming at that time?
or
2.) Even though the rapid rise is unique, it may have been natural (from the late 1800’s to 1940 – end of the blue line)?
or
3.) Something else… (my eyeballing of the graph was wrong, premise of my question was wrong, etc)?
Thanks,
Tad
[Response: Other people can chime in – but I think it’s more useful to think of the early 1800’s as being a time when shorter term natural forcings (particularly volcanoes and solar) were pushing climate cooler than the long term trend would imply. Without anthropogenic influences there would have been a recovery of sorts but only to the long term trend – what has actually happened is vastly different. – gavin]
Dan H.says
jgnfld,
I generally agree with your assessment, except for hurricanes. While increasing SST increases the likelihood of hurricane formation, the ultimate hurricane strength is unaffected. Hurricane strength is determined by atmospheric conditions, which are likely to be less favorable.
Big Billsays
Any explaination as to why parts of the Arctic Ocean containing at least 15 percent sea ice have increased by 78 percent when compared with the extent last year at this time, according to data compiled by the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
@ Sloop
I see you are trying to undermine the contribution of Dr Best by simply insulting him. I have to admit that I am most surprised that a comment such as yours gets posted on this web site that claims to be Real.
Dr Best’s CV reads as follows….
“I have a Bsc in Physics and a PhD in High Energy Physics and have worked as a research fellow at CERN for 3 years, Rutherford Lab for 2 years and the JET Nuclear Fusion experiment for 5 years.” Whilst I have not checked the veracity of these claims, I have no reason to doubt them. Sloop, would you care to provide evidence of your professional credentials? Personally I have a BSc honours in Geology and a PhD in isotope geochemistry. I would hope that the mods here NEVER see fit to censor anything I post here – lest it smack of manipulation of the literature and media – god forbid!
I see that the CRU has adjusted its Yamal chronolgy.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/#comment-424920
I’m surprised you’ve not noted that during this post.
May one assume that a little apology to Steve McIntyre will be forthcoming?
Martin Vermeer says:
21 Jun 2013 at 1:56 PM
“And denialist’s should learn to spell :-)”
And warm-mongers should learn punctuation.
Doug Bostrom,
While I am an unaffiliated voter it still annoys me when people misrepresent the GOP on matters relating to climate and energy policy. Inhofe and a growing number of people on both sides of the aisle think that the money currently being wasted on “Climate Science” should be redirected to weather forcasting:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Bridenstine_wants_more_money_for_weather_forecasting/20130611_100_0_WSIGOD495671?subj=298
You do not have to go to a remote part of Norway to conduct the chemical and thermal analyses or study geological history to determine that man’s carbon dioxide is just barely enough to help the farmers of the world to keep up with the demand for quality crops to feed the world’s exploding population.
@Roberts:
It’s undeniable that AGW is not real. The evidence contradicts it:
Glaciers have been growing in Norway.
Bernberb,
I think that many of the denialists are arguing that the increased CO2 concentrations arose from ocean warming. This has been shown to have occurred during past warming episodes, but this overlooks the large amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere through the burning of carbon-based fuels. Yes, simple experiments show a roughly one degree of warming associated with doubling CO2 concentrations. The much more complex experiment currently being performed on our own atmosphere is completely different. Understanding the simple experiment, does not imply understanding of the complex. Hence, the wide range of positions taken by scientists on this issue.
Radge,
So true. There are those who fail to acknowledge the science, in favor of their own passion or ideology. They want it to be true, therefore it becomes true in their own mind.
Kevin,
I will disagree that their main objective was to “cast doubt.” That seems a bit accusative to me. It may well be an “over-reach” to apply these results to the post-1980 Arctic. However, that does not negate the potential comparison to previous time periods. Suggestion that their results were “pre-ordained” implies that they have little scientific integrity. Perhaps, this is what you want to believe.
Rob,
Kevin linked to an article that made your correlation. That was not my explanation. How you got from their conclusion are guarded to actual causation was quite a leap.
Kevin,
We may never know the true picture of historic sea ice extent. We had poor records prior to the satellite data, let alone centuries prior. Know one knows how many herring lived there, let alone their color.
I forgot to add, when are all you CAGWs and AGWs going to stop pretending you know anything about climate, when you show abyssmal ignorance of the basic physics of matter and energy?
What Greenhouse Effect?
From real physics:
Temperature of Earth with voluminous real gas atmosphere with mass therefore weight under gravity, mainly condensable nitrogen and oxygen: 15°C
Temperature of Earth without atmosphere: -18°C
Compare with the Moon without atmosphere: -23°C
Temperature of the Earth with real gas atmosphere of mainly condensable nitrogen and oxygen, but, without water, think deserts: 67°C
Which is the real “thermal blanket” around the Earth?
Where is the physical process of the Greenhouse Effect claim that “greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33°C from the -18°C it would be without them?
At best this is mass delusion, at worst, this is “scientists” without even an elementary grasp of the physical properties and processes of matter and energy:
who cannot tell the difference between real gases and the fictional ideal;
who have not noticed the whole of the Water Cycle is missing from their models;
who have not noticed they have no rain in their Carbon Cycle;
who have zilch capacity for sense of scale and cannot tell the difference between their claimed trace gas carbon dioxide which is practically 100% hole in the atmosphere “thermal blanket” and the real gas air nitrogen and oxygen with mass therefore weight under gravity which weighs down on us around 14lbs per square inch, a ton on our shoulders;
who think our Sun is a cold star of 6000°C, which is around the temp of the Earth’s innards;
who think our real millions of degree hot Star the Sun therefore radiates insignificant amounts of longwave infrared heat, which they have, it has to be said, idiotically calculated by some ‘planckian’ method based on the thin 300 mile wide visible light atmosphere around our millions of degree hot Sun;
or, who claim there is some “invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA preventing direct thermal infrared from the Sun entering”, unknown to real physics;
who have not noticed the Solar Constant, which is the measurement of how much direct longwave infared heat energy from the Sun arrives at the surface by the amount it heats matter at the surface, has been moved in their GHE energy budget to TOA and misattributed to visible light from the Sun;
who claim it is visible light from the Sun which heats matter, which is a physically impossibility, etc., etc.,
Do the rest of us in the world a favour, who rely on you for accuracy as you claim to be scientists – stop your posturing. You have no knowledge of physics basics.
The Greenhouse Effect is an Illusion, it is not physically possible, it does not exist, it is hoax to promote AGW.
It is the biggest science fraud to date and the longer you continue to promote it in any shape or form the longer the fraud will continue to the detriment of real science, and real scientists.
There is no physical process to get the “33°C warming by greenhouse gases”, its an illusion created by the science fraud of misappropriating the minus 18°C and applying it where it does not belong..
Let me disabuse you of the thought that Arctic warming is caused by greenhouse warming. It is not, because there is no greenhouse warming now and there has not been any for the last 15 years. Despite that fact, Arctic today is the only place on earth that is still warming. It all started at the turn of the twentieth century, after two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. There was no parallel increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide and this rules out the greenhouse effect. Laws of physics just don’t permit it. That is because the absorbency of carbon dioxide in the infrared is a property of the gas and cannot be changed. You must add more absorbing molecules to start a warming. The only logical source for such a sudden warming is a reorganization of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that started to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. This would also explain why it is still warming while the rest of the world is not. From the start, this warming has been faster than model predictions. But in mid-century it paused for thirty years, then resumed, and is still going strong. A direct measurement of water temperature reaching the Arctic in 2010 showed that it exceeded anything there within the last 2000 years. The warming pause most likely was caused by a temporary return of the former flow pattern of currents. It was accompanied by cooling at the rate of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade. If such a cooling should return even temporarily it would complicate any plans made for exploitation of the warming Arctic. Read E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2011).
Global temperature sensitivity for the doubling of CO2 = 0.7C ?
Calculations from the correlation of global land temperature to the geomagnetic Ap index indicates it to be so.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap_LT.htm
Global Land Temperature (HadCru3) for the period 1880-1990 rose about 0.8C, it could be concluded that half of this is due to solar activity (via geomagnetic storms as measured by the Ap index) and the other half had to be attributed to all other factors including the CO2 rise.
I am always perplexed by the advocacy issue, since it would be terribly difficult to prove that a scientist such as gavin is an advocate of anything.
It’s a red herring. One does not need to advocate anything to intimidate prospective young-ling soon to be “scientists”.
The mere presence of someone like gavin (or any other contributor to this site) is enough of of a deterrent to question what gavin (or the like) dare not to question themselves.
It’s not advocacy, it’s duress. That’s the true impact of calling someone a “denier”, whether they are or not is irrelevant.
JBL,
Well said. Anyone shuld be able to look at the data, determine that it is likely to be accurate, but realize that they are looking at a a single week in years worth of data. Perspective is the issue here. Yes, it was a cold week. Big deal! COmpare it to the year, decade, century, etc.
Any explanation for Arctic Sea Ice. The Arctic Sea Ice blog recently wrote, “I don’t know what is going on over at Cryosphere Today, but the melting has come to a complete standstill. In the past 10 days the ice pack has not lost, but gained 20K km2! That’s so crazy for this phase of the melting season that I barely have words for it.”
Good point Jim,
That was the approximate population during the Roman era, and I do not think that anyone would consider that anywhere near extinction. Although I image it would get quite difficult for governments to keep track of us.
Re- Comment by prokaryotes — 11 Aug 2013 @ 12:19 AM
You say- ‘… this figure indicates how intimidation of climate science after 1983 has induced researchers to adopt “least drama” SLR projections with lower “High” projections.’
This is an accusation of misbehavior by scientists. Where did you find reliable evidence that climate scientists have been bowing to intimidation and altering their data and data reporting for the last 30 years? I think you should provide your evidence or apologize.
Steve
Anders,
Your graphs for ocean warming, mountain glaciers, and Greenland look quite reasonable. How do you come about your graph for Antarctica? Many other predictions claim that much greater warming would need to occur before Antarctica ceases to accumulate ice, and instead starts losing. Others even state that Antarctica will increase its growth rate, due to increased snowfall and ice accumulation as the warming oceans add moisture to the surrounding air. Please expound. Thank you.
Actual observation tells us that sea levels have been rising on average 2mm/yr (0-4mm/yr). This has been the result since records began and agrees with this articles assessment of 0.2m/century. It’s currently at the low end with some place seeing a negative increase.
As AGW did’nt get started till the middle of last century I see no link at all of AGW to sea level rise.
Geological and gravitational changes have an enormous affect and not taking acount of all combination of every parameter (incl. unknowns) makes this, in my mind a puerile and unconvincing study.
How much did SL rise during the medieval warming period that allowed the Vikings to grow food in Greenland?
What happem to my comment back at #20?? It appeared ok after I posted it.
Jon,
I echo your sentiments, and thanks for the link. Some models tend to treat Antarctic as a whole, but different processes affect different regions. You may find the following interesting:
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7-303-2013.pdf
Where’s my comment that was posted around #20? Second time of asking
Jon,
I agree, and thanks for the link. Some models tend to treat Antarctic as a whole, but different processes affect the regions differently. You may find the following interesting:
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7-303-2013.pdf
Alan Miller @93 you say:
“Now look at the disaster that is upon us, look at what has happened to temperatures since the start of this century, look and weep.”
The current consensus is that temperatures have been flat for this century. In fact th last few years have seen a decrease and some scientists suggesting we will have cooling for the next 20-30yrs.
Obviously the cataclismic predictions you quote from last century have been totally wrong. I would have thought we should at least be pleased (or rejoicing). Why would you weep?
What does this qualification of the models tell us about the value of the prognosis:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/08/22/lawrence-solomon-model-mockery/
It seems to me the temperature curve is derived from a model based GMT-Prognosis. Its standing on very shaky ground.
Sea level rise will probably mean that many cities will be abandoned or surrounded by dykes. Beyond that, the topic is beyond the expertise of climite scientists. They cannot address the question of what the overall practical impact will be. History is full of examples of cities being destroyed (e.g., WWII) or requiring major protection (e.g. defensive walls in middle ages). The question whether that hindered human progress in the long run is a topic for economists, historians, etc.
Susan, what exactly do you have in mind?
Which industrial-strength falsehood? (I recall that only a couple years ago the statements confirming a “pause” in temperature were considered falsehood. Now we begin to study not its existence but origins. And this is good scientific practice, especially in the light of the “mismatch” between observations and models.)
What do you mean about “soldiering on”? Are you waging a war? Against whom (in the context of publishing research papers, because this is what I thought was the topic of the discussion)?
Which ever way we slice or dice it,it certainly does not look like we will have a problem with SLR in this century and probably next as well.Surely that is a good thing,isnt it?
@pete best #67, that article raises important points that cannot be dismissed by a glib, unscientific throwaway. For instance, it points out that billions of dollars were invested on the basis of predictions from climate models. These predictions were incorrect.
It also points out the existence of an IPCC “crisis meeting”, the very existence of which calls into questions the 95% certainty claim that the majority of changes in our climate system are the result of human influence.
These are legitimate questions. Credibility hinges on the existence of legitimate answers.
sidd,
Be careful when using these types of accelerations, as the SLR has gone through accel/decl periods over the entire record in an apparent oscillating fashion.
http://www.nc-20.com/pdf/2012GL052885.pdf
Pete,
When it come to reporting in the press, hype sells better than fact. Last year’s new record low made headlines across the globe, while this year, the large relative “recovery” is the best they can print. Long, slow trends do not make for good headlines. Claims of an ice-free Arctic in 2013 or 2016 made for a better news story than sometime in the 2050s.
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/07/22/arctic-could-be-ice-free-by-2058/
Hank Roberts:
“The longterm trend has short-term variations, and “rabbit” fell for people promoting short-term variation as a trend. ‘rabbit’ should read the science — and take Statistics 101.”
In my post I said it could well be a short-term high-frequency fluctuation. Next time read what people write, rather than reflexively attacking any piece of data that seems to imperil your point of view.
And in all likelihood I know far more statistics than you ever will.
“I then actually checked Mr. Leuliette’s historical reading list to find out a little more about this gentleman.”
You’re really big on attacking people’s motives, aren’t you?
But this report is from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency. Had these figures been made up or distorted by Leuliette, presumably they would not have published it.
I’m sorry if the report makes you uncomfortable.
Ironic that they claim that a rise in food prices triggered the Arab uprising, when the rise in food prices was caused by the hike in oil prices.
Moderator:
I notice that you post responses to my comment, but no longer post my rebuttals to these.
It would appear you can not tolerate evidence or argument that runs counter to your beliefs. This despite that fact that I fully admitted that the last seven years might well be due to short-term variation. Even evidence from NOAA, a federal agency which is certainly not in the “denier” camp, is rejected if it doesn’t fall into line.
Fine. As you wish. It’s your blog.
But to be scientific, one must allow evidence and argument which both supports and counters ones viewpoints. To close your eyes to one side is to refuse to face reality full on. But reality is a notorious attention seeker, and has a habit of biting such people on the arse.
The science over climate change has become horribly politicized, with both sides becoming entrenched in their beliefs, rejecting out of hand evidence to the contrary no matter how mild. This blog, apparently, is part of that.
Have a nice day.
Rabbit,
That is a frequent occurrance here. But as you stated, it is their blog. I have encountered a similar intolerance of evidence that runs counter to their beliefs, even if said evidence is from their own people.
Your error is assuming that this is scientific. If it were, then evidence and arguments which both supports and counters ones viewpoints would be allowed. Alas, that is not the case here, nor will you find it on other similarly biases sites. Your analysis of reality is quite accurate.
I wholeheartely agree with your statement about the science becoming horribly politicized. Objectivity has been tossed aside in favor of belief entrenchment.
Good day to you too.
The IPCC is not, nor does it claim to be, anything but a policy making body. I stand by my quotation. It says nothing about denial btw.
Ray,
While I agree that the cost of some events, like a large asteroid impact would be unacceptable, the costs of mitigation may also be unacceptable. Using threat avoidance for mitigation as the only viable option because the risk cannot be bounded, is a poor response. The portion of the risk that can be bounded (in the case of SLR), can be weighed in terms of risk and cost. The SLR example is unbounded, based solely on the tipping point idea, which is contentious.
Not that I advocate doing nothing. Rather, risk assessment is essential to this cause, as both the costs and consequences have the potential to be exorbinant.
http://www.hyzercreek.com/fossilfuels1950.jpg
That link shows we weren’t burning enough coal in the 1850’s to give a grasshopper black lung disease. Locomotives ran on wood and homes were heated by peat, candles were made of tallow and whale oil. We didn’t start burning petroleum until the 1903 Oldsmobile curved dash, maybe a few Peugeots and a Benz or two. Take a look at that link and tell me why sea levels were already rising at .2 m per century in the 1800’s, long before humans put a gnat’s breath of CO2 into the atmosphere.
199 Mal. Mixing metaphors is fun. Don’t count your chickens when the bottom line isn’t even in the ball park. But it’s not fun to mix data sets. It goes against the scientific method, which requires that “all other things be held equal.” Church and White look like they are trying to lose weight by switching from pounds to kilograms. “Look Martha. I used to weigh 249 but now I’m only 148. Boy, I sure love the metric system. Tell Doctor Oz about my new weight loss program.”
No seriously. If satellite data measures the sea level in the open ocean, that is great. It’s very exciting new information. But you can’t compare it to land based data any more than you can compare data from one land base with another. It goes against everything scientists believe in. You need to reduce all variables to a minimum.
Take a look at this:
http://www.hyzercreek.com/GLOBEsealevel.jpg
The satellite data from 1992 to 2013, when compared only with itself, shows no acceleration. It’s a line as straight as a cue stick. Land based data also shows lines as straight as cue sticks. Now you take two cue sticks, break them and glue them back together crooked, and you get a piece of sporting equipment even more useless than a hockey stick. At least with a hockey stick, you can play hockey. What can you do with a broken cue stick glued crooked?
My argument against it?
It’s not the scientific method, which requires that “all other variables be held equal.” Satellite data measures the sea level in the open ocean, and you can’t compare it to land based data any more than you can compare data from one land base with another.
http://www.hyzercreek.com/GLOBEsealevel.jpg
The above link: satellite data from 1992 to 2013, when compared only with itself, shows no acceleration. It’s a line as straight as a cue stick. Land based data also shows lines as straight as cue sticks. You take two cue sticks, break them and glue them back together crooked, you get a piece of sporting equipment even more useless than a hockey stick. At least with a hockey stick, you can play hockey.
Mal, it’s not the scientific method, which requires that “all other variables be held equal.” Satellite data measures the sea level in the open ocean, and you can’t compare it to land based data any more than you can compare data from one land base to another.
So, if the model doesn’t work, there’s nothing to worry about?
[Response: No. If there is a mismatch, there is maybe an interesting reason for it, and people should try and find out what it is. – gavin]
Er,er, I thought the science was SETTLED??????????????
Oh dear, reading todays comments, seems like the fox is in the hen house.
The worrisome thing is that the models have NOT improved over time. For example, they continue to project substantial temperature increases even while we’re in this global warming pause. If this pause lasts for too much longer — 5 years? 15 years? you tell me — we have to start wondering whether one or more fundamental assumptions within these models are wrong.
As economics learned in teh 1970s, garbage in, garbage out.
It appears from the graph (Figure 3 blue line) that the unique rapid rise started in the late 1800’s.
1.) Does this suggest that humans were already putting out enough CO2 to cause global warming at that time?
or
2.) Even though the rapid rise is unique, it may have been natural (from the late 1800’s to 1940 – end of the blue line)?
or
3.) Something else… (my eyeballing of the graph was wrong, premise of my question was wrong, etc)?
Thanks,
Tad
[Response: Other people can chime in – but I think it’s more useful to think of the early 1800’s as being a time when shorter term natural forcings (particularly volcanoes and solar) were pushing climate cooler than the long term trend would imply. Without anthropogenic influences there would have been a recovery of sorts but only to the long term trend – what has actually happened is vastly different. – gavin]
jgnfld,
I generally agree with your assessment, except for hurricanes. While increasing SST increases the likelihood of hurricane formation, the ultimate hurricane strength is unaffected. Hurricane strength is determined by atmospheric conditions, which are likely to be less favorable.
Any explaination as to why parts of the Arctic Ocean containing at least 15 percent sea ice have increased by 78 percent when compared with the extent last year at this time, according to data compiled by the National Snow and Ice Data Center.