Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in analysing data themselves. However, many of the people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is actually available.
Therefore, we have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc. We have made a start on this on a new Data Sources page, but if anyone has other links that we’ve missed, note them in the comments and we’ll update accordingly.
The climate science community fully understands how important it is that data sources are made as open and transparent as possible, for research purposes as well as for other interested parties, and is actively working to increase accessibility and usability of the data. We encourage people to investigate the various graphical portals to get a feel for the data and what can be done with it. The providers of these online resources are very interested in getting feedback on any of these sites and so don’t hesitate to contact them if you want to see improvements.
Update: Big thank you to all for all the additional links given below. Keep them coming!
Also for Jonathan:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png
Kevin Hashemi,
Your conclusions are very important if true. Please write them up in proper academic format and submit them to a climate journal, or perhaps Nature or Science.
Jonathan (#345), some suggestions from an amateur reader:
I’d keep in mind that rising global mean temperatures do not that local or regional temperatures must rise evenly in space or time. Greenland and Antarctica, for instance, have tended to go opposite ways over the long run. And the ups and downs of Greenland winter temps, for instance, are tied to the regional variation known as the North Atlantic Oscillation.
Next I’d note that the time series you linked to were published a decade ago, so they only go up to 1984 and 1995. Greenland temps have been rising since sometime in the 1990s, and so has melt area. What you hear about accelerated melting pertains especially to this recent period (though 1987 and 1991 were big melt years, and there’s an upward trend in melt area for the whole period since 1979, see the Copenhagen Diagnosis, figure 9).
I’d want to see these ice-core-based reconstructions in context with others using different methodologies. For the recent period, you would want to see how it fits with the actual Greenland instrumental temperature record, e. g. here (Vinter et al. 2006).
One thing I think I see in Vinter et al. is that the temperature decline after the mid-20th century was most pronounced in the winter and spring months, not in summer when it actually gets above freezing. So it might not make much difference to ice melt? – I could be wrong about this.
(Anyway, if you look at the ice-core time series you linked, you’ll see that they reached their warmest point since the 13th century and the 10th century in 1953 and 1966, respectively. Though they show declining temperatures after that, those temperatures were still actually fairly high, the highest since an 18th-century peak which was, again, the highest since the 13th century or so.)
Oh, and if you were worried that these studies might have gone unnoticed, don’t be; they’re both cited in the 2007 IPCC report.
Mike F, relevant to many of your queries is the release below (and you are of course free to follow up to the actual papers.)
(The ultraquick version: at the end of the Ordivician, rapid geologic uplift (AKA the mountain-building episode that created the Appalachians) resulted in a pulse of silicate weathering, which in turn crashed CO2 levels (in “only” 7-8 million years) thus driving glaciation. Saltzman 2005 reconciles the chronology.)
Link to release:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=31182
Much of this material is covered in David Archer’s book, The Long Thaw, which I’ve reviewed here:
Or, better, you might want to check out Dr. Archer’s U. of Chicago material via the portal elsewhere on this site.
Mike Flynn:
Google “Milankovic Cycles.”
Then I suggest you read a book like Dennis Hartmann’s “Global Physical Climatology” and follow it up with one like John T. Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres.” And work all the problems.
#350
“I am unaware of any scientists who don’t accept that the Earth has experienced glacial periods, followed by (naturally enough) interglacial periods. I assume that the ice melts because the surrounding atmosphere gets warmer.”
I’m not sure what the relevance of this is to what I posted. If you think it is relevant, could you explain how?
“Conversely, areas of permafrost that were once soil capable of growing grass and similar stuff, (I don’t know what it would be called, but mammoths got quite large eating it), got a lot colder quite suddenly.”
ditto
“I also believe the research that shows that prior to the late Ordivician glacial period, atmospheric CO2 probably reached 4000 ppm, or thereabouts. The exact quantum may be irrelevant.”
I’m no climatologist, but yes, there were periods in the past where CO2 was very much higher than today. That’s where the carbon now in coal came from. But I still don’t understand what this has to do with anything. What point are you trying to make?
“My query has always been “What mechanism explains the glacial/interglacial temperature differences?””
There is an awful lot of information on this site that explains that. The “FAQ” on this site has a question “What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?” which explains.
And the IPCC reports are freely available online. WG1 Report will explain all this, and provides references.
Or use google.
“The Earth may be warming, may be cooling, may be about to lurch one way or the other next week/month/year.”
No. The earth does not ‘lurch’. All the data shows that changes between states are gradual and take hundreds or thousands of years.
But yes, the natural cycle will take us into cooler and warmer cycles. The fact that there is a natural cycle has absolutely nothing to do with this argument whatsoever, however.
“Could you please me know what will happen if CO2 reaches 1000 ppm within the next two years?”
Not physically possible. The amount of coal and trees you’d have to burn is immense. Even if you deforested the entire global in two years, it still wouldn’t reach 1000ppm.
However, what I can say is that (all other things staying equal) if CO2 steadily increases this century and reaches 1100ppm and then stops increasing but doesn’t go down, global mean temperature will increase by around 6 degrees. I think I’m correct in saying it’s 95% likely that the increase would be in the range 3 degrees to 9 degrees but I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve got the confidence interval wrong. I also think I’m correct in saying that there’s a lag, and you wouldn’t see the full temperature rise until about 50 years later. But it would be irreversible (excepting nuclear winter) at that point.
“I await your guidance”
I hope that was useful.
Trying to predict what is actually on your mind is of course impossible, but allow me to point out a couple of other things.
1 – AGW theory IS NOT based on observed temperature increase since the 1980s. Scientists DID NOT see an increase and come up with a mechanism. The mechanism was predicted BEFORE the temperature increase was observed. And you can quite easily show (based on a set of OBSERVATIONS that are reproducible and independent) that climate sensitivity is 3 degrees without using a climate model, or ANY temperature data from the last 30 years.
2 – Please, please, please don’t go down the route of questioning whether the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed since 1750 is caused by man. It is. No serious scientist, not even the most skeptical of climate skeptics, denies this. It’s as factual as “HIV is a virus that attacks the immune system” or “the earth orbits the sun”. Again, IPCC AR4 WG1 explains how we know this. http://www.ipcc.ch
You can access australian climate data here
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml
Thanks to Hank, jyyh, Mike and CM for your responses.
I hadn’t heard of the Climactic Optimum until I read the summary on the NGRIP site. I see it’s also referred to in the temperature chart which Hank referred me to: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png .
Were temperatures (at least in the Northern hemisphere) warmer than today approx 5,000 years ago? Does this mean we should be less worried by e.g. potential for significant methane release from Siberia if this happened in the relatively recent past?
ps does anyone know why it’s called the Optimum? I sometimes wonder what the optimum temperature is for the planet. A lot of current debate seems to assume that we’re at the optimum point today and so any warming (or cooling) from that would be detrimental – or maybe it’s just the current speed of change which is the problem.
Mike Flynn (350) — I recommend beginning with climatologist W.F. Ruddiman’s popular “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum” and then his textbook, “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future”.
Jonathan, what matters is the rate of change.
Look at those long-term temperature charts — the increase in the past century goes straight up, at the right margin. It’s so steep it’s almost invisible.
If the increase in CO2 were slow, natural processes would take care of it, plants would migrate to more appropriate temperature bands over time, bird migrations cued by temperature would change over generations by slow natural selection.
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_4_1.htm
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/rate-of-change-of-global-average-temperature-1850-2007-in-oc-per-decade-1
The rate of temperature change in the 20th century is four times greater than the average rate of change over the previous four centuries. …
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/980112DD.html
@Kevin McKinney. Thank you for your helpful suggestions (unlike some).
Your first link doesn’t do me a lot of good. I have difficulty taking concrete actions based on “may have caused”, “have suspected”, “reinforced the notion”, “scientists believe”, “strongly suggests”, “the likely cause”, and “in the Himalayas, the process would have been the same.”
Follow those up with this : “The rise and subsequent weathering of the Himalayas may have caused our current Ice Age, the one that began 40 million years ago.” MAY?
I read your review. The best part for me, obviously, was your statement (relating to some prediction or other) ” . . . it is not possible to predict, which if any of these things could happen, or when.” My point exactly. I couldn’t have said it better. Maybe I am starting to understand science after all.
The author of the book should reread Lorenz, Mandelbrot and Feigenbaum. He might be a little less certain about declaring that he can make accurate predictions in the long term, while at the same time the near future is a mystery to him. Maybe I misunderstand chaos as it relates to dynamic (non linear?) systems.
On to the next –
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/hubbert.doc.html
“Hubbert
This is not really a mechanistic model at all, but a curve fit. Marion King Hubbert proposed bell curves as good fits to the rate of oil extraction. Hubbert forecast, back in 1956, that U.S. production would peak between 1965 and 1972. Test his forecast, and make your own for global oil production.”
Comment: I like this one. It leads to a button called “Tell the future”. Obviously no real scientist would lay himself open to charges of fortune telling, so it must be a joke.
However, persevering, I change the peak year to 2010, and opt for World Oil Production. Gee whiz! Quel surprise! The “prediction” and the data are not even in the same ballpark, as the Americans say.
So once again, sorry. If the first thing I go to is useless to me, I look elsewhere for some facts. I’m not sure what you do – maybe the same as me. Or like some people, keep hitting the ESC key in the hope that it may work eventually.
Please don’t take offense. You and I obviously have the same thoughts. I just have them more often and more consistently.
@Barton Paul Levenson.
Well, I tried.
Google it yourself and than tell me that Milankovich cycles fully explain glacial/interglacial cycles. And then explain away the periods that don’t fit. You are not allowed to use the words “maybe”, “probably”, possibly”, “if”, “may”, “might”, “suggest”, “believe”, “notion” or any other imprecise language. After all, we are supposedly talking about the past. It is fixed, no ifs buts or maybe. Just because you can’t explain it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I don’t wish to annoy you, but I have interpreted your suggestions as supercilious throwaways, taking advantage of my admitted lack of education. Just because I’m uneducated doesn’t necessarily mean that I am stupid. But I might be. Surely it is easy enough for you to peer into the future, and tell me what the average temperature will be In Darwin Australia for the year 2015. I can then decide to stay, or flee to Tasmania.
Hartmann lost me a little when he made the statement ” . . . this basic mechanism must explain why. . .”.
MUST? Are there no other explanations? I like my authors to back up their statements. He may well have a reason, but his phraseology leads one to think “I wrote it, therefore it is.”
On to Houghton.
Unfortunately, at around page 3, the author discovers that his calculations don’t seem to fit Jupiter very well. He can only account for half of the energy. The answer is simple. “. . . The other half therefore, must be internally generated”. And the other planets, like Earth don’t generate heat internally? Not what I’ve observed.
I pressed on. I stopped after this statement – “Since there are dynamical constraints on the motions which may occur in the atmosphere . . . it is not clear that processes for attaining such a reference state are dynamically possible. In fact . . . it may be more realistic . . .”
And no, I didn’t work all the problems. If “. . . it is not clear . . .”, I have better things to do with my time.
Now I notice that there have been rather extreme climatic events, both cooling and warming, which seem to occurred very quickly, in years rather than eons. It seems (and I’m a believer, I guess), that the Younger Dryas cooling occurred within a decade. Temperature drop, 5 deg C, maybe more. According to NOAA – GISP2 – there was a rapid warming – about 7 deg C. Other sources (which appear to be scientific to me) give a shorter time period for the change, and a greater temperature swing.
I mean no offense to anyone, but I still maintain the future is unknowable. The past is gone. Whether the “data” is good, bad or indifferent is most likely irrelevant.
@Silk.
Sorry. Just noticed your post now.
In my own bumblefooted way, I was trying to suggest that the earth has been far warmer in the past, and the atmosphere contained a much greater percentage of CO2. I thought this was relevant inasmuch as there seems to be alarm about the Earth warming (whatever the cause). So I tried (not successfully) to point out that increases of temperature in excess of those which seem to cause you concern (3 to 9 deg C?) may be “natural”.
I am sorry about the “lurch”. I meant a sudden change in climatic conditions, such as (fortuitously enough) as may be seen in ice core research. How about a 7 deg C rise in less than 10 years? Sudden enough? And, yes, I realise the whole Earth may not have warmed this much this quickly, but who knows? Not me, and not you, I warrant.
As for “Not physically possible.”, I wonder how it was possible for CO2 levels to be a lot higher in the past. But I accept your assertion.
If you are right, and global mean temperature rises by 6 deg (Celsius I’m guessing) what then? Do we all die? Your guidance is not useful.
Now your points.
1. I’m confused. “The mechanism was predicted BEFORE the temperature increase was observed . . .”? What mechanism ? There have been a lot of theories about the atmosphere in the last few thousand years. To which particular one do you refer?
I am not sure what “. . . climate sensitivity is 3 degrees without using a climate model, or ANY temperature data from the last 30 years.” means. Are you saying that global temperatures have shown a rise of 3 degrees which correlates exactly to CO2 rises, during the period to 1980? Please explain.
2. I am quite happy to go down the route of questioning whether the current changing climate owes its existence to man, nature or a combination of both. I am, as you are probably aware, not a scientist. Facts are not decided by democratic vote, or articles published in learned journals.
Next you’ll be saying that no serious scientist would challenge Newton, or Einstein, or Lorenz . . . In fact many did. Thank goodness!
You must have read a different IPCC AR4 WG1 than I did.”Large uncertainties remain in many issues. . .”,” . . . model”, “. . . model. . .” “. . . projection. . .”. Bald statements “The Earth is a sphere.” No it ain’t. Not important? If you say so. If this is the best the IPCC can come up with, I understand why some scientists are less than impressed.
We don’t even know what we don’t know!
@David B Benson.
Thanks. I remember reading “Plows plagues and petroleum.” I thought it was “Ploughs”, but I won’t fight you over it. An interesting read.
Earth’s Climate? I think I will back my bucket of chicken entrails against his predictions of global temperature rises. Have quick look at all the question marks on some of the graphics. Making predictions is difficult, particularly where the future is concerned.
@All. Sorry about the length of the post. Kind regards. Live well and prosper.
Jonathan (358) — In that usage, “optimum” is an old-fashioned term for local maximum. The optimum global temperature for humans is that which is least likely to cause much sea rise (or fall) and promote the best growing seasons on the most productive soils. I estimate that temperatures prevailing about 1900–1920 ought to be our goal.
In some localities it is abundantly clear that temperatures are now higher than over 5000 years ago, for example
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelcoro.htm
but various conditions in Siberia were clearly much different so long ago (no black carbon, few people, more wild animals, …) so I suggest treating the recent research news about Siberian methane releases rather soberly.
theford — the first link under Science will get you to the answers you’re asking for. Basic reading — you’re asking for words, which are only approximations; it took big computers to work out the detail you’re asking about.
Short answer (remember this is just words): lower in the atmosphere most of the interaction between gases is by collisions which occur far more often than a photon gets emitted and absorbed (by those that can do that, the ‘greenhouse’ gases). In the upper atmosphere, molecules are so much farther apart that it’s more likely one will interact with a photon than with another molecule. This changes a whole lot of things.
—-
Context: well, the anthropologists too have their differences expressed in strong words:
http://chronicle.com/article/Rebuttal-of-Decade-Old/49320/
Ron Broberg (330), Kark K (333), dhogaza (334), I fully agree that the skeptic who has a well-developed alternative theory is more likely to be more productive and helpful to the cause, but, to the original point, it is not necessary to be a skeptic. Though I would further agree that a skeptic ought to be able to articulate at some level his rational which requires some level of understanding but far short of full comprehension. Nor should it be a broad brush. “La-la-la I don’t believe you!” is not sufficient; while dhogaza claims that is all I say, in fact he has never heard me say that.
Gell-Mann thought the skeptic/contrarian/iconoclast was the most important member in the science community, though he understood they were seldom successful.
Gavin pretty much covered it in another thread (163 – CRU Hack-3). He’s correct when he blames some of the “skeptics” themselves because some can be dorks — as can some AGW proponents. Of course SecularAnimist, in the same thread (184), takes it to ridiculous extremes
(sorry if this appears twice – delete away)
Mike Flynn,
It is hard to make recommendations when you dismiss a science text for containing the words “may” or “might”. When you don’t accept “must” either, you’ve covered all your bases. You need to work on your problem with modal verbs before anyone can help you with the science.
PS. Barton is just extending the courtesy to others of believing them to be as capable and desirous of educating themselves as he is. I for one am not, but I also don’t call people supercilious for offering me reading tips.
Mike Flynn:
No. But it is stupid to militantly refuse to learn. For example, you assume that because Jupiter and Earth generate internal heat, the amount should be the same. It isn’t, by many, many orders of magnitude, because completely different processes are involved. Jupiter is the largest gas-giant planet in the system, Earth is the largest terrestrial planet. The difference in their masses is a ratio of 317.9. On the other hand, Earth receives 27 times more sunlight than Jupiter does, which makes a difference to the relative proportions and would even if Jupiter DID generate only as much internal heat as Earth does. Earth is made mostly of rock and metal, Jupiter is made mostly of gaseous and liquid hydrogen and helium. That makes a difference too.
I did not advise you to flip through the books, find statements that didn’t make sense in the state of your admitted lack of education, and abandon the project. I advised you, if I wasn’t clear before, to READ the books AND WORK THE PROBLEMS. DO THE MATH. If you don’t have enough math, read up on that first.
Jonathan,
yes, it’s the rate of change, but it is also about the absolute temperatures we are headed for in the near future, which will exceed the band in which we developed human civilization. Hence the worries about the infrastructure and agriculture we have developed to support a human population of nearly 7 billion and counting. We have a lot more resources to deal with climate change today than our Neolithic ancestors did. But we also have a lot more people to support, it’s harder for us to up stakes and move, and there’s not that many places to go any more, whether for us or for other species.
On “optimum”, there’s a tendency to avoid the term these days as being value-loaded, as well as for suggesting a single general experience. The IPCC cites evidence for /local/ periods warmer than the last decades in the early to mid-Holocene, but not all at the same time, and possibly offset by cooler tropical oceans in some parts. Modeling of the climate 6,000 years ago suggested the global mean temperature did not change much. Hence expressions such as the “mid-Holocene thermal optimum” are not “globally relevant”, they said.
On this basis I’d guess that Holocene temperature reconstructions do not provide much of a guide to the future of methane locked up in Siberia. (I’d prefer being wrong, though.)
There are some older posts on RC where David Archer lays out what may or may not happen with methane hydrates and the methane cycle in general, with the disturbing conclusion that for all we know about the methane cycle we don’t have a clue about the near-term future.
@Barton Paul Levenson.
I assumed no such thing, and I would be most grateful if you could substantiate your bald assertion.
I accept that you see textbooks (or at least this one, as gospel.) I don’t.
You will notice that the author makes some pretty awe inspiring assumptions, that we are supposed to accept uncritically. Say for example, the effective albedo of Jupiter, at the wavelengths relevant to a discussion of the greenhouse effect, was 0.343 +/- 0.032 rather than 0.58, (I’m not saying it is, mind you), you might find that the projected temperature at the cloud tops is different. And, yes, the author does indicate that although the column is titled “Mean surface temperature”, in the case of Jupiter, it isn’t the mean surface temperature at all.
The author accepts that the processes involved in atmospheric behavior are not clear. I agree. He is doing his best to provide a base for students to proceed from. I may be wrong, but you know more than I about the author.
As to your advice, respect is earned, not demanded as far as I am concerned. I merely stated I would like to know how the atmosphere works. So, I believe, would other experts in the field. It appears nothing much has changed since the last time I was curious about the workings of the atmosphere, a longish time ago.
This was written a few years ago by R Davis of the Berkeley Wireless Research Center : –
“Henon’s strange attractor allowed explaining and predicting the chaotic motion of stars. Unfortunately, verifying the hypothesis would take several billion years of experimentation.”
What’s the relevance to the current discussion about climate change? Well, previous assumptions about physical behaviour on both the macro and micro scale based on Newtonian or Einsteinian (I like that one!) physics may well be wrong. If the behaviour of the atmosphere is chaotic, in the sense of sensitive dependence on initial conditions and so on, then accurate predictions as to the state of the chaotic system at any point in the future are probably impossible.
So pardon me if I take your advice under advisement. I have done enough mathematics in the past to assume I am not going to learn anything fresh from the problems set. The mathematics involved is pretty basic, you would agree?
@CM
You’re right. My point exactly. I have no problem with all the “waffle words” if the user also allows that the opposite is equally valid. As in ” . . . it is not possible to predict, which if any of these things could happen, or when.” Some of the assumptions made in science texts are staggeringly impressive. Texts change all the time, as advances occur. Science changes all the time. I used to believe, along with all the medical scientists, that there were various reasons for gastric ulcers, bacteria not generally recognised as being of any significance.
We were all wrong. Helicobacter pylori was discovered. The discovery was rejected by the majority of scientists, until the proof was incontrovertible. I changed my thinking.
As to modal verbs, I understand “must” implies certainty, or near certainty. Now, “may”, “might”, “possibly”, express the writer’s confidence based on the writer’s assumptions of fact. You and I may differ on the use of modal verbs, but I am intrigued by the notion that you assume that I have a problem with modal verbs. I don’t believe I do, but I am willing to be proved wrong.
I like your certainty in your response to Jonathan (#367) where you say the temperature in the near future “. . . will exceed the band . . .” You then go on to “guess”, and then finish up by referring to David Archer. I would take advice from David Archer if you quote him correctly, as he apparently lays out what “may or may not happen”, and that we “don’t have clue about the near term future.” I don’t necessarily have to accept anything else he says that contradicts his thoughts as stated by yourself.
So. Where does that leave us? You hold a strong unprovable opinion about the future (in the sense that you cannot test the truth of the hypotheses until you have compared the predicted results with observation), whereas I am not as sure.
As I don’t believe that you can make meaningful and useful “predictions” based on the past any better than me with or without a bucket of chicken entrails, you haven’t convinced me that I should alter my behaviour one iota.
The reverse is probably true. Maybe, might be, could be – take your pick.
I’ll let you get back to trying to figure out the past. Once you can reliably predict the past (it should be easy to compare the prediction with the observation, as it has already happened), I will give serious consideration to your ability to predict the future with more certainty than I.
@moderator.
Sorry for taking up your space and time. For me, the scientific method is observe, think, theorise, “predict”, observe. Seems a lot of people stop at the “predict” stage, and say “Well, there you are. Proven”.
@All
Regards. Live well and prosper.
Is there a good writeup about Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) that’s accessible by ordinary people? Supposedly 1 lb of SF6 has the same global warming potential as 12 tons of CO2. That means 1 molecule of SF6 has more global warming potential than 100,000 molecules of CO2. I’m interested in what this means exactly, and how this has been measured. I am confused about what “global warming potential” means, since they give different values for different numbers of years.
My understanding is there is a heat-trapping effect, and then a half-life in the atmosphere, and some calculation involving the two yields the global warming potential. How the heat-trapping effect is measured, and how the half-life is measured under realistic environmental conditions would be interesting.
Your data section is very helpful.
#361
“In my own bumblefooted way, I was trying to suggest that the earth has been far warmer in the past, and the atmosphere contained a much greater percentage of CO2. I thought this was relevant inasmuch as there seems to be alarm about the Earth warming (whatever the cause). So I tried (not successfully) to point out that increases of temperature in excess of those which seem to cause you concern (3 to 9 deg C?) may be “natural”.”
It is in noi way disputed that the earth has had many different states. So in that sense CO2 at 1000ppm in the past was ‘natural’
However, there were no humans around back then.
The issue we are dealing with today is
a) Is human activity likely to cause CO2 to rise a lot – Answer “Yes, this is already happening”
b) Would it be more damaging to humans to let CO2 rise, or to take steps to stop the human activities causing the rise – Answer “The impact of rising CO2 on HUMANS will be very bad and it would be much better to avoid that rise by investing in emissions reductions” For more on this, see the Stern Review.
“I am sorry about the “lurch”. I meant a sudden change in climatic conditions, such as (fortuitously enough) as may be seen in ice core research. How about a 7 deg C rise in less than 10 years? Sudden enough? And, yes, I realise the whole Earth may not have warmed this much this quickly, but who knows? Not me, and not you, I warrant.”
I’m no climatologist, but I think it could be shown that the amount of energy required to do this in such a short period of time (think how much energy you need to heat the oceans) could not be provided.
I’m not aware of an ice core research that suggests 7 degree rises in 10 years. Perhaps you could direct me?
“As for “Not physically possible.”, I wonder how it was possible for CO2 levels to be a lot higher in the past. But I accept your assertion. ”
It is possible for CO2 to rise to very high levels OVER TIME. It is not physically possible to do this in two years, because of the time contraint. In much the same way as it is physically possible for me to drink 10 pints of beer, but not physically possible for me to do that in 3 seconds.
“If you are right, and global mean temperature rises by 6 deg (Celsius I’m guessing) what then? Do we all die? Your guidance is not useful. ”
IPCC Working Group 2 sets out what is likely to happen. http://www.ipcc.ch Summary for policymakers will sort you out.
“1. I’m confused. “The mechanism was predicted BEFORE the temperature increase was observed . . .”? What mechanism ? There have been a lot of theories about the atmosphere in the last few thousand years. To which particular one do you refer?”
That increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere will cause increased global temperatures.
“I am not sure what “. . . climate sensitivity is 3 degrees without using a climate model, or ANY temperature data from the last 30 years.” means. Are you saying that global temperatures have shown a rise of 3 degrees which correlates exactly to CO2 rises, during the period to 1980? Please explain.”
No. What I’m saying is that the paleoclimate data shows that past temperature and CO2 trends are consistent with an earth where, if you double CO2 in the atmosphere, temperature goes up 3 degrees. To clarify further, this data IS NOT consistent with an earth where, if you double CO2 in the atmosphere, temperature goes up by LESS THAN 1.5 degrees or MORE THAN 4.5 degrees (to 95% certainty)
This is no way relies on global temperatures since 1980 (but, of course, is consistent with observed temperatures. If it were not consistent, we’d have a problem)
“2. I am quite happy to go down the route of questioning whether the current changing climate owes its existence to man, nature or a combination of both. I am, as you are probably aware, not a scientist. Facts are not decided by democratic vote, or articles published in learned journals.”
Facts are decided by articles pubished in journals. How else are they decided?
I am NOT suggesting you cease to question climate change. What I SPECIFICALLY suggested is that you do not question whether increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity. If you do question it, we will eventually arrive at the situation “Yes, it is” but it will waste our time. I’d ask you to take that on trust, or (if you really want to get into it) read the stuff on Carbon Cycles in WG1 report of the IPCC.
“Next you’ll be saying that no serious scientist would challenge Newton, or Einstein, or Lorenz . . . In fact many did. Thank goodness!”
No. I wasn’t saying that.
“You must have read a different IPCC AR4 WG1 than I did.”Large uncertainties remain in many issues. . .”,” . . . model”, “. . . model. . .” “. . . projection. . .”. Bald statements “The Earth is a sphere.” No it ain’t. Not important? If you say so. If this is the best the IPCC can come up with, I understand why some scientists are less than impressed.”
This is garbage. You’ve pulled out a few phrases and quoted them without any context. I’m afraid I can’t respond to that. If you have some specific criticisms, please level them and I can address.
“We don’t even know what we don’t know!”
Could you go into more detail?
We /know/ that temperature will go up by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 goes to 550ppm or higher.
We /know/ this BASED ON OBSERVATION with, AND WITHOUT, models.
We /know/ that human activity is increasing CO2 in the atmopshere and this will continue (indeed accelerate) in the current economy.
We /know/ this will be damaging to humankind.
We /know/ it doesn’t stop there and that CO2 at 650ppm would be worse etc. etc.
What do we /not/ know, in order to make informed policy decisions about mitigation?
I’d be very keen for you to answer that last question.
“Sorry for taking up your space and time. For me, the scientific method is observe, think, theorise, “predict”, observe. Seems a lot of people stop at the “predict” stage, and say “Well, there you are. Proven”.”
I’ve no idea what other sciences do this, but this is certainly not a valid representation of climate science.
For example, http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html sets out SEVENTEEN (count them!) observations that validate climate models.
I don’t know how much is spent on climate observation globally, but it’s a lot (those satellites aren’t cheap!) and ALL that data is constantly being analysed to check, refine and improve climate science.
There is ZERO inconsistency between the following two statements
1 – “We know enough about man’s impact on climate to know we have to act to reduce emissions in order to avoid significant damages to humankind”
2 – “There’s a lot more to know, and we should spend more time, efforts and money on collecting and analysing data, checking the models and doing new science”
1 is why people are in Copenhagen next week.
2 is why there are, right now probably, people in a bog, or glacier, or lakebed, taking samples, working them up, etc.
Mike Flynn:
BPL: Sorry, that does not follow. Which hand of bl ackj ack will turn up next or how the ro ull ette ball will land is absolutely unpredictable for all practical purposes, yet ca si nos stay in business anyway.
Climate is not an initial-values problem. It is a boundary-values problem. Weather is an initial-values problem.
BPL: See, this is what I call militant ignorance. You _refuse_ to learn anything more about the subject, because you think you know enough already.
Is the math in Houghton pretty basic? Yes, if you confine yourself to the first chapter, which you apparently did. Later on he uses such things as vector calculus. I don’t expect you to know that, but it would nice if you went as far as you could with the problems before bailing. But I don’t expect you to do that, either. I expect you to maintain your present views no matter what, and lecture people about it who actually know far more than you do. Kind of like a guy who has never put two pieces of rock together in his life going up to a 20-year union stonemason building a wall, and telling him, “You’re doing that all wrong!”
An additional source for CCSM (and the older PCM) model run output is the NCAR portal for the Earth System Grid, at
http://www.earthsystemgrid.org
All the CCSM and PCM AR4 runs are there (including many more fields than were requested for the AR4) as well as many more runs.
@ Silk
Rising levels of CO2 = more abundant plant life = more food.
If rising CO2 levels = rise in temperature, then permafrost regions become fertile again. The temperature will have to rise by a lot more than current forecasts to achieve this. Vast regions of the Earth’s surface become much more amenable to human occupation. If you wish to go back to the “Dark Ages” (called that for a very good reason), be my guest.
As to the rapid warming, I may have been a little conservative. It now appears that the temperature rise could have been as much as 10C +/- 4C, and in as little as a year. I refer you to the various ice core studies, in particular GISP 2 can be researched at NOAA ( I hope this is reputable enough for you.) If this is fact, then you may need to redo your energy distribution calcualtions. I haven’t seen your workings, so I can’t be of much help.
IPCC. “Virtually certain – Agriculture etc – Increased yields. ” As I said.”Human health – Reduced human mortality.” I had forgotten that – I’m old. Sorry. “Industry etc. – Reduced energy demand for heating. Reduced disruption to transport.” Oh well, I’ll stop cherry picking.
I notice your prediction of temperature rises due to GHG (I’m guessing GHG means CO2, I hope it doesn’t mean Global HydroCarbons, otherwise we’d all be in deep trouble) is based on ” . . . consistent with an earth where, if you double CO2 in the atmosphere, temperature goes up 3 degrees.” Fine but that must be another Earth. This Earth has had CO2 levels around 7000 ppm down to about 200 ppm, without the associated variations in temperature. You may well have an explanation, but you didn’t tell me. If you keep me in the dark, how can you lose?
Facts are decided by journal publication? Care to comment Gavin? How about making it simple – facts are now to be decided by democratic vote.
Where did I question rising CO2 levels were due to human activity? Don’t believe I did. May have said there was a chance that global warming was natural.
May I ask you what aspects of climatological prediction are poorly or incompletely understood? Are there any other factors affecting climatological predictions of which we may be unaware? Oh, you don’t know?
Now to your last :
Until a scientist has observed something, he doesn’t know. If the observation doesn’t coincide with the theory,
– new theory = scientific progress.
What do I not know? How to predict the future. You can, I accept. Woe, woe, thrice woe!
Your version of the scientific method is yours. Good luck with it.
I am glad that you accept that a lot of money is being spent to make observations, check the models, and improve the science. Hopefully, they will find out if the current models work or not, and whether the “new science” shows them what they didn’t know under the “old science”. I agree totally.
Politicians are in Copenhagen. I am not sanguine about politicians’ ability to foresee the future. Based on past performance, you wouldn’t bet your life on it. Canute’s advisers convinced him he could hold the tide back, too.
Oh well.
@Barton Paul Levenson.
What has black – jack or roul – ette got to do with the science of chaos? You are no doubt aware that it was Lorenz
who kicked off the study of chaos. Not applicable to climate? –
1976 Nondeterministic theories of climate change. Quaternary Research. Vol.6 -guess who wrote it. You guessed it!
And a heap of others – published in peer reviewed journals, I might add.
Vector calculus (and yes, I have had more than a nodding acquaintance with it), is old hat, but useful nevertheless, for some things. You might like to tell me what else I don’t know. In spite of my lack of formal education, I have lectured at University level, amongst other interesting things.
As I have demonstrated before, if somebody produces facts to prove me wrong, I change my view. What do you do?
I am not lecturing anyone. I apologise if it seems that way.
Hopefully enough.
Live well and prosper.
Alfio Puglisi says (28 November 2009 at 3:49 PM)
Gavin, comment #89 by Silke is a copy&paste of this page on Roy Spencer’s blog: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my-top-10-annoyances-in-the-climate-change-debate/
[Response: Thanks for spotting. – gavin]
Does this somehow invalidate the points?
“Rising levels of CO2 = more abundant plant life = more food.
If rising CO2 levels = rise in temperature, then permafrost regions become fertile again. The temperature will have to rise by a lot more than current forecasts to achieve this. Vast regions of the Earth’s surface become much more amenable to human occupation. If you wish to go back to the “Dark Ages” (called that for a very good reason), be my guest. ”
Not sure what your “dark ages” comment is refering to, so I’ll ignore.
The rest of this statement falls down at the first hurdle. Rising CO2 DOES NOT increase food productivity in areas were CO2 is not the contraining factor.
The best available science (i.e. something better than your guestimate about the impacts of more available land from melting versus increased deserts) suggests that overall global food production will decrease once temperatures go above a certain level (can’t remember the number but you can look it up if you care) and that, if you were unfortunate enough to reach 6 degrees, it would decline very very significantly. Large areas of current fertile land in Africa, the USA, Australia and Europe would become infertile, which would not be offset by increases in Russia and Canada.
And your point completely ignores that fact that the permafrost is pretty much exclusively in Russia and Canada. Do you think that the Africans, Spanish and Mexicans are just going to be able to move there once their own countries are barren? (Don’t answer that one – Rhetorical question)
“As to the rapid warming, I may have been a little conservative. It now appears that the temperature rise could have been as much as 10C +/- 4C, and in as little as a year. I refer you to the various ice core studies, in particular GISP 2 can be researched at NOAA ( I hope this is reputable enough for you.) If this is fact, then you may need to redo your energy distribution calcualtions. I haven’t seen your workings, so I can’t be of much help.”
Will take a look. I’m absolutely sure you are wrong (if you implying that global mean temperature can change by 10 degrees over the period of a year) but I’m happy to take a look and explain why. As to why I’m sure you are wrong – Well, what energy source could provide sufficient energy to increase the oceans by 10 degrees over the course of a year? And what would that energy input do to life on earth. But like I say, I’ll look at it.
“IPCC. “Virtually certain – Agriculture etc – Increased yields. ” As I said.”
The IPCC DOES NOT say that. It says that, in some regions, increased yields are virtually certain. And that in others, decreased yields are virtually certain. And that overall, at the more extreme ends of climate change (+5 degrees or less) the overall impact is decreased.
“”Human health – Reduced human mortality.” I had forgotten that – I’m old.”
Again, that’s a partial take.
““Industry etc. – Reduced energy demand for heating.”
And increased energy demand for cooling.
” Reduced disruption to transport.” Oh well, I’ll stop cherry picking.”
Indeed, you are. Overall, impacts are negative, especially at the high end of temperature change.
“I notice your prediction of temperature rises due to GHG (I’m guessing GHG means CO2, I hope it doesn’t mean Global HydroCarbons, otherwise we’d all be in deep trouble) is based on ” . . . consistent with an earth where, if you double CO2 in the atmosphere, temperature goes up 3 degrees.” Fine but that must be another Earth.”
No. that’s this earth. That’s what the paleoclimate data shows.
“This Earth has had CO2 levels around 7000 ppm down to about 200 ppm, without the associated variations in temperature.”
Incorrect. The earth has shown values of 200ppm (ish) up to 2000ppm (ish, I think, not 7000ppm) and the OBSERVED INCREASE IN T is how we KNOW climate change is happening.
See
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html
“You may well have an explanation, but you didn’t tell me. If you keep me in the dark, how can you lose?”
If we are ‘keeping you in the dark’ why would we have RealClimate? If you read the FAQs, or indeed, the IPCC report I already pointed you to, you could see EXACTLY how we arise at the value of climate sensitivity we do.
But like I said
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html
“Facts are decided by journal publication? Care to comment Gavin? How about making it simple – facts are now to be decided by democratic vote. ”
Nope.
“Where did I question rising CO2 levels were due to human activity? Don’t believe I did.”
I never said you did. I merely asked you not too, assuming you might go down that route. If you weren’t headed in that direction, apologies, my mistake.
“May I ask you what aspects of climatological prediction are poorly or incompletely understood? Are there any other factors affecting climatological predictions of which we may be unaware? Oh, you don’t know?”
No. I don’t know. Would you care to explain to me if we know everything about the bevhaviour of metals? Or fuels? Or radioactive isotopes? Or economics? Or disease vectors? Or surgery? Or the mind?
Yet somehow we manage to practice engineering, and medicine, and everything else, just fine.
The fact that we don’t know EVERYTHING about climate in no way invalidates climate models.
“Until a scientist has observed something, he doesn’t know. If the observation doesn’t coincide with the theory, – new theory = scientific progress.”
Wrong. A scientist NEVER knows. All he has is a theory. He can use his theory to do useful things (for example, I can use Newtonian mechanics to build an arch). Later on, I might find out Newtonian mechanics is wrong. Doesn’t mean my arch will fall down, mind you.
“What do I not know? How to predict the future. You can, I accept. Woe, woe, thrice woe!”
Human beings have been able to predict climate for 10,000s of years. Since the advent of agriculture, or before.
Indeed, virtually all animals can predict climate.
“Your version of the scientific method is yours. Good luck with it. ”
I live in a world where you do science to do work. We have very good climate science. We can now put it to work to avoid some very nasty things happening in the future.
“I am glad that you accept that a lot of money is being spent to make observations, check the models, and improve the science.”
Jolly good.
“Hopefully, they will find out if the current models work or not, and whether the “new science” shows them what they didn’t know under the “old science”. I agree totally.”
Not sure there’s any “new science” happening here. Greenhouse effect has been around for a long time.
Certainly the observations are consistent with the models, so that’s good. The models look reliable.
You didn’t answer my main question though. I’d really like you to do so, as it cuts to the quick of the arguement.
“Given that
We /know/ that temperature will go up by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 goes to 550ppm or higher.
We /know/ this BASED ON OBSERVATION with, AND WITHOUT, models.
We /know/ that human activity is increasing CO2 in the atmopshere and this will continue (indeed accelerate) in the current economy.
We /know/ this will be damaging to humankind.
We /know/ it doesn’t stop there and that CO2 at 650ppm would be worse etc. etc.
What do we /not/ know, in order to make informed policy decisions about mitigation?”
A couple of important boundary layer C data sites:
FLUXNET (with links to regional flux tower networks):
http://www.fluxnet.ornl.gov/fluxnet/index.cfm
Ameriflux:
http://public.ornl.gov/ameriflux/dataproducts.shtml
And the JAXA-GOSAT data is due to become publicly available starting next month:
http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat/index_e.html
You don’t seem to have the MAGICC model at http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/
It’s a non-issue. Why? Seems both sides have forgotten a wee fact: alternative, non-carbon involved technologies, of which there are many. Al Gore and companies carbon tax should be considered as an unintended incentive. The smart businessman, like Dean Kamen, simply looks at what’s available-“no carbon producing, or meet emission standards? Sure-oh look, there’s all these nifty technologies, virtually all except for hydrogen, that are seriously adaptable to third world education levels, and technology.” I suspect that more liberal warmers will respond with a ‘hell yeah! let’s do it!’ and the hardcore warmers will be less likely. The carbon tax is, well, incidental, in that light. And as far as projected outcomes, with warming? We easily have all the knowledge and tech to that, including water-as well as removing salt from salt water. As well as having many kinds of tech on standby to deal with food shortages. I’m not worried in the slightest, because we can handle some discomfort.
What about the comment that we do not understand why there has been no warming in the last few years and that this is a travesty? This comment was made by one of the leaders in this field of research, correct? How much did the IPCC report rely on the data set from the CRU? If there was much reliance at all, there is a problem because the documentation reveals that this data set would only be regarded as valid by someone with no scientific standards. In my field of research, actions such as the ones revealed in the released documents would produce universal and vocal condemnation and no defensiveness. Why hasn’t that been the case in the climate research community? It seems to me that convincing people that there are plenty of good data out there will require an admission that the CRU data are flawed and that conclusions derived from them suspect. Also, if there is no explanation of the pause in temperature increase, that should be admitted, but I have seen no comments on it from members of the climate research community.
[Response: The quote about the ‘travesty’ is taken completely out of context. Trenberth was talking about how we don’t know specifically what is happening during a short period of time, and why we need more observations stations. The fact that we can’t specifically explain exactly what happened during one ten-year period is not the same as saying that 10-year periods of trends different than the long term average are unexpected. He was not suggesting there was some fundamental problem with our understanding. As we already wrote, you need to read Trenberth’s recent paper (here). In any event the myth about ‘global warming stopping’ is not even true, as explained succinctly in the document at copenhagendiagnosis.org, as well as at several recent posts here at Realclimate (e.g. here and here–eric]
@ Silk.
This is a bit like writing a computer program. Never perfect, but you have to stop somewhere.
Can I point out that increasing available CO2 to most food plants increases yield. Indeed, the concept of increase demands that the present natural CO2 constraint be overridden. This fact is widely used by plant growers around the world (where cost effective) to increase yields. Not really rocket science, but to put it in general terms – more food (mainly CO2) plus sunlight etc.- more carbon based sugars and other compounds which comprise plants. Believe, don’t believe – the plants don’t care, they just grow better.
The IPCC says it , alright. Like both sides in the warming debate, I just left some bits out.
With regard to CO2 levels, I won’t bother giving you an authoritative reference (published books, papers etc) because you “think” it can’t be true. I wasn’t there at the time (late Cambrian), and even the authors allow there is uncertainty in the measurements. Have a look, maybe you will change your mind. I don’t know, and I don’t much care.
I still don’t know what your GHG is, but it’s irrelevant. With regard to the 3 Deg C rise, so what? I notice that poor old James seems to be copping some stick from others in the field. Who’s right?
You asked me what I don’t know that I don’t know (kind of cool, that). I turned the question round to get you to admit that you (and everyone else), doesn’t know what they don’t know, otherwise they would know what they don’t know, and could then attempt to find find some useful answers.
If you say people can predict climate, I will believe you. You will no doubt be able to show who predicted the Medieval Warming Period, the Little Ice Age, the Year without Summer, and when the next Ice Age (assuming there is one,) will occur. No? I thought not.
“2 – “There’s a lot more to know, and we should spend more time, efforts and money on collecting and analysing data, checking the models and doing new science”” Your quote. Note the words “new” and “science”. I thought you meant what you wrote.
Your question contains a lot of givens
In spite of that, I believe I can still give you a meaningful answer to your question “What do we not know, in order to make informed policy decisions about mitigation?” Well, assuming your givens, we do not know the consequences of any actions we may take, inasmuch as the cure may end up being worse than the disease.
A couple of minor examples. All compact flouro lamps contain mercury (almost all, anyway. Certainly those generally sold to the public.) Conservatively, around 4mg. People tend to buy the cheapest CFLs, which have shorter lives than might be expected. So, every 1000 CFLs disposed of = 4 x 1000 mg Hg. Not much, 4 gm.
Every million, 4 Kg. Liquid mercury, seeping into the groundwater. More every year, as the population increases.
I remember Minimata Bay. Ever wonder about the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland? Mad as a hatter ring a bell?
How about we flood the upper atmosphere with aerosols? Agreed as an effective way of overcoming global warming. Given that present aerosols have a reasonably short half life, use something that Brownian motion will suspend indefinitely. Then start praying you haven’t inadvertently brought on the next Ice Age a bit quickly.
There are many example of “good things” that were soundly science based at the time, but turned out to be “bad things” due to unforeseen circumstances. Believe, don’t believe. The past is fact.
So. I know there are a couple of points I didn’t cover. Blame it on old age, and a care factor of zero.
Anyway I applaud your certainty that you can think facts away, and that we are all doomed if something (I don’t know what you propose) isn’t done immediately. In any case, I wonder why what YOU “think” is fact, and what I “think” is rubbish.
As a last thought, consider this. Pick up any text on climatology. There will probably be a short introduction concerning the Solar System, radiant energy, the planets, and energy balance. Depending on the text, there may well be assumptions and simplifications like these : –
“The Earth’s orbit is elliptical” – no it’s not. Close, but no cigar.
“The Sun’s output in x units is y.” – no it’s not. It varies.
“The Earth’s albedo is a”. – no it’s not. It varies – clouds, absorption reradiation wavelengths, atmospheric composition at any given moment.
“The average surface temperature of the Earth is b.” – no it’s not, unless you have made a really good guess. Average over what period? What type of average? What observed maximum and minimum did you use? How do you know the extremes recorded were the real maximum and minimum? In any case the average tells very little about the temperatures in Omsk in winter, or Death Valley in summer. If you say it doesn’t matter, I will believe you.
If each statement is even a little bit out, the cumulative effect can be devastating. Or you could be lucky. Further, as many climatologists agree (not all) that the workings of the atmosphere are not amenable to deterministic algorithms, then it may well be that chaos theory may be more applicable.
This contains a problem, inasmuch as “proving” for example, the existence and nature of attractors may take a very long time. It is easier to accept that there is a natural state of climate equilibrium, and any disturbances will revert to the mean – however we have no way of establishing what the “mean” should be.
I do not share your certainty about the future. You may well be right, or not.
Thanks to all. Live long and prosper.
Kevan Hashemi #343, I looked at your graph and your code (I used to code in Pascal in a previous life), and what can I say… dear oh dear. Do you know what an areal average is? Ever heard of spatial autocorrelation?
Sea Level data – the source you give is purely British. A better zssource is surely http://www.gloss-sealevel.org/data/
> if there is no explanation of the pause in temperature increase …
You haven’t been reading here very long, or looked at any of the older topics, or checked ‘start here’ at the top of the page, or read anything about trends and noise in time series — right? Would you be willing to read a bit? How about Google? See the site search box, top of page?
> I have seen no comments on it
What _have_ you been reading? would you trust some guy on a blog if you don’t know how to look things up for yourself?
Seriously, there is a great thing called the public library, and people called librarians.
Lending books is not so cial ism, and librarianship is not a subtle form of indoctrination by the conspiracy against freedom.
But why would you believe me?
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Arealclimate.org+pause+in+temperature+increase
Memo to self: no more blogging before the coffee perks. Just can’t do it.
Mike Flynn – I’d like to thank you. If you hadn’t pointed out those large temperature increases I’d probablyy have remained ignorant. There is a very good description of them here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/revealed-secrets-of-abrupt-climate-shifts/
These events are extremely rapid (though I can’t see any evidence for them occuring in a single year) and, most interestingly, they do not lead to global increases in mean temperature, but rather result from a change in ocean circulation.
So yes, there have been significant local changes in temperature in the past, and yes, these were natural. This in no way invalidates the statement that a increase of more than 2 degrees in global mean temperature would be very dangerous for humankind.
Silk (376), a nit pik (maybe) clarification: when and who OBSERVED temperature going up 1.5-4.5 degrees following CO2 concentration rise to 550 ppm?
Incidentally, Mike, I looked at the GISP2 record and the largest temperature increase I saw was 10.4 degrees, which is massive. But occurred over a period of 163 years, not a year.
The reconstruction at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
gives Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C), not global mean temperature.
Very very interesting, but not particularly relevant to the issue of whether or not we should substaintially reduce our CO2 emissions over the next 30 years.
Rod B: when and who OBSERVED temperature going up 1.5-4.5 degrees following CO2 concentration rise to 550 ppm?
BPL: No one, since it hasn’t happened yet. BTW, when and who OBSERVED you dying when you stepped off the Empire State Building? Maybe you could do that safely. There are no observations to contradict it.
Rod B (386) — Go study PETM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
@Silk.
Glad to help. The NOAA data you have is a bit out of date. The cores have been archived, and as you probably notice, researchers are continuing to try to unravel the information the ice cores hold.
More up to date research seems to indicate that the temperature change MAY have occurred within less than 4 years. I don’t know how or why, but it goes along with recent research that indicates (possibly with more certainty) that glaciation MAY have occurred with equal (or, believe it or not, greater) rapidity.
With regard to energy budgets, I don’t know. As you noticed, local temperatures are not global means. Have a look at the other ice core studies if you wish. I think the problem is that no one is really sure if the climate has homogeneous “global” effects. Depending on the model, there can be, say, a 5 deg C “global” rise/fall, but a substantial difference in the amount of rise at the poles vs the Equator. Additionally, finding “proof” of the past can be as difficult as finding petrified wood by looking randomly.
I could search for years in an unsuitable area, and conclude that petrified wood didn’t exist because I personally didn’t find any. I understand the difficulty in reconciling ice core data. Lots of variables, and lots of assumptions. Could be a bit like an ET trying to derive the Earths present climate after landing at Vostok or Death Valley USA. I would say “good luck with that”.
Maybe someone else can help.
In any case, I am not dismissing the possibility of AGW. I tend to the “possibility” rather than “virtual certainty” .
I wish you all the best, and now withdraw my presence. It’s been interesting.
To all. Live long and prosper.
Mike Flynn says “I am not lecturing anyone.”
No, you are not. You are bullshitting. And what is more, since that majority of posters here have put in quite a few hours studying REAL climate science, they know it.
http://xkcd.com/54/
BlogReader (#137) Please read what is said in post #50. Post #50 clearly states that it does not matter whether the code is in Fortran, C, C++ whatever. What is important is how the algorithm is implemented and whether it was implemented correctly. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, regardless of what algorithm is used, the result science is the same.
Please make sure when you make a statement
That’s is 100% correct and is why climate models / code needs to be open and freely available. Without open access to other’s codes how can one find out why the results of two programs differ? How can others expect to become better without looking at each other’s work?
At least make sure it that it a minimal amount of truth to it. A quick google search shows that NCAR’s Community Climate System Model (CCSM) has been open source since June 1996 (13 YEARS), as was the data.
Of course multiple models are good, that’s why there are so many of them. What is even better is that all of these different approaches all produce nearly identical results. The Program Climate Model Diagnosis and Inter-comparison was created (www-pcmdi.llnl.gov). That’s why NOAA, NASA, CRU, NCAR etc all have their own analysis tools, but yet they all produce nearly identical results
Please don’t hold up the linux model of development as something to be aspired to! As both a meteorologist and computer scientist I find linux and OSS software in general to be a bane on my existence. The software written by a Master’s student trying to get the code for their thesis to work 3 days before their final defense is a model of good software practice when compared to Linux/OSS software.
What you have done is to create a strawman and then attempt to knock it down. You are neither the first and unfortunately probably not the last to try and use this long discredited line of argument
@381: Off topic: Mercury and compact fluorescent bulbs. If the bulbs are powered by nuclear fission, yes. If they are powered by fossil fuels then there is less mercury released into the air from that burning than there would be to provide an equivalent amount of light from incandescent bulbs.
BPL (388), Silk said it was OBSERVED. Why are you fussing at me?
David B. Benson (389), I found nothing in your reference that addressed my specific question.
Right, Rod, he means the proxy has been observed. Now you can quibble about the validation of the proxy. Please cite your sources.
Or would you like to … no, of course not.
Just in case you hadn’t heard – the UK Met Office have just released (some of) the
station data used to create HadCRUT. See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091208a.html for press release and links to the data.
Cheers,
Dan
As a PhD student in biology, I have witnessed the absurd tactics of creationists throughout my career (they were particularly annoying at U.T. Austin, where I could get them to admit that one of their talking points wasn’t valid, but they’d come back next week and repeat it again).
I imagine that climate research scientists face aggrivations many times the intensity of the average biologist defending evolution against a creationist. Not only does climatology span many disciplines like evolution (so you have to know chemistry, meterology, geology, physics, astronomy, and biology) which makes creationist shotgun-style attacks very easy to carry out, but the AGW-denier crowd is far better funded, and lobbies the hell out of basically every U.S. politician (whereas the creationist/ID crowd generally has to rely on the “true believer” crowd in politics, i.e., Sarah Palin, instead of the much more persuasive route of simply showering them with money).
So I can definently understand a climatologist’s defensiveness when a snarky, angry Rush Limbaugh listener (yes, I’ve listend to him enough to hear him claim that because we still have cold spots in winter, global warming must be false) who has no intention of analyzing the data or reviewing the source code or unit tests writes/emails/calls demanding data he or she will never use.
Hank, well, if he meant the we have projected proxies, he should have said that, instead of saying it was OBSERVED (his caps)…
No, Rod,
You toss the word “projected” in now and, by adding yet another word to misunderstand, increase the possibility of confusing someone who doesn’t know your subtle ways. You’re good at this.
He meant we have the paleo records — such as the PETM event, much discussed here already.
But you do too know what he meant.
Hi,
a lot of station data, some with very long time series, for the Alpine region:
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/index.html