This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
I think that humans may have done a little, but most of it is because things like this happen over time. I think that there really isn’t anything we can do to stop it if its actually happening, but if you want to act like your doing your part to save the planet then go right on ahead. How do you feel about it and why?? lol Eldude that could be true… you bastards ☻ jp Tweet This Post
30 Responses to “Do you believe that humans caused global warming??”
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm Farting vegetarians are the cause of global warming.
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm no i believe thats the way god wanted it… he wnated us all to die by our own destruction… thats why he didn’t stop it
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm No. The sun is causing the changes in the temperature. All of the planets have global warming, including pluto which is no longer called a planet. About Global Warming, What’s The Fastest Way To Let People Know That CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApKTh4FA7ePHq_.saPvBy_Lty6IX? qid=20070523190743AAVacnI Also : 1) In several decades in the last century, temperatures fell when CO2 levels were increasing. 2) The earth was very hot 6,000 years ago (Holocene Thermal Maximum) and there were no SUVs back then. 3) Ice core data (NASA) has shown there were faster increases in temperature thousands of years ago. In fact, the earth left the ice age in less than 20 years. Relative to the age of the earth, 20 years is equivalent to a second. 4) There were high CO2 levels thousands of years ago and there were no SUV’s back then. High temperatures quickly cause the release of CO2. Elevated temperatures cause CO2 to be released by the ocean, by melting ice, by melting permafrost, etc.. Also, it has never been proven that CO2 drives the
temperature of the planet. Ancient ice cores samples have proven CO2 never drove temperature changes in the past. Why would CO2 drive temperatures now? Is The CO2 Global Warming Theory Now A Religion? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnAePgO6iZY9Mn1jMxauqOLty6IX? qid=20070605152527AA3NdyX Another poster mentioned the dust storms of China are caused by global warming or Genghis Khan. He is wrong. China has has dust storms for centuries. Dust flys off of the Gobi Desert. There is no way Genghis Khan could make a 500,000 square mile desert that is 3,000 feet high.http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/2681/Gobi.A2002074.0335.250m.jpg Mar’s global warming is exactly as the Earth’s and it is caused by the sun. "These parallel global warmings — observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth — can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance." "The sun’s increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we’re seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions." http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm Yes defintitely
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm NO NO NO NO NO we do not cause global warming and it has been proven the sea emits more co2 than we do its all aload of balls look for a documentry called global warming swindle chanel 4
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm Solar cycles play the biggest part.
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm The sun caused glabal warming! I feel it happen each morning- it gets warmer as the day goes on.
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm The next time you go our to your car on a hot day and open the door and the amzingly hot inside air of the car comes out, I want you to think about whether or not humans can trap the energy of the sun on this earth by their creations. Some of these creations are clothing. Black colored clothing is hotter in the sun while white colored clothing is cooler because it reflects the sun ray energy back up into space. Another creation of humans are various gases we pollute the atmosphere with. Though invisible to OUR eyes, they act just like clothing.
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm SKIN IS OVERRATED!!! tumors are better there more special But its O.K because green monkeys ATE MY skin. LOL of corse humans CONTRIBUTE to global warming but there was a volcanoe that erupted in Fiji lately that gave out as much carbon emmisions as 2.5 million cars all running for 24 hours.
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm I disagree with joe b because God doesn’t control our descisions. He gave us free will and if we choose to destroy the earth that he gave us then i guess we can do it.. it states two times in the bible to not destroy the earth. i believe its a wonderful blessing. i know this science part is kinda long so sorry – There is one factor telling us global warming is not true. That is that they earth goes through temp. cycles. I don’t see why global warming can’t happen ontop of that. there are so many ways to prove it. can you deny the fact that we emit tons and tons of CO2 just from our fridges each year? that is a greenhouse gas, and it is a proven fact that nobody can even try to deny, that it traps heat in our atmosphere. We are at a critical point in time these days because until now, the oceans and other large bodies of water have absorbed CO2 like a sponge. Now, imagine a leaking sponge, completely full. Well are oceans are completely saturated, meaning all the CO2 that can possible dissolve in it already has. Now where does the CO2 go? i could go onnn and on about the science to back it up but i would literally be here until 9:30 and still not even tell the half of it
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm What happens over time is mostly equilibrium and / or negative feedback- otherwise things start to go off in one direction. E.g. no animals – just plants and you get over oxygenation – as happened in the carboniferous age – big trees – not many animals – Giant insects etc. nature settled down over a few epochs to where we are now – and then Bam -world population goes from millions to 100s billions in just two hundred years – and release all those millions of years of stored up solid Carbon as CO2 in less time it takes a snow flake to get down the bottom of glacier – and chuck in a wealth of methane (worse than CO2) and yeah – who else you gonna finger for it – the pigeons for cooing too much? So the equilibrium is out of whack – there is no negatve feedback (when foxes overbreed – the rabbit population falls away and lo less foxes next year – less foxes = more rabits ad infinitum) – and nature’s got habit of pulling real nasty snap-backs. Mankind says – oooh this coal and oil stuff is running out – let’s burn it faster!
August 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm trees attract rain ,no trees no rain,no rain temperature increases, which is global warming,a disaster awaiting planet earth
it happened in the 20ties in the USA has everybody forgotton that .The people had changed their climate. 2010 at 6:14 pm What’s global warming? Just kidding.from all over the globe. Their actions in the desperate plight to feed their enormous families of avarage 12 kids per family .And the river was dry part of the year. This happens all over the world . compare todays situation with what the place used to look like .scarred by landslides and dotted with madly steep corn patches (which only produced for 3 years ).was this not a climate change ? Granted the climatic changes are local . Add all of this together. 2010 at 6:14 pm Go to the jungles of Oaxaca.and for many people it seems to be the knight on a white horse that says dont worry it is not your fault you can do nothing about it . They all agreed that the days were hotter .the ex forrests of Africa .thousands of refugee farmers who had changed their climate .often much more .there is less rainfall.who devoured the trees for building and firewood ending up in a dessert with out water and with a hot sun under which no new plantation was possible.the river was bigger and ran all year around.And the days were more bearable .the mountain was always covered in clouds with daily rains . desertifying.poluting.Mostly deforrested . • bfwh218: August 7. . and calculate the results .and this is not possible Global warming is one thing .and devoid of clouds. • byderule: August 7. And understand how People have totaly changed their Environment and subsequently their climate. yes but i dont think were the problem.by intensive agressive agriculture are fleeing for their lives.This happens all over Mexico In Africa I have seen lush wooded lands change into dessert within a few years by large invading comunities .this happens all over Africa.• awesomemanforthelord: August 7. deforesting.keep killing the animals . When they were boys . MAN MADE CLIMATIC CHANGES We cannot save the world from global warming .see the desertification in Mexico.the dust storms in northern China .there was less rain .but we still need our Environment to survive whilst we are still here . Everybody is so desperate to absolve humanity from blame . They had changed their climate.keep burning the woods Man is responsible for much climate change it cannot be whitewashed by Global warming If Global warming now also want to change the climate it has to stand in line because it is not the only one ONCE UPON A TIME I went to the jungles of Oaxaca and discussed with the Natives the mountain before us .had destroyed their home ground with indisputable climate changes.but effects neighboring areas . I feel so much better now…. rivers dry up . 2010 at 6:14 pm Is this a trick question? Or are you really that stupid? Thanks for your permission so that I can ‘do my part’. keep on trucking . In Northern china two mayor dessert are merging and 900 vilages are buried under the dust .
And who did it ??? the people are changing the climate Like Ghengas Kahn changed the climate when he burned all the forests and filled the wells with sand . Now if it was the Sun then every body in the solar system would be heating.solar flares.agressive corporate farming (using chemicals). and skeptics are the rasberries on top and read up what America is planning with the insane master plan for Ethanol production .sunspots . The initial cause has been various natural cycles.com/question/index.we should try to do it . This is very precisely measured and the energy increase is not enough to achieve this effect. This leads to more CO2 being released (as in the past). One of it’s polar ice caps is melting which is a regional phenomena and is explained by the dust storm that is raging there.yahoo. And there are many things that we can improve on so that . humans are the primary cause of global warming.ignorence and impartiality Global warming. thus CO2 is presently BOTH a cause and a strong amplifier.nty6IX? qid=20070530195737AACbd5b&show=7#profile-info-fHbzOdoIaa Seems as if America is trying to compete with Global warming I wonder who will win.we can at least last as long as posible .polution .? but who ever it is . Every single person here who said we aren’t explained why not with misinformation.http://answers. the rest of the world looses.overpumping deep subteranean waters . Regarding solar output. climatologists are convinced that humans are the . I’m not going to explain all the evidence that humans are the primary cause of global warming. This is not the natural order but man made. 2010 at 6:14 pm Historically CO2 has lagged 200 – 1000 years behind the rise in temperature.Collectively because there is so much of it all over the world .Like the Spanish climate was changed by using their forest to build the Armada . there are lots of science to prove my point! there is no science to prove global warming • dana1981: August 7. As humans release CO2 in to the atmosphere it traps more heat on Earth. acted as a very strong amplifying effect to global warming.carbon emisions . for instance does not experience global warming.Like the Phoenicians changed the climate of lebanon to build the trading fleet .hairsprays . • Anders: August 7. It has. That’s been discussed here hundreds of times. 2010 at 6:14 pm i pensonally believe that all global warming is garbage. there are 173 planets/satellites and only 6 have of them have been said to be warming. For starters. • puggirl93: August 7. Mars. Now we see a direct correlation between the rise in CO2 and in temperature. It is estimated that the Sun stands for 10% of the temperature increase. 2010 at 6:14 pm Yes.and if we can do something that will make it less ._ylt=AjHWwGGffFFtirnd17BsN.the global precipitation is affected and so is the climate . Appropriate name btw. in the past. So are we today changing the climate by massive deforestation. we are in trouble. which they are not.overgrazing . Al Gore. a_bush_family_member.
so we’d hardly notice in the short-run. because we do have an impact.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution. After all. Secondly. Ironically. the warming is what is causing the increase levels of CO2.main cause of the recent global warming.Pennsylvania. http://en. disasterous changes (like rising sea levels) are ridiculous. Just as soon try to stop the sun from fusing. and the more CO2 there is. We’re still coming out of the last one so. Contrary to all the hype. we pollute lakes and rivers. And I’m not a Bush supporter either. we drive cars. 2010 at 6:14 pm No. Supporting anything that increases efficiency. the more Oxygen they produce (hey. naturally. just look at this plot of global temperature over the past century and a global climate model to see what the primary cause of the warming is. it’s getting warmer. not the other way around. • labohemianartist: . Plants need CO2. Global warming is caused by the same cycle that causes the ice ages.NY State. We set up these smoke factories. We should do that. you need a serious ego check. • Julian D: August 7. And notions that there are going to be sudden. • Earnest T Bass: August 7. 2010 at 6:14 pm Yes why would New Jersey.000 years. 2010 at 6:14 pm Heck No! And Al Gore is a hypocrite to tell everyone that humans cause global warming. That’s not to say we can’t support things that reduce human impact/pollution on the environment. decreases waste. the faster and healthier plant life grows. Its all our fault.For more cars.png • hellokitty252: August 7.wikipedia. we like Oxygen). These things might take even 1. CO2 is actually a pretty good thing. There is no way we can stop global warming. 2010 at 6:14 pm It WAS humans. he is the one flying aroung the globe in earth-polluting-jets complaing that WE are destroying the planet… • brtbbsngnt: August 7. increased levels of CO2 help combat other problems environmentalists go on about: deforestation and extinction. which in turn helps life flourish all the way up. Coral has lived through it all so I’m sure we can too.NYC.Keep building more highways. 2010 at 6:14 pm they helped • Dai D: August 7. But it has been much hotter in the Earth’s history. and saves money is a great thing. and if you think you know better than them.
2010 at 6:14 pm it doesn’t matter if it is our fault or not. those are completely fictitious. This is simply untrue. we still should CHERISH this world. trucks. Those are facts. I do believe. • Keith J: August 7. which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally accepted. 2010 at 6:14 pm Yes and NO!!We are just now realizing how our selfish bad choices are affecting the earth. scientist Keith Briffa of the University of East Anglia has concluded that the earth’s climate has. The earth’s temperatures have always fluctuated between hot and cold and that is a scientifically proven fact. shifted from hot to cold in as little as 30 years. 2010 at 6:14 pm When I was doing research on global warming.” I want you to keep this quote in mind as you read my post. However the earth is smart and she has a way of healing herself. for tis is all we’ve got and we may as well try to take care of it as much as possible. 2010 at 6:14 pm Yes I do because by using cars and trucks it puts carbon dioxide in the air and that goes to our atmosphere causing more heat to go through our atmosphere than out which make our climate hoter than it should be. But the concept of man-made global warming and the idea that climate change is going to bring about some sort of catastrophic end of the world. The average temperature of the earth has risen by about 1°F in the last century. 2010 at 6:14 pm Its mostly our fault cause people drive hummers and suvs and throw trash out on the highway and cut down trees and have nuclear power plants and dont think and supprt bush and stick up for paris hilton and ACT LIKE RETARDS!!! • David M: August 7. Thats why the north and south poles ice. and jets. I’m going to start with fiction number one. which says that the main cause of global warming is greenhouse gases released by human activity. It is a natural process. and we can expect significantly greater temperature increases in the next hundred years. I came upon an article that began with a brilliantly insightful quote by 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. • kat s: August 7. in the past. The earth and the sun are aging. • DaDa: August 7. after studying of the growth rings of ancient trees. however absurd. Our current climate is not . He said that “There is no opinion. planes. is breaking away. that we humans are speeding up the process of global warming. Indeed. and think about whether it applies to you. 2010 at 6:14 pm I don’t believe that we humans "caused" global warming. I learned this all for science class. What we need to do is stop making cars that run on gasoline and start making them run on solar energy so we wont have to use propane which makes these fuels for cars. But it is almost impossible to not contribute in some way on a daily basis. Maybe this is part of the process. When people ask me whether global warming is fact or fiction global warming is actually both fact and fiction.August 7. • Memphis Chrissy: August 7.
This is important because experiments performed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark have conclusively proven that these cosmic rays are one of the main ingredients necessary for low-altitude clouds to form. When Henk Tennekes. the gas that alarmists blame for global warming. Dr. the recently released fourth IPCC Assessment Report claims to represent an unequivocal scientific consensus on the matter. we should talk about Dr. led by Dr. Since fewer cosmic rays have been reaching the earth. more carbon dioxide is released from the sea into the atmosphere. when in fact they are some of the most brilliant and accomplished scientists in the world. All scientists will agree that water vapor is responsible for at least two thirds of the greenhouse effect. Now let’s talk about another school of fiction spun regarding the consequences of global warming. So increased greenhouse gas levels have historically been a result of global warming. and it is responsible for much of the warmth in our atmosphere. Dr. and many scientists believe that water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Furthermore. Scientists also agree that human activity has had no affect whatsoever on the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere. it is not the most important greenhouse gas. and holocaust deniers. is indeed a greenhouse gas. and there is every reason to believe that the change is being caused by natural factors outside of our control. the sky is falling. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. The IPCC says it bases much of its research on statistical techniques. make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. When these errors were corrected. An Inconvenient Truth. their results were still correct. Since then. he was quickly ousted from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. This increased magnetic field has been trapping more and more cosmic rays." He then all but admitted his role in fabricating fiction when he said that "[We] have to offer up scary scenarios. I’m sure you’ve been alarmed by the various Chicken Little scientists and politicians who scurry around screaming “the sky is falling. When temperatures increase. such as the magnetic field of the sun. because a great deal of the earth’s carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are stored in the oceans. not a cause. and therefore fewer of these rays have been reaching the earth’s atmosphere. was asked to review the IPCC’s third assessment report. which has more than doubled in strength in the 20th century. Edward Wegman. Stephen H. began calling the IPCC’s mathematical models unreliable.” Or rather “the ice is melting. And for Al Gore. and so more and more of the sunlight has remained in the atmosphere. this is a very inconvenient truth indeed. But they are afraid to voice their concerns. all evidence indicating that this is the hottest century in the last thousand years. Schneider. one of the pioneers of meteorology. yet does not employ any credible statisticians. ceased to exist. the ice is melting. heating the planet and causing our current global warming trend. demonstrates very little besides a passion for theatrics and a complete ignorance of basic chemistry. Chris Landsea. When a pro-bono committee of statisticians. But. Al Gore promotes the inconvenient fiction that since increased carbon dioxide levels have historically accompanied increased temperatures. they found numerous statistical errors that drastically altered the results. and their results arise from a shocking mix of bad science and flagrant dishonesty. resigned from the IPCC because it would not stop making press releases completely contrary to his findings. facts based on fictions are not facts at all. And while we’re on the subject of fiction-spreading alarmists. one of the world’s preeminent experts on hurricanes. Yet when one looks at the facts.changing nearly that quickly. and I quote. whose documentary. and has since then demonstrated his impartiality and sound scientific method by actually admitting. it is the other way around. because warmer water cannot hold as much gas. but since carbon dioxide is only responsible for a small percentage of the greenhouse effect and human activity is only responsible for a small percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide. and one of the leading proponents of the “The Sky is Falling” theory. UFO buffs. Landsea wrote an open letter stating that “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. one sees that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political group with a political agenda. Landsea had found no conclusive links between hurricanes and global warming and yet the IPCC refused to stop announcing that global warming caused hurricanes. Humans have undoubtedly raised carbon dioxide concentration to an unprecedented level. In fact. Schneider jumped on the global warming bandwagon in the 1980s." I don’t set very much store by looking at the direct evidence. Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University. They are equated to fiction fanatics. ladies and gentlemen. the IPCC is so determined to lay blame on the United States and others that they are actually willing to mislead to the public about their findings. this change has probably not had a significant effect on the earth’s climate.” People like Al Gore. there have been fewer clouds to reflect sunlight. and very reasonably so. it should also be noted that while carbon dioxide. However.” The only reason that you have not heard more criticisms directed towards the IPCC is that those who do speak out are shunned and silenced. It should be noted that the greenhouse effect is a very real force. Yet despite this evidence. The IPCC’s only response to these findings was to assert that although their methods may have been flawed. most people still readily embrace the myth of man-made global warming. most dissenting scientists have chosen to keep their heads down and their mouths closed where global warming is concerned." . Dr. the carbon dioxide must be causing the increased heat. After all.
the oceans will rise. Leave a Reply Top of Form Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website Submit Comment This site uses KeywordLuv. most animals on this planet evolved thousands of years ago. Stephen Schneider. There is no reason to readily embrace the fiction that this time will be any different. so the animals of earth. when it was so warm that the Norse were able to pasture animals and grow hay in Greenland. all of the arctic species have survived warm periods before. the vast majority of the ice would refreeze in the winter. None of those things happened during the Medieval Warm Period. Bottom of Form . Now that it’s been established that plants would continue to thrive in warmer environments. as is currently projected. any melting ice will probably be replaced by the increased snow fall caused by warmer climates. Vera Alexander has stated that while some parts might indeed melt in future summers. including us. you might be wondering about animals. In addition.D. so there is no reason to expect them now. Remember. we can expect a return to a climate similar to that of the Medieval Warm Period of 800-1300A. and those unable to adapt to slightly warmer climates died out during the Medieval Warm Period or during previous natural periods of warming. Well. Enter YourName@YourKeywords in the Name field to take advantage. would really have nothing to worry about.. During the Medieval Warm Period. including the numerous tales of the so-called catastrophic effects of global warming. crops (and plants in general) grew far better and people around the world were much better fed than in the cooler centuries afterwards. which is also known as the LITTLE CLIMATE OPTIMUM. The final fiction I want to address is the much loved fable that the polar ice caps will melt. Also. We especially don’t have to worry about the South Pole.It’s scary to think that kids are being “educated” with the fictions of people like Dr. Dwight Billings and Kim Moreau Peterson predict that such a warming would have no major species impact in the arctic. As for the Arctic. Dr. If the earth’s average temperature rises 4 or 5 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. But let’s forget those myths for a moment and talk fact. and coastal cities will be drowned. since parts of Antarctica have actually cooled by over 1˚F in the last decade or so.
which we exhale as waste products.Global Warming Cause Tags al al gore animals atmosphere aviationcarbon carbon dioxide carbon emissions cars cause of global warmingcauses of global warming changechemtrails climate climate change CO2 copenhagenearth Emissions EnergyEnvironment gases globalglobal warming goregreen greenhouse greenhouse gases hoaxJones livestock methane nasa news obamapollution population sciencescientists sky sun the warmin gweather world Global warming Recent Posts • • • • • Is there a direct or indirect link between sustainable development and climate change and why? What exactly is the meteorite theory for global warming? ? what would you do to stop global climate change? Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory – Global Warming Part 6 of 6 What do you think is causing this climate change? Blogroll • • Climate Crisis Gaia Theory Contact: nickbreeze[at]gmail[dot]com Copyright © 2009 Global Warming Cause. the mitochondria within our cells perform cellular respiration: they burn carbohydrates (in the example shown below. More specifically. All Rights Reserved. 2010 Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere? Guest post by Kate from ClimateSight The very first time you learned about carbon dioxide was probably in grade school: We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. which is required to maintain our bodily processes and keep us . Any eight-year-old can rattle off this fact. 26 September. () Sunday. glucose) in the oxygen that we breathe in to yield carbon dioxide and water. as well as energy.
not a straight line . All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants.) The carbon they collect from the CO2in the air forms their tissues . because they need to eat as well. "Why should we bother? Even breathing out creates carbon emissions!" This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. when we breathe out. as they are eaten by animals. we are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. As you also learned in grade school. in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. and fruit. and so on. when confronted with the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore. the newspaper of the American Geophysical Union. but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.alive. in 2006. stems. I was searching for a way to tell merkins that they emit too much. leaves. . Posted by climatesight at 13:34 PM Printable Version | Link to this page Comments Comments 1 to 5: 1. plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Through photosynthesis. This blog post is the Intermediate versionshe's also written a Basic Version that features a simple graphic explaining the carbon cycle from a respiration point of view.and a good thing. Doug Mackie at 14:50 PM on 26 September. which took it out of the air only recently. Remember. which are eaten by other animals. 2010 I published this in Eos. As humans. C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy carbohydrates + oxygen → carbon dixoide + water + energy It should come as no surprise that.roots. These tissues form the base of the food chain. (They also perform some respiration. all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen. By performing cellular respiration. too! This post is a new rebuttal to the skeptic argument 'Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup' (written by Kate from ClimateSight). some people angrily proclaim. The article is severely constrained by space but the really essential point is that there are many nations that ‘emit’ more CO2 from their population breathing than they do from burning fossil fuels. we are part of this food chain. it's a carbon cycle.
The rationale for the article was a ‘helpful’ suggestion of a method for the US to further destabilise Kyoto (this was in 2006) by insisting that human respiration be included on the flimsy pretext that enteric methane is included. we are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Comments Policy..shtml 3. Here is the link: http://www.. And how humans reducing other species on the planet has made any difference. Post a Comment Political. Renegadeguy at 18:14 PM on 26 September. it is likely that a good part of what we eat has its origin in petroleum. RSVP at 18:31 PM on 26 September. 4. 2010 This article doesn't really answer the question of whether a massive increase in the human population over the last couple of centuries has had an overall effect on CO2 emissions from breathing. but still have more animals numerically in terms of food stock. note the ‘department’ of Eos that this was published in before telling me that breathing does not release fossil CO2." You could have less diversity in terms of species. and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has nearly doubled. 5. RSVP at 17:36 PM on 26 September. register here. off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. The idea (from the US pov) would be that China especially would have to pay a greater proportion of its GDP to buy credits than the US.agu.. 2010 "By performing cellular respiration. 2010 Renegadeguy #4 "And how humans reducing other species on the planet has made any difference. Please. You need to be logged in to post a comment. " If plants cant distinguish fossil CO2 from any other CO2. © Copyright 2010 John Cook Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us . 2010 hey that didn't work. Doug Mackie at 14:52 PM on 26 September... Login via the left margin or if you're new. 2.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006EO340007. My big concern is when they start noticing the CO2 that comes from fermenting wine and beer. but these in turn feed on vegetation.
unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC. such as geology or chemistry). and the conclusions those reports contain. there is a politically motivated elite who filter and screen all science to ensure it is consistent with some hidden agenda. The Broader Consensus As with all such disputes. 2010 The Phony War: Lies. This is how Hulme dismissed the claim: "I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators. such misrepresentation would also be problematic for official bodies. Considering how many lead authors and contributors are involved.g. demonstrated by the claim that within the IPCC. particularly national science academies and the like. Damn Lies and the IPCC It seems ironic that one key version of this argument – that the IPCC ‘misleads’ by misrepresenting the science of climate change and its potential consequences . February 2010 To suggest the IPCC can misrepresent the science belies the fact that such misrepresentations would be fiercely criticised by those it misrepresented. . it is helpful to consider if there is any evidence of credible independent support for the reports the IPCC has produced. It is necessary therefore to have an organisational structure capable of dealing efficiently with so much information. it does also use so called ‘grey’ material where there is insufficient or non-existent peer-reviewed material available at the time the reports are prepared. it is prudent to observe that the IPCC does no science or research at all. Many people are involved in this complex process: “More than 450 Lead Authors and more than 800 Contributing Authors (CAs) have contributed to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)". the IPCC produces ‘synthesis reports’ – rather like an executive summary – in which they review and sum up all the available material. as it makes clear in the IPCC’s published operational appendices." The same argument also has a broader scope. See IPCC principles. An expanded list can be found here. This position turns the structure of the IPCC into an argument. How does the process work? The IPCC primarily concerns itself with science that has been published in peer-reviewed journals.is itself a gross misrepresentation of a statement made by Professor Mike Hulme. Source: The role of the IPCC and key elements of the IPCC assessment process. any egregious misrepresentation would hardly remain unremarked for very long. and the hierarchical nature of the IPCC structure is a reflection of this requirement. Before considering this argument in full. He was also co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the IPCC’s AR3 report. Its job is purely to collate research findings from thousands of climate scientists (and others working in disciplines that bear on climate science indirectly. Annex 2: Procedure for using non-published/non-peer-reviewed sources in IPCC reports. by claiming that the small number of lead reviewers dictate what goes into the IPCC reports.Saturday. From this. including this statement: “With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007. On that basis. that have the potential to mislead. a climate change scientist who works at the University of East Anglia. it is reassuring to note that nearly every major national scientific body e. If the accusations were true. as well as a contributing author for several other chapters. although. no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change”. the Royal Society (UK) or the National Academy of Sciences (US). such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper. 25 September.
. the world has changed considerably since the creation of the IPCC. Aren't panel and committee synonyms? "it is prudent to observe that the IPCC does no science or research at all" Nope this is incorrect. Wehage at 11:44 AM on 25 September. They couldn't even present their name right. Roger A. are not supported by the facts. Collating the work of others. That is rude.In 2010 an independent investigation of the IPCC was launched. the recommendations did not detract from the council’s appreciation of the IPCC’s work: “The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall. enough said. 2010 3. However. on whose work the IPCC reports are based. heated controversy on some climate-related issues. Conducted by the InterAcademy Council. which represents the world’s scientific academies. Except it should be called the ICCC. miekol at 11:30 AM on 25 September. 2010 " it is prudent to observe that the IPCC does no science or research at all" Precisely. with major advances in climate science. kdkd at 11:37 AM on 25 September. It forces readers unfamiliar with the subject to go elsewhere for a definition. claims that the IPCC does not accurately represent the views and findings of the scientists. the report highlighted a number of organisational and procedural areas that the council felt could be improved. However. and subjecting it to analysis is an important part of the research process. This post is the Intermediate Version (written by Graham Wayne who rewrote my rather brief and rushed original version) of the skeptic argument "The IPCC consensus is phoney". Source: IAC Report Executive Summary Like all organisations. the IPCC can improve on its performance. Recent defensiveness regarding errors or ambiguities in the AR4 report may be mitigated in light of unpleasant attacks on the organisation and its director. Perhaps Graham means that "it is prudent to observe that the IPCC does no primary scientific research"? 4. archiesteel at 11:34 AM on 25 September. 2010 @miekol: I don't get it. Posted by gpwayne at 11:11 AM Printable Version | Link to this page Comments Comments 1 to 18: 1. its a politcal committee. but the criticisms are valid none the less. and an increased focus of governments on the impacts and potential responses to changing climate”. Intergovernment Committeee for Climate Change 2. 2010 You use IPCC without defining it. However. Always define an acronym when first introduced.
The IPCC is an impartial bureaucracy with a name that implies climate is changing. 2010 Re: RSVP (8) Perhaps you should read more than just the title then. ask. I can assure you that used appropriately statistics can be highly informative. damned lies and statistics. gallopingcamel at 14:15 PM on 25 September. This latter usage is destructive solipsistic nonsense. and I have particularly enjoyed teaching undergraduate science some of the core skills for the appropriate use of statistics. damned lies and statistics. RSVP at 15:04 PM on 25 September. "Fill your mind with the coppers of your pockets and your mind will fill your pockets with . It is hard enough to maintain one's own decorum & be a positive factor on this blog without comments like yours inviting a likewise response. 2010 gallopingcamel #5 Presumably this is because that quote can be used in an ironic / self deprecating sense. As someone who is reasonably experienced at using statistics. 8. or it can be used in an attempt to reject the entire field of statistics. 9.5. 2010 John. And you're not helping me now. kdkd at 14:54 PM on 25 September. 2010 What I get out of this article. Daniel Bailey at 15:09 PM on 25 September." Now you are paraphrasing the quote to head this post but I do not object. On a couple of occasions when the subject has been Tamino and his ilk you have deleted my use of the quote attributed by Mark Twain to Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies. The fact that you openly admit to doing this previously and having it deleted each time is troubling enough. 2010 Re: gallopingcamel (5) "On a couple of occasions when the subject has been Tamino and his ilk you have deleted my use of the quote attributed by Mark Twain to Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies. Daniel Bailey at 14:53 PM on 25 September. Understanding how to do so is a fairly arduous task. Or if you'd like a different place to start to learn about our changing of our climate. The Yooper 7. You hit the right target! 6. your usage of "ilk" in conjunction with your quote should be in violation of the comment policy. I've already "really not helped" once tonight. as it is tantamount to an accusation of deception and/or dishonesty." " GC.
11. So although the advice "The Yooper" @9 presents is good. 2010 Would it be reasonable to compare the IPCC process with the way Wikipedia tries to collate knowledge in general.IPfCC. you must carefully keep distance from the big picture. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . 2010 #8 RSVP What I get out of this article. Alexandre at 21:39 PM on 25 September. Instead the panel seeks to inform the political process by reviewing the best opinion of science.to call it a "political" committee would require you produce some proof that it advocates some political perspective. 12. Phila at 16:17 PM on 25 September. 2010 1 miekol -. The only way the panel and the experts are political is in the way they are used as political footballs by politicians and economically vested organisations."Precisely. Only the IPCC work is not done by random volunteers. Sounds like what you get out of it is what you bring to it. 14. And the editing process is more strictly defined and negotiated. 2010 The actual acronym is IPoCC not . its a politcal committee. Roger @4 is right. enough said. 2010 GC . The IPCC is an impartial bureaucracy with a name that implies climate is changing. 16. Nichol at 19:42 PM on 25 September. How else to understand error? Your quote illuminates nothing in my opinion. Phil at 23:05 PM on 25 September. Can you honestly say that you dont think WG1 represents the published science? 13.it should have been defined. it's an apolitical panel of scientific experts. enough said." No. scaddenp at 19:50 PM on 25 September.gold. and not contributing original findings.. scaddenp at 19:47 PM on 25 September. but to refer to information published elsewhere." The Yooper 10. 2010 "Precisely. but by actual experts in the field. its a politcal committee. actually simply reading the correct title (rather than miekol's misrepresentation) would have been sufficient. And the requirements for the referenced literature are much more serious. If it had been then RSVP @8 wouldn't have needed to do the research he clearly didn't do. trying to have a neutral point of view. It's like reading a paper then finding a sentence like "the uncertainty range is.as miekol @1 implies .do really believe that quote (which I think is accurate about misuse of statistics by politicians) applies to science? Science in all fields absolutely depends on statistics.." and nailing it: "aha! they just don't know it!" To be a denier. J Bowers at 20:07 PM on 25 September. 15. 2010 Meikol ." I love this kind of approach.
You need to be logged in to post a comment. 18. 24 September. Login via the left margin or if you're new. Post a Comment Political.17. register here. strong lobby efforts opposed to regulating fossil fuel emissions Saudi Arabia .” 130 countries endorsed the reports. Skeptical Science provides an invaluable resource for examining each individual piece of climate evidence. 2010 The critique as spoken by the critic is very reasonable. so let's make use of these individual pieces to see how they form the big picture. Comments Policy. ProfMandia at 04:50 AM on 26 September. I don't think they can be reached. © Copyright 2010 John CookLinks | Translations | About Us | Contact Us Friday. 2010 Despite strong political reasons for them not to endorse. There are of course many members of the denier cult..World's largest producer/exporter of oil China . no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion..Rapidly industrializing using coal-fired power plants The IPCC WGI Report (2007) concluded: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations..Rapidly industrializing using coal-fired power plants India .org/wnet/need-to-know/the-climate-desk/audio-after-glaciergate-un-panelon-climate-change-mulls-reforms/3673/ When the information gets into the hands of the deniers. It's important to every so often take a step back and see how all of those trees comprise the forest as a whole. The Earth is warming . off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. beam me up scotty at 04:07 AM on 26 September.. http://www. 2010 The Big Picture Oftentimes we get bogged down discussing one of the many pieces of evidence behind manmade global warming. and since 2007. different story. and in the process we can't see the forest for the trees. I doubt there are many sincere skeptics anymore.Fossil fuel-based economy.pbs. Politics? Hardly. the following countries endorsed the IPCC 2007 reports because the science was undeniable: United States of America .
etc. In fact. etc. Contrary to what some would like us to believe. more warming at night. which were hotter than the 1970s. basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong. enhanced growth for some plants and improved agriculture at high latitudes (though this will require use of more fertilizers). Glaciers.e. upper atmosphere cooling) that we have indeed observed. by a long shot. etc. an open Northwest Passage. and what we can learn from this. sea ice. and verify that we're responsible for essentially all of the global warming over the past 3 decades. decreased crop yields due to these impacts. Human aerosol emissions are also offsetting a significant amount of the warming by causing global dimming. and that they cannot explain the current global warming trend. there's still a planetary energy imbalance. ice is still receding. Arguments to the contrary are superficial One thing I've found in reading skeptic criticisms of climate science is that they're consistently superficial. the criticisms of James Hansen's 1988 global warming projections never go beyond "he was wrong". displacement of millions of people. And those who argue "it's just a natural cycle" can . at higher latitudes. damage to infrastructure. increasing heat waves (both in frequency and intensity). And yes. And those who argue that "it's the Sun" fail to comprehend that we understand the major mechanisms by which the Sun influences the global climate. The warming will continue We also know that if we continue to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". For example. Sea levels are rising. The net result will be bad There will be some positive results of this continued warming. verifying that we have a good understanding of the fundamental physics behind climate change. Well. We know that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv (we're currently at 390 ppmv) will cause 2–4. etc. mainly due to our greenhouse gas emissions. Sea levels are still rising. due to the thermal inertia of the oceans (the time it takes to heat them). And we're headed for 560 ppmv in the mid-to-late 21st century if we continue business-as-usual emissions. For example. which were hotter than the 1980s. because that's what the theory is based on. In fact we expect human greenhouse gas emissions to cause more warming than we've thus far seen. we can quantify the amount of warming human activity is causing. water shortages. the warming is continuing. the planet will continue to warm. Based on fundamental physics and math.the planet is warming. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries. the planet has not magically stopped warming.We know the planet is warming from surface temperature stations and satellites measuring the temperature of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere. and ice sheetsare all receding. Climate models have projected the ensuing global warming to a high level of accuracy. Spring is arriving sooner each year. when in reality it's important to evaluate what caused the discrepancy between his projections and actual climate changes. There are numerous 'fingerprints' which we would expect to see from an increased greenhouse effect (i. Humans are causing this warming There is overwhelming evidence that humans are the dominant cause of this warming. the 12-month running average global temperature broke the record 3 times in 2010. We're talking decreased biodiversity. according to NASA GISS data. 2010 is on pace to be at least in the top 3 hottest calendar years on record. However.5°C of warming. The 2000s were hotter than the 1990s. There's simply no doubt . We also have various tools which have measured the warming of the Earth's oceans. spring is still coming earlier. Satellites have measured anenergy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. the negatives will almost certainly outweigh the positives.
Posted by dana1981 at 09:19 AM Printable Version | Link to this page Comments 1 2 3 Next Comments 1 to 50 out of 104: 1. But THIS one really grates on my ears! I am referring to: "It's important to every so often take a step back and see how all of those trees comprise the forest as a whole. but we don't know exactly how large the risk is. important questions. causing more warming) or negative feedback (by reflecting more sunlight. the larger the uncertainty. There's a big difference between a 2°C and a 4. and that taking no action is not an option. unresolved. 2010 Overall. humans are causing it. causing a cooling effect) as the planet continues to warm? These are the sorts of questions we should be debating. nor can they explain how our understanding of the fundamental climate physics is wrong. uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the risk is not an excuse to ignore it. But there is still room for improvements in a few spots. and it's an important question to resolve. for example." While we are fixing the split infinitive. The Big Picture The big picture is that we know the planet is warming. However. There are certainly unresolved issues." My personal opinion is that the science is settled in terms of knowing that the planet is warming dangerously rapidly. and that humans are the dominant cause. the greater the potential for the exceptionally high risk scenario to become reality. because we need to know how fast the planet will warm in order to know how fast we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. and the issues that most climate scientists are investigating. Now don't get me wrong: I am not one of those sticklers who believes that every split infinitive is wrong. I think this is an excellent article.5°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population which is determined to continue arguing the resolved questions for which the science has already been settled. We also know that if we continue on a business-as-usual path. In fact. For example. And when climate scientists are forced to respond to the constant propagation of misinformation on these settled issues. but it's also critical to acknowledge what we know and what questions have been resolved. the risk of catastrophic consequences is very high. another slight change of wording also makes a marked improvement. The split infinitive. I suggest: . will clouds act as a net positive feedback (by trapping more heat. There are legitimate unresolved questions Much ado is made out of the expression "the science is settled. there is a substantial risk to continuing on our current path. it just detracts from our investigation of the legitimate. has to go. We need to continue to decrease the uncertainty.never seem to identify exactly which natural cycle can explain the current warming. There are significant uncertainties in some feedbacks which play into this question. MattJ at 09:37 AM on 24 September.
As long as such a prominent physicist as Dyson objects. It either is or it isn't." A more substantial point: I -wish. that falsification "would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong. I do not agree with Dyson." If it were that simple. And indeed. scaddenp at 10:39 AM on 24 September. models most certainly do take into account clouds and aerosols. and needs little more to reach perfection -. Especially when the rebuttal on this very website does not even address the objections Dyson raised: it says nothing about whether or not the new models still rely on 'fudge factors'. etc.the question about model should refer to Models arent reliableargument. because that's what the theory is based on. 2010 Nice post! Oftentimes we get bogged down discussing one of the many pieces of evidence behind man-made global warming. we cannot expect to get very far by claiming "the theory is based on our fundamental understanding of physics". Us and them. Etc. It really IS hard to know if the model is correct.especially if the other is strengthened as well.it were as easy as simply asserting. 5. But I do share at least a little of his skepticism concerning the models. 2010 Nice work Dana! This puts everything nicely into perspective. there is a lot of data collection and interpretation added on top of that "fundamental understanding of physics" to reach the conclusion. MattJ at 09:38 AM on 24 September. 3. 2. and in the process we can't see the forest for the trees."It's important to take a step back every now and then to see how all of those trees form the forest as a whole. and am I mystified and disappointed that he objects. The closest thing to "fudge factors" would be parameterizations .empirical equations that relate some . whether or not they now take into account dust and clouds. doug_bostrom at 10:20 AM on 24 September. But yes. IOW: both this article and that could use some strengthening in similar ways. then the claim that the conclusion is based on "our fundamental understanding of physics" simply does not hold water. Good guys and bad guys. Now don't get me wrong. 2010 MattJ . 2010 BTW: I suppose I should add: if the models still rely on "fudge factors". Using another optical analogy. And I know science is just not about absolutes. Rob Honeycutt at 09:39 AM on 24 September. 4. But this one is already very good. no depth of field. I think the average person tends to think of science as being black and white. If there were a way to help people understand this basic aspect of climate it might go a long way toward opening some eyes and changing some minds. I've wondered about creating a list of different aspects of climate change and putting them into categories in a simple graphic like: 1) Basic physics 2) Settled science 3) Observations 4) New research 5) Uncertainties (or something like that). I doubt that Freeman Dyson would still be objecting to the evidence.
huntjanin at 15:26 PM on 24 September. 6. CBDunkerson at 18:26 PM on 24 September. e. blah. 2010 C'mon Hunt. Well.valuable as these introductorylevel posts may be." Aerosol cooling is another important factor that we haven't yet seen the full amount of warming that one would expect from GHG emissions. blah. due to the thermal inertia of the oceans (the time it takes to heat them). by undertaking new research or having new insights. it is important to note that the "tuning" of empirical determinations match a specific variable to factors affecting it. 2010 Very good post. bverheggen at 18:19 PM on 24 September. It's not the writers who are reinventing the wheel. One criticism: Quote: "Sometimes people ask 'what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?'.variable response to inputs. Do you really expect the average reader of the sports pages to dive into the fiercely technical waters at Real Climate or Science of Doom? The whole objective of John's project of 1) identify a single argument then 2) describe the scientific background at 3 levels from simple through to full-bore science essay is designed to allow people who get stuck in an argument with a doubter of the science to back up their points with accurate material . Have a look at this FAQ for example. no temperatures have not stayed completely static in any 30 year (or 30 minute) period ever. NOT to fiddling knobs so that you match observed climate to model. (eg evaporation as response to sea-temp. 11. it's the conversational.edu/publications/Ram-&-Feng-ae43-37_2009. See eg Ramanathan and Feng (2009) http://www-ramanathan.pitched at the right level. adelady at 18:10 PM on 24 September. basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be .ucsd. 2010 cruzn246. 9. opinionated knownothings who revive and recycle the same old talking points. However. Further questions to appropriate argument (or ask the modellers themselves). 2010 Blah. 2010 If I may pose a heretical question . In this case.and no offense meant . Dan Olner at 18:56 PM on 24 September. wouldn't it be better for our expert authors to break some new ground. However. wind etc). the cause is us. To say that is to assume that temperatures would have basically stayed the same over this whole period. cruzn246 at 17:39 PM on 24 September.pdf or Raes and Seinfeld short piece in AE last year. Small addition: Where you write "In fact we expect human greenhouse gas emissions to cause more warming than we've thus far seen.g. Temperatures have not stayed static for any thirty year period ever. 8. rather than reinventing the wheel (that is. 2010 Nice article. they have also never shot up a degree C in a hundred year period without a specific cause. 10. The claim that man is responsible for virtually all warming is pure speculation. by restating well-known facts in simple terms)? 7.
in principle. it just hasn't been falsified . As they say. say. Clearly. "The earth is warming" is entirely falsifiable. because that's what the theory is based on. To turn that round. AGW theory does make future. "But he looks human. Dan Olner at 19:11 PM on 24 September.and likely won't be. It's quite a nice trick: it does appear at first glance that we have to wait for some point in the future to falsify climate theory . but that actually supports their argument not at all. How about "humans don't cause global warming?" Well. Here's a UK libertarian example. that only confirms the theory.say. falsifiable predictions. of course.we need some future date to arrive before the theory can be falsified. Less downward longwave radiation in the last few decades. Einstein's theory of relativity is falsifiable . 12. That's a criterion for good science . "All swans are white" is a falsifiable theory. of course. but that's easy enough: "co2 doesn't cause atmospheric warming" and "humans aren't putting co2 into the atmosphere" are trivial to falsify. should have added this before: what's most perverse and enraging about the denialosphere is that no falsifiable theories are ever proposed . Same as the theory of relativity. "the earth hasn't warmed since the 1950s" has been." "Exactly. 14. 2010 Dan Olner #11 Many things could falsify the "AGW theory". the earth isn't warming.and.) So the next question is.but in principle. but let's put that aside for the moment. But usually it's used by denialists to muddy the waters and claim that climate science is not falsifiable and thus not 'proper science'. (Actually. they just duck and dodge. Alexandre at 21:14 PM on 24 September. it's just one of those lovely. if the climate does warm." 13. "our results agree with Einstein's theory – we weren't expecting any discrepancies and we didn't find any.or when they are. if you find a black swan.are making an ostensibly reasonable request. Two ways they're wrong: first. You can come up with plenty of null hypotheses: for example. since falsification is one way of demarcating scientific from non-scientific theories.unlike.Eddington took photos of an eclipsed sun to measure the predicted impact of gravity on light from a distant star. In the same way. They're wrong. And then some have the temerity to accuse climate scientists of being unscientific? Graaah. 2010 Just to add: good theories carry on standing up against attempts to falsify -here's a story I just read where Einstein's work once again survives.wrong. that ALSO means anti-AGW hypotheses are equally unfalsifiable .it would seem . Surprise surprise. because it proposes no theories or statements that are falsifiable. it doesn't falsify it." AGW theory appears unfalsifiable because . sciencey-sounding things that 'skeptics' like. it is. theory falsified. for example. though. and they're falsified. Or more OLR with some corresponding other forcing that would . Dan Olner at 19:14 PM on 24 September." I think people asking that question . if AGW won't be falsifiable until some point in the future.would love to hear better informed views. The theory wasn't falsified . "George Bush is a 12 foot shapeshifting lizard from another dimension". it would need breaking down a bit. So again. Here's my philosophy of science 101 take on this . do we need to wait for the future before we can have any faith in climate science? No . 2010 Gah! Sorry.'what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?' .if they require us to wait for the future to find out. the null hypothesis .there are supporting pillars that are falsifiable.
justify it in quantity. They've just been exposed to some misleading information. Dan Olner's assertion that greenhouse gas induced warming is not a falsifiable theory and therefore not science is a 'skeptic' argument for which you don't have a refutation! I've seen it used a few times here and there.given the right information and time . I mouthed off without reading your post properly. for your good comment (#8). not the norm. For example if any of the phenomenon in John's Ten fingerprints of global warming post were not observed to be occurring. Craig Allen at 21:40 PM on 24 September. 2010 huntjanin: "My doubts about the wisdom of this project will of course vanish immediately if someone can assure me that one or more of these basic posts has had some positive effect on a denier. then that would constitute evidence that something was amiss with the theory. Adelady. Which would mean well-established theories like Beer-Lambert Law and Planck Law would be wrong (they are actually so well established that they deserve the status of "laws"of physics).the doctor near the start ." Related to that. That would mean all those extra GHG in the atmosphere are not having an effect. huntjanin at 21:49 PM on 24 September. The heartening thing seems to be. so perhaps it needs one. I see that you are not in fact making the assertion that AGW theory is not falsifiable. and then repeatedly shout him down saying he hasn't answered the question. Also think about preventing soft "believers" (yuck) from turning. But one or two . what's the ratio of rational to irrational on the web? And are people that come here a self-selecting audience? Oh . 19. . and instead made that assumption based on Alexandre's response. 2010 Hey John. 2010 Thanks.here's a link to the video. 2010 huntjanin: Dont' just think about turning deniers. get a really clear explanation. 2010 Sorry Dan. 17. Craig Allen at 21:45 PM on 24 September. 15. I'm sure you can think of a few ways to falsify AGW theory if you try. 16.to piece together the story. Dan Olner at 23:16 PM on 24 September. just been watching the late Steve Schneider tackle a room of sceptics. The question then is. Engage your brain Dan. A number of them clearly have the wherewithall . kdkd at 22:10 PM on 24 September.ask Schneider for an explanation on something. My doubts about the wisdom of this project will of course vanish immediately if someone can assure me that one or more of these basic posts has had some positive effect on a denier. he's the rarity. 18. It's a fantastic insight into a range of sceptic mindsets that you just can't get from the interwebs. That's why dana said that "our fundamental understanding of physics [would be] be wrong".
reasoned. 22. it wasn't hard to gather a doubting audience in one place. It is not falsifiable. as climate science has become. exactly where it was predicted to be. is really a preponderance of evidence based outcome. but here is my 2c. "Climate system science. Excursions in to the philosophy are usually considered OT. "Climate Change: Is the Science 'Settled'?" In summary he states. but until the information here gets out into meatworld public forums. With inductive logic. The difficulty of "falsifying" a science is best illustrated by a story from physics. Instead. 20. Not in the short run. Bur later in the century discrepancies were found in the orbit of . Fine. it resembles Occam's Razor or Hume's Fork. 2010 Dr. I suspect blog science suffers far more from ghettoisation.. When i am arguing with someone about AGW I am not focused on convincing them as they are usually too invested in their denial.com and other sites are needed. High school and college science was a very long time ago. Schneider does a great job addressing the falsifiability of climate science in a lecture he gave back in February which has been given the title. #11. "Falsifiability" is a good criterion to demarcate science from non-science. A black swan may falsify the simple hypothesis "All swans or white" but not the more general hypothesis "Most swans are white" or even "Some swans are white". In that respect. tobyjoyce at 23:33 PM on 24 September. Michael Searcy at 23:23 PM on 24 September. 2010 @Dan Older. shdwsnlite at 23:28 PM on 24 September. The primary reason is to better educate myself which with this 50+ year old brain is a struggle at times. @huntjanin." 21. its impact may be lessened. astronomers found that the planet Uranus was not appearing as predicted by Newton's Laws. We falsify on the basis of accumulated numbers of papers and number of bits of information. Did they therefore stop using Newton's Laws? Of course not the laws were too accurate in other places to drop them completely. 2010 First i want to say this is an excellent post.We do not falsify by single experiments. There prediction was verified when the planet Neptune was observed in 1846. However.. like others. Scientific theories are usually composite and stated as generally as possible. and fact based replies. At the start of the 19th century.. it is not a good criterion to assess a branch of science.. I have used this site as a resource for some time now. it is often easier to modify the hypothesis than reject it. a triumph of science.Clearly. Maybe the answer is that skepticalscience... What I try to keep in mind is the possible audience that is listening to or reading the comments. Thanks to John and all the contributors who devote so much time and energy to keeping this a much needed model of civil discourse and learning. willing to listen to a prominent scientist. two astronomers (Adams and Leverrrier) used the discrepancies to propose that there was another planet beyond Uranus. Those are the ones I am trying to inform by offering civil..
Perhaps it's the very simplicity of this message of surface temperature records which compels "skeptics" to discard surface temperature records as false. and the discrepancy was later correctly explained by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It may work when a science is in its infancy . perhaps it's night time surface atmospheric temperatures? This is sampled with ancient. 24. easiest. the less perfectly atomic and hermetic new evidence will be. This "debate" is not really about science at all. Ken Lambert at 00:32 AM on 25 September. 2010 If there is a single ongoing experiment offering the best hope of crisply falsifying the notion of anthropogenic climate change. For helping ordinary people who are curious about this matter and want to know what all the fuss is about. Dr Schneider states it much more succinctly than me! 23. offering simplified explanations with pointers to details seems a worthwhile exercise. a matter of teasing essential concepts out of things often very complicated.. But the Big Bang theory iteslf is now so complex and composite it is doubtful if a single observation could dethrone it overnight. The reference you gave was somewhat confused . it's the conversational.. As it stands.argument based on science." we may have a wee problem with the notion of AGW. So "falsifiability" is too simple a criterion to judge a large and expansive scientific programme. Constructing these basic explanations is a fascinating exercise in itself. opinionated know- . Failing a scientific explanation. overnight temperatures are behaving exactly as we'd expect.the best example I can think of is Fred Hoyle's Steady State Theory of the cosmos. most bulky and unequivocal evidence of AGW. for my part I don't think any but the very softest and least committed "skeptic" will be swayed by -any. The more evidence they demand. Newton's Laws had continued to be used with gusto. past such simple matters as diurnal temperatures. comprehensively deployed. However. and again the existence of another planet was proposed (called Vulcan). doug_bostrom at 23:56 PM on 24 September. Huntjanin. "skeptics" seem to be becoming lost in the myriad of complicated knock-on findings of researchers delving into climate change. But Vulcan was never observed. which was slain by the simple observation of the microwave remnants of the Big Bang. 2010 Adelady #8 "It's not the writers who are reinventing the wheel. ignoring the obvious means dealing with the arcane. thoroughly understood instrumentation. Ironically. A reasonable person might conclude that if night time temperatures were refusing to behave "properly. PS Just read Michael Searcy's comment #20. no confounding factors if the simplest and most transparent data conditioning is permitted. I find deniers take simple lacunae in the theory of AGW and immediately jump up and down saying "Falsified! Falsified!". and provided no instances where climate scientists were making predictions that were not falsifiable.Mercury. in the interim. the behavioral details of the decline of diurnal surface temperature variation seem impossible to explain by other means.it referred to a science discussion in 1961 as if it had contemporary relevance. speculations about fraud or incompetence are all that's left to discount the first.
nothings who revive and recycle the same old talking points." What is it with something about 'she who is without sin casting the first stone?' Presumably in your view only deniers and sceptics (why not call them tanks?) have the same old talking points. As if the age of a point has anything to do with its value. Old talking points arise because they might be uncertain, difficult, controversial and not resolved - like the real contribution of CO2GHG to warming, WV and CO2 interaction, OHC measurement, etc etc. BTW who is dana1981 anyway - he/she seems to be recycling lots of 'old talking points' lately.
25. paulm at 00:46 AM on 25 September, 2010
Nice post. I have to add that I think the conclusion can be tightened up a bit. We may not know the exact risk but we have a pretty good idea what the ballpark figures are in terms of risk management. It's not difficult when we can clearly see that continued AGG emissions will more than likely result in extreme GW, which will most likely result in a severe mass extinction event. It clearly will most likely result in to collapse of modern civilization and very probably the reduction of the human species to very low numbers. There is also a possibility of the run away GH effect which would annihilate life. So the statement "uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the risk" in the conclusion is a bit miss leading.
26. Daniel Bailey at 00:48 AM on 25 September, 2010
Re: Ken Lambert (24) "What is it with something about 'she who is without sin casting the first stone?'" Actually, it's "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Remember, the society of the day was patriarchal, so the gender of the expression is male. (but perhaps you were adapting it to adelady?) "Presumably in your view only deniers and sceptics (why not call them tanks?) have the same old talking points." Those same old talking points you reference are the ones whose science the "deniers and sceptics" fail time and again to overcome. "As if the age of a point has anything to do with its value." Well-spoken, sir. The Yooper
27. paulm at 01:05 AM on 25 September, 2010
A good paper on why a large portions of the general public, journalists, and policy makers dont get the "...scale of the problem and the urgency of required action" is :
What psychology can teach us about our response to climate change http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/23/climate-change-psychologyresponse-scepticism "Simply presenting the facts and figures about global warming has failed to convince large portions of the general public, journalists, and policy makers about the scale of the problem and the urgency of required action. From a psychologist's perspective this disconnect is not surprising."
28. doug_bostrom at 02:06 AM on 25 September, 2010
Following from PaulM's comment, this is a useful article: The Psychology of Global Warming (AMS, full text pdf) Leaving aside that little group tagged by Leiserowitz as the "dismissive," if we take heed of what we've learned of how people think, our communications actually can be made more effective, more robust in the face of industrial PR.
29. dana1981 at 02:21 AM on 25 September, 2010
cruzn246 #7 - I suggest you actually click the links and learn something. There's a pretty darn big difference between scientific evidence and "pure speculation." bverheggen #9 - valid point, I may add a bit on aerosols. I wrote a rebuttal on the subject recently which I didn't link in this article. Dan Olner #11 - there's a difference between what it would take for AGW to be wrong (our understanding of physics would have to be wrong) and what it would take to disprove AGW. To disprove the theory, just demonstrate that the planet is not warming or climate is not changing as it predicts. I recommend you click the 'fingerprints' link in the article to see what I mean. Ken Lambert #24 - perhaps you're unfamiliar with Skeptical Science. The purpose of the site is to debunk false skeptic arguments with scientific evidence. paulm #25 - I'll consider rewording the conclusion a bit.
30. Stephen Baines at 07:21 AM on 25 September, 2010
Dana, I think this is a great post. I'm forwarding it to my relatively climate naive sister so she has a good entry point to the amazing resources on this web site. One thing regarding falsification. (This particular line of argument from deniers drives me completely batty!) I would argue that it's more correct to say that ober 50 years AGW has been repeatedly subject to intense attempts at falsification by skeptical scientist and it has passed those tests repeatedly, so that now it would take a truly astonishing series of events/findings to shake the hard won belief in it that most now scientists have. The way it's put now is strictly true, but it sounds a little condescending for those not very aware of those physical principles you speak of (I presume this level of explanation is targeted at such people). It reads a bit like "us smart people thought this up using theories that you can't possibly understand, so don't question it." That plays perfectly into the whole anti-elitism meme that lurks beneathe this debate. It also somewhat undersells the great body of observational data that does not rely on those physical principles.
Perhaps some way for people to understand how they depend on those physical principles in their every day lives would help bring it home too.
31. PeteM at 07:27 AM on 25 September, 2010
(I don't claim to be a specialist in this area but I do have a science degree ) When talking with friends and colleagues who don't have a science background I tend to use the following way of describing what a few degrees centigrade rise really means ... "The numbers one ,two , three and four don't sound much. Two centimeters seems a small number . However to understand a two degrees (c) rise in temperature think what you would say if I suggested you lift (by yourself) Mount Everest by two centimeters - it's only a small number so it should be easy . Now think about how much disruption must have occured to make a one degree centigrate rise to the temperature of the Earth .... and then project what the consequences could be of a two or three degree rise - a small number can mask gigantic changes.... This is the impact of fossil fuels on the green house effect "
32. Tarcisio José D'Avila at 07:50 AM on 25 September, 2010
Retification... Do you ever wonder, "Is the thermostat of nature" is not stuck? If it is stalled antropogenic actions has great potential to be the cause of all this damage. I do not believe that acts falcification of data.
33. Tom Dayton at 08:20 AM on 25 September, 2010
Tarcisio, please rephrase your comment. I don't understand your point.
34. Tarcisio José D'Avila at 09:13 AM on 25 September, 2010
Tom #33 I go wrait with may poor english escuseme... If the thermostat of the climate is brook or is out of range, the global warm has great potential of be antropogenic. And in this case the science is rigth. Only the target of resershing is bad. It's look to the fingeprint only.
35. Daniel Bailey at 12:15 PM on 25 September, 2010
Re: Tarcisio José D'Avila (32,34) and Tom Dayton (33) If I understand Tarcisio José D'Avila correctly, he is postulating the existence of a broken "climate thermostat". Broken, because it is not correcting for the actions of man's fossil fuel CO2 emissions. An iteration of the Gaiahypothesis, I believe. He believes the science of anthropogenic warming is right, but that it only is warming because the thermostat itself is broken. Or something like that. If I've misunderstood, I apologize. The Yooper
36. KR at 15:07 PM on 25 September, 2010
Tariscio - I would love to read your comments, but find your translations difficult to follow. I would suggest including both your native language (Spanish?) in appropriate detail, and using Google translate to produce an additional English version. Many of us can read or at least puzzle out other languages.
37. cruzn246 at 16:28 PM on 25 September, 2010
2010 Yes. CBDunkerson at 19:09 PM on 25 September. three years ago Beck picked a fight with a dead man. Dappledwater at 18:12 PM on 25 September. . 2010 Anyone seen this? 40. in his book. so who are we to know what happens when it gets to this point? 38.is that by that German school teacher?. RSVP at 17:07 PM on 25 September. while he plays down the imperative to reduce fossil fuels (towards the end of the video). 41. etc.. I dont think he is saying global warming is not real as much that stratospheric cooling might be a bigger problem. 2010 Cruzn @ 39 . How can they claim that a change in temperature is completely or even mostly the responsibility of man when we are not even at the point when we truly know what makes our temperatures change and how much they change anyway. We have never been around at this point in a glacial period. Similarly. 39. 2010 MattJ #1 "I do not agree with Dyson. cruzn246 at 17:14 PM on 25 September. he pretty much writes that humanity missed its opportunity in the sixties to go nuclear due to unwarranted alarmism.Well Dunkerson. and am I mystified and disappointed that he objects. just google his name. To see. Disturbing the Universe." As per your comment. you think it is all us? I mean think about it. such that he was more optimistic about the ability to build safer reactors. and lost.. Apparently this nonsense is coming back up again because Beck died this week. his interview on YouTube may help.
. Which ALSO verified Callendar's results and made Beck's analysis obviously false before he even published it.. If global carbon sinks were able to absorb the extra amount we'd see locally elevated CO2 from humans.In brief. There is no greater proof of the deficiency of the 'skeptic' position than their insistence on holding fast to pure fiction. of course. even that which is clearly erroneous. Still. 2010 44: "Since we see locally elevated amounts AND a positive trend it is clear that carbon sinks are not able to handle all of the additional CO2. However. on the local level. 2010 #41: "there were also alot of outliers. His results. one of the places such readings were taken) yielded the graph above.. direct readings of CO2 levels in air bubbles. Presumably this is because natural emissions are spread out around the globe and balanced by natural sinks in nearly equal measure. Since we see locally elevated amounts AND a positive trend it is clear that carbon sinks are not able to handle all of the additional CO2. 45." Isn't that direct experimental proof that increased atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic? 44. muoncounter at 22:32 PM on 25 September. forty years after Callendar's death. " Agreed.. But if elevated amounts of atmospheric CO2 are in close context with power plants. and the areas with the greatest emissions (cities) also have the most minimal carbon sinks (because there are few plants). CBDunkerson at 19:11 PM on 25 September. it would be completely illogical to insist that the global total fossil fuel emissions does not result in increased global atmospheric CO2. that's an interesting point. but when looked at geographically there is a very clear human signal in the CO2 satellite maps (and the earlier data)... based on including readings from right outside coal plants (which were. 2010 PS: I should have also mentioned ice core CO2 records. . Of course Beck's paper was provably nonsense the day it came out.. 43. this does NOT (by itself) prove global atmospheric CO2 increases are due to humans. decades ago Guy Stewart Callendar took atmospheric CO2 readings by various people all over the world (see the list of name at the bottom of Beck's chart) and analyzed them in an effort to determine if there was any trend in CO2 levels. called this 'scientific fraud' and insisted that the only proper way to do a scientific study is to include ALL of the data. urban areas. but the long term trend would be flat. He therefor reasoned that these high readings were being caused by recent emissions that had not yet mixed through the atmosphere and excluded them.. 42. He found that alot of the readings showed a steadily increasing trend line.. etc. all on the high side and all downwind of major industrial centers. 2010 muoncounter. Beck. We hear so much about how human CO2 emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions. Multiple stations around the world have long since validated Callendar's results and satellite analysis has also confirmed it in recent years. all on the high side and all downwind of major industrial centers. muoncounter at 23:10 PM on 25 September. CBDunkerson at 22:56 PM on 25 September.. further skewed by the fact that there were very few readings available for the early part of the chart and almost all of them were from industrial regions.. human emissions are comparatively very concentrated. but there were also alot of outliers..
In any case. but I could be wrong. and the simple fact is that we will probably see higher temps then this before this whole climate system flips. And CO2 has little or nothing to do with it. It happened before and it will happen again. "So how do you all explain the big drops in the CO2 chart from Beck?" Beck's chart is inaccurate. Instead." Perhaps not (I'd have to check).... "BTW. the graph (and the paper it came from) was thoroughly debunked. archiesteel at 02:24 AM on 26 September. 48. 50. I can't buy this notion about CO2 causing some big change here. The most recent do not show the so called increase we are seeing. please answer this simple question: are you here to learn. look up those arguments in the list compiled on this site to get an accurate rebuttal. "Can someone tell me how warm it would be if no CO2 was in the atmosphere?" Off-hand. We are well within norms. For example.. as the country's industry went into overdrive. I am not saying it is a zero factor. so after that it becomes a driver.... We are still in what has been a relatively warm period called the Holocene. Thanks. archiesteel at 02:21 AM on 26 September. OK. cruzn246 at 02:07 AM on 26 September. Can someone tell me how warm it would be if no CO2 was in the atmosphere? 47. if Beck's primary sources were in Germany. the big greenhouse gas here is water vapor. so who knows what the drops and bump means. Ice cores are not that accurate. Ice cores are not that accurate... 2010 @cruzn246. I meant "30C colder". 2010 The whole thing about CO2 just leaves me baffled.46. So why the heck can you never go anywhere in the temperature history and find one stinking time that temperature peaked after CO2 peaked? I mean if it's driving then. then kindly abstain from it. but the older one disprove Beck's graph. Of course it is explained that CO2 lags for whatever reason when a warmup occurs. then it would make sense for the big bump during WWII. I remember it being something akin to 30C.Face it people. 2010 ... or simply repeat denier arguments you've read elsewhere? Because if it's the latter. but till we really see some temperatures out of the norm. which we are not close to seeing. first.. .sorry. 2010 So how do you all explain the big drops in the CO2 chart from Beck? Did folks quit burning coal in those years? did winds mysteriously change directions for years? BTW. cruzn246 at 02:26 AM on 26 September. doug_bostrom at 02:18 AM on 26 September. The most recent do not show the so called increase we are seeing. What's that got to do with it? 49.if no CO2 was in the atmosphere?" Is anybody going to rise to that bait? Take the refusal to acknowledge CBDunkerson's remarks concerning Beck as a hint as to whether the little sardine is worth biting. 2010 ". it is a minor player in the whole climate system.
That is probably the big tripper in the system. sea ice. It's important to every so often take a step back and see how all of those trees comprise the forest as a whole. off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. which were hotter than the 1980s. The 2000s were hotter than the 1990s. according to NASA GISS data. but they are not the big players in climate change. When that gulf stream doesn't flow to Europe anymore. Contrary to what some would like us to believe. 24 September. there's still a planetary energy imbalance. The whole system is so complex we barley know how it works but the balance of solar factors. things flip. the warming is continuing. In fact. mainly due to our greenhouse gas emissions. Spring is arriving sooner each year. Based on fundamental physics and math. 1 2 3 Next Post a Comment Political. Climate models have projected the ensuing global warming to a high level of . We also have various tools which have measured the warming of the Earth's oceans. Sea levels are still rising. © Copyright 2010 John CookLinks | Translations | About Us | Contact Us Friday. Anyone who knows anything about our glacial climatology should know that we are bound to stay warm until we see a radical change in ocean currents. etc. we can quantify the amount of warming human activity is causing. etc. and ocean temperatures and currents are all bigger players.. 2010 The Big Picture Oftentimes we get bogged down discussing one of the many pieces of evidence behind manmade global warming. 2010 is on pace to be at least in the top 3 hottest calendar years on record. And yes. upper atmosphere cooling) that we have indeed observed. Humans are causing this warming There is overwhelming evidence that humans are the dominant cause of this warming. and verify that we're responsible for essentially all of the global warming over the past 3 decades. Login via the left margin or if you're new. In fact we expect human greenhouse gas emissions to cause more warming than we've thus far seen. spring is still coming earlier.the planet is warming. The Earth is warming We know the planet is warming from surface temperature stations and satellites measuring the temperature of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere. You need to be logged in to post a comment. so let's make use of these individual pieces to see how they form the big picture. register here. There are numerous 'fingerprints' which we would expect to see from an increased greenhouse effect (i. There's simply no doubt .e. Sea levels are rising. and in the process we can't see the forest for the trees. Satellites have measured anenergy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. the planet has not magically stopped warming. due to the thermal inertia of the oceans (the time it takes to heat them). usually about the time FL is mostly water covered. at higher latitudes. Skeptical Science provides an invaluable resource for examining each individual piece of climate evidence. Comments Policy. Glaciers.. the 12-month running average global temperature broke the record 3 times in 2010. more warming at night. ice is still receding. albedo. Human aerosol emissions are also offsetting a significant amount of the warming by causing global dimming. and ice sheetsare all receding.Greenouse gases allow us to trap heat. which were hotter than the 1970s.
There's a big difference between a 2°C and a 4. enhanced growth for some plants and improved agriculture at high latitudes (though this will require use of more fertilizers). water shortages. We know that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv (we're currently at 390 ppmv) will cause 2–4. For example. will clouds act as a net positive feedback (by trapping more heat. it just detracts from our investigation of the legitimate. displacement of millions of people. causing more warming) or negative feedback (by reflecting more sunlight. The Big Picture . an open Northwest Passage. and the issues that most climate scientists are investigating. the negatives will almost certainly outweigh the positives. There are certainly unresolved issues.5°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". etc. nor can they explain how our understanding of the fundamental climate physics is wrong." My personal opinion is that the science is settled in terms of knowing that the planet is warming dangerously rapidly. decreased crop yields due to these impacts. Well. And we're headed for 560 ppmv in the mid-to-late 21st century if we continue business-as-usual emissions.5°C of warming. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries. because we need to know how fast the planet will warm in order to know how fast we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We're talking decreased biodiversity. the planet will continue to warm. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population which is determined to continue arguing the resolved questions for which the science has already been settled. basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong. important questions. etc. by a long shot. There are legitimate unresolved questions Much ado is made out of the expression "the science is settled. And those who argue that "it's the Sun" fail to comprehend that we understand the major mechanisms by which the Sun influences the global climate. causing a cooling effect) as the planet continues to warm? These are the sorts of questions we should be debating. and what we can learn from this. The net result will be bad There will be some positive results of this continued warming. increasing heat waves (both in frequency and intensity). damage to infrastructure. There are significant uncertainties in some feedbacks which play into this question. and that they cannot explain the current global warming trend. verifying that we have a good understanding of the fundamental physics behind climate change. The warming will continue We also know that if we continue to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases.accuracy. the criticisms of James Hansen's 1988 global warming projections never go beyond "he was wrong". when in reality it's important to evaluate what caused the discrepancy between his projections and actual climate changes. and it's an important question to resolve. unresolved. And when climate scientists are forced to respond to the constant propagation of misinformation on these settled issues. and that humans are the dominant cause. Arguments to the contrary are superficial One thing I've found in reading skeptic criticisms of climate science is that they're consistently superficial. For example. However. because that's what the theory is based on. And those who argue "it's just a natural cycle" can never seem to identify exactly which natural cycle can explain the current warming. For example.
Wherever you got that from is crazy.6 C cooler there would also be less water vapor in the air. The anomalous peaks exist only because he used fragmentary records rather than a consistent series. For continued wrangling over C02 measurement accuracy. 52. it is safe to say that most of the planet would be a frozen ball of ice.The big picture is that we know the planet is warming. Moderator Response: Good point. if it were 8.100 ppm over the course of a mere decade IS insane) of a high school teacher to absolute and irrefutable scientific findings by hundreds of specialists in a half dozen different fields over the course of decades. the larger the uncertainty. which would make it even colder..... which would mean more ice cover and thus a higher albedo. Tom Dayton at 02:33 AM on 26 September. go here: CO2 measurements are suspect . satellite readings. In fact. and basic logic ALL say that Beck's analysis is complete nonsense. 53. 2010 cruzn246 #46. We also know that if we continue on a business-as-usual path. 2010 I have replied to cruzn246 over on the more appropriate thread for further discussion: CO2 measurements are suspect. However. Ice core records. Posted by dana1981 at 09:19 AM Printable Version | Link to this page Comments Prev 1 2 3 Next Comments 51 to 100 out of 104: 51.6 C. This wasn't a matter of taking regular readings at fixed sites. humans are causing it. sediment proxies. we can't determine the precise value. However. and that taking no action is not an option. Seriously. but it's also critical to acknowledge what we know and what questions have been resolved. uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the risk is not an excuse to ignore it. but we don't know exactly how large the risk is. That yields about 8.. However. the risk of catastrophic consequences is very high. the 'big drops' in Beck's chart are actually returns to more accurate results.. As to how warm it would be without CO2.. there is a substantial risk to continuing on our current path. which would make it cooler still. your continued insistence on treating Beck as anything but a bad joke is a classic example of why there is so much disdain for 'skeptics'.. cruzn246 at 02:28 AM on 26 September. Yet still you prefer the insane ramblings (and CO2 fluctuating +/. the greater the potential for the exceptionally high risk scenario to become reality. modern CO2 monitoring stations all over the world. CO2 accounts for about 26% of the 33 C greenhouse warming. Maybe a narrow 'temperate' zone around the equator. The difference is that when Callendar found anomalously high readings in individual years / particular areas he discarded them as corrupted data while Beck decided these were indicative of a global trend which somehow magically didn't appear in the other readings. We need to continue to decrease the uncertainty. 2010 30C colder? Are you nuts? No frickin way. Callendar gathered any and all old historical measurements he could find and Beck re-used those same records. CBDunkerson at 02:29 AM on 26 September. In short. there is NOTHING skeptical about it.
. The Yooper . since the Earth reflects about 30% (or 28%) of the incoming sunlight. which can then elevate CO2 levels even more. CO2 is the most important of the greenhouse gases. it would have an expected blackbody temperature of 5. BTW. 2010 cruzn246 #50: "So why the heck can you never go anywhere in the temperature history and find one stinking time that temperature peaked after CO2 peaked?" More denialist fiction. So. muoncounter at 02:35 AM on 26 September. quasi-sciency answer: If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth. These all are quantifiable due to the physics of radiative gases (no computer or fancy GCM's required).To further discuss sensitivity: A detailed look at climate sensitivity If you're not familiar with the comments policy here and would like to know why comments swerving deeply into specialist topics will likely vanish after more appropriate threads are pointed out. 2010 #46: "how do you all explain the big drops in the CO2 chart from Beck?" Easy. From a presentation (not published?) by Massen and Beck 2006: The historic measurements have horrible standard deviations. But. However. even including water vapor. Fig 12: 339+/-33. Thus. See Fig 10: 398+/-62 ppm. "Can someone tell me how warm it would be if no CO2 was in the atmosphere?" To even ask this questions is telling as to your state of awareness of the science.now. the snowball Earth scenario ~650 million years ago. or about -18 degrees C. no liquid water anywhere and no life. no one said it would be easy to learn. see Comments Policy 54. depending upon the rates at which CO2 changes. Here's a quick. various flood basalt incidents. 55.3 °C. hey.. But let's pretend you have honestly asked that question. This usually dampens itself out over time. You really ought to watch this for a clear explanation. CBDunkerson at 02:38 AM on 26 September. essentially a global average temp of -2 degrees F. Daniel Bailey at 02:38 AM on 26 September. 56. Doug. All very well understood for over a hundred years. Fig 11: 327+/23ppm. doug_bostrom (47) OK. et cetera. The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual temperature and the blackbody temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect. It does get a little complicated sometimes. Water vapor acts to enhance the warming of greenhouse gases. There ARE cases where temperature peaked after CO2 did. For instance. 2010 Re: cruzn246 (46). about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C or 15 °C. temps & CO2 levels eventually reach an equilibrium. the planet's actual blackbody temperature is about -18 or -19 °C . I'll take my turn at the plow. which can then enhance temps even more.
archiesteel at 02:46 AM on 26 September.57. so temperatures should be (slowly) going down instead of rising. 2010 @cruzn246: "30C colder? Are you nuts? No frickin way. "Anyone who knows anything about our glacial climatology should know that we are bound to stay warm until we see a radical change in ocean currents. "We are still in what has been a relatively warm period called the Holocene." Why do you believe you know more than the experts in the field? Please educate yourself. but just because you're ignorant of the science doesn't mean you should assume it's wrong." We are not adding new water vapor to the atmosphere. 2010 @cruzn246: "The whole thing about CO2 just leaves me baffled." Clearly. "And CO2 has little or nothing to do with it." Science disagrees with you. which we are not close to seeing" We are breaking an increasing amount of temperature records. and the increase matches what the climate models predict. *rolleyes* I'm sorry. [. but now I see you're just a ." Such brilliant rhetoric has convinced me.. and the simple fact is that we will probably see higher temps then this before this whole climate system flips. "but till we really see some temperatures out of the norm." CO2 Lags Temperature "Face it people. albedo. which is likely to increase the amount of WV in the atmosphere. the big greenhouse gas here is water vapor. I though you were a serious commenter. we're past the climate optimum for this interglacial period. What more proof do you want? People's clothes catching on fire when they go out for a stroll? Don't be ridiculous. 58. but we are adding CO2 that has been sequestered for millions of years. "Of course it is explained that CO2 lags for whatever reason when a warmup occurs.] The whole system is so complex we barley know how it works but the balance of solar factors. and ocean temperatures and currents are all bigger players. Wherever you got that from is crazy. Greenouse gases allow us to trap heat. it is a minor player in the whole climate system. cruzn246. we are at the end of the warmest decade in recorded history. thus increasing the warming. please." Actually. but they are not the big players in climate change. The current warming is due to rising CO2.. archiesteel at 02:42 AM on 26 September.
2010 We are breaking an increasing amount of temperature records. Moderator Response: See Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?. johnd at 03:14 AM on 26 September. Big deal. That isn't a big enough sample to say warmest ever. cruzn246 at 02:48 AM on 26 September." Temperatures were about 8 degrees colder at that time. What more proof do you want? People's clothes catching on fire when they go out for a stroll? Don't be ridiculous. So we are at the warmest in the last 200 years.common troll. it makes it easier to understand the points you are trying to make. We know it was warmer than this during the Holocene many times. described as having a fairly strong industrial influence to the east being the prime example with annual variation in excess of 50ppm. Whooppeee! Moderator Response: See the argument It's Not Bad. cruzn246 at 02:52 AM on 26 September.000 years ago. 59. and evidence of positive/negative feedback when CO2 levels change. That yields about 8. 2010 CBDunkerson at 19:09 PM. Interestingly even when the stations are located in heavily industrialised regions the same seasonal variation still occurs but with some of the highest annual variations of all the locations sampled.6 26% today? How about when CO2 was at 180 or so 10. 46% less CO2 (roughly half) means 8 degrees colder. 2010 As to how warm it would be without CO2. Mods. it wasn't (as far as global averages are concerned). the station at Heidelberg Germany. we are at the end of the warmest decade in recorded history. archiesteel at 03:02 AM on 26 September. Cripes. South America and Europe clearly indicate the huge seasonal variation in CO2 levels which coincides with increased uptake by plants during the growing season. can we remove cruzn246's post and this reply? They add nothing to the discussion. 2010 @cruzn246: "We know it was warmer than this during the Holocene many times. 60. That's more than the 3C climate sensitivity currenly estimated. archiesteel at 02:59 AM on 26 September. Recorded history. the CO2 levels recorded at the surface stations used in this study Mechanisms for synoptic variations of atmospheric CO2 in North America. These temps are well within norms. pull some reality glasses on. 61. CO2 accounts for about 26% of the 33 C greenhouse warming. So the models got it right. So. . actually. 63.000 years ago. The annual cycle shows variations of generally 20-40ppm but can be in excess of 50ppm depending on location. Discuss the topic on that thread. 62. you should put cited text you reply to in quotes. Also. please. 2010 @cruzn246: "26% today? How about when CO2 was at 180 or so 10." Actually. and the increase matches what the climate models predict.
it is probability ocean currents/sea levels. "what's the probability 'cruzn246' knows better?" My guess is that he/she will disagree with anything smacking of an attribution of significant climate change to anthropogenic influences. See the Moderator's Comment on Tom Dayton's comment.. If you want to learn.the trip happens. 2010 "Tripping point?" "till. 2010 Re: cruzn246 For someone who wants to be a Climatologist. doug_bostrom at 03:37 AM on 26 September. That's a prerequisite. 64... Do you not see a problem with that? I would suggest. Cruzn246? 67. Daniel Bailey at 03:41 AM on 26 September. The Yooper 68. johnd at 03:25 AM on 26 September. 2010 cruzn246 at 02:26 AM. this review of the most recently published study Fresh water may have cooled North Atlantic putting that "the decrease recorded in the Earth's temperature between the 1940s and 1970s was caused by a sudden cooling of the oceans in the northern hemisphere" may be of interest to you.. as we are. That is for folks who really don't know what the real tripping point is. going here and follow the links and try to gain a base understanding of what's actually going on in the field. It also may be that we could miss the glacial period if we hold seal levels down for a few more thousand years. 66. with lifetimes of experience and working knowledge in the field. It'll be a very sharp drop. johnd at 03:58 AM on 26 September. so temperatures should be (slowly) going down instead of rising.the trip happens?" Are you sure you've got your terminology straight. when you are in the warm cycle. You are telling people here on this thread. you know very little about the field.. Take a moment to summarize what cruzn246 disagrees with and then ask. The ocean current drive may be so strong that it will even overcome what is thought to be the "wrong" time in the Milankovitch cycle. we're past the climate optimum for this interglacial period. Fact is. at the very least.. Of course that's gonna be hard to do. first admit you don't know everything. but that is still something we are waiting to see." So some think. again. a sweeping dismissal that is boldly conspicuous. 2010 Archiesteel "Actually. oceans just seem to keep rising till. or about science or the scientific method.. 69. the the science they know (which is itself based on the accumulated lifetimes of study and research of hundreds of thousands of scientists) is wrong. doug_bostrom at 03:56 AM on 26 September.. 2010 For my part I'm not a researcher studying matters of climate. and when that happens a slow fall is not what you will see. cruzn246 at 03:29 AM on 26 September.... but I follow the topic fairly closely and that's why I can't help but notice cruzn246's disagreement with vast swathes of established research findings. 2010 . There is some chance we may not warm up fast enough to bring the sea levels up to catch the right Milankovitch cycles.. 65.Moderator Response: Wrong thread for continuing this conversation. The big picture.
In fact the majority of the trees don't. not just the recent past. the climate goes back into glaciation it will be very sudden in the N hemisphere. bù zuò luànshì rén 71. You can throw some sort of "science" at me. It'll take time to cool of all that water in the S Hemisphere. But that doesn't mean N Hemisphere tempos will drop slow. It's that simple. but when it flies in the face of the past. and if. the forest. I just don't buy it. Will worldwide tamps show the same quick drop. and it comes down to selecting just a few that show high correlation in order to compile the data sets required. What is apparent from that general treatment of the various arguments presented is a lack of understanding that perhaps the climate. Nothing wrong with that in itself. I meant to complete the sentence differently when I used probability. heck no. and didn't go back to fix it. They will almost be in a free-fall. then the argument presented fails. or perhaps amusing. It's that simple. 73. The tree and forest analogy is very appropriate I feel given the weight given to tree rings as a means of establishing proxy temperatures. you simply ignore it. I disagree with the whole premise because I have never been shown that CO2 is responsible for most of our current warmup. CBDunkerson at 04:29 AM on 26 September. positive or negative. I would bet changes on the order of 2C in a century over the N hemisphere would happen easily. beam me up scotty at 04:15 AM on 26 September. pinyin: níng wéi tàipíng quǎn. cruzn246 at 04:27 AM on 26 September. 2010 God. I think the N hemisphere drives global change. but instead responds to numerous drivers that vary in timing and magnitude as to what force. they contribute to the overall nett result. does not respond to just one dominant driver or tree. CO2. I think of the big change in climate like a trip wire." And when you are presented with evidence that it DOESN'T 'fly in the face of the past'. I just don't buy it. that this thread wants to take a step back because "often we can't see the forest for the trees". 2010 . hit me for typos (probability) and hit me for not using the terminology you all use (trip rather than tip). or numerous trees. 2010 I do think that when. 2010 May you live in interesting times. 70. cruzn246 #71: "I disagree with the whole premise because I have never been shown that CO2 is responsible for most of our current warmup. as far as temperature change is concerned. 72. nor do all the trees in the forests used to collect tree ring data show 100% correlation. Or "It's better to be a dog in a peaceful time than be a man in a chaotic period" (寧為太平犬， 不做亂世人. cruzn246 at 04:20 AM on 26 September. The response then almost inevitably is that whilst there may be some correlation from the evidence presented. the individual trees. but when it flies in the face of the past. You can throw some sort of "science" at me. in the case of the AGW argument. I also think that could go on for 500 years or so. I also think the shutdown of the Gulf stream is the trigger. not just the recent past. as for instance my comments in post #55. Just as many sceptic arguments do not show 100% correlation. unless there is 100% correlation. however given that one theme that consistently plays here is that sceptics don't have just one argument to rebutt AGW but numerous ones.It's interesting.
"opinions" (since they're obviously not based on science) and continue blithely on your rambling way. although I think our break from that kind of weather is about to end. the snowball Earth scenario ~650 million years ago. If they keep rising nonstop the next couple hundred years maybe. For instance. cruzn246 at 05:38 AM on 26 September. et cetera. Don't confuse rate with actual amount. 2010 "There ARE cases where temperature peaked after CO2 did. 78. Our whole atmosphere was different. 2010 #72: "They will almost be in a free-fall.and more for the NH isn't a warmup you can believe in? " That's 1. They are just warm for the last 500 years. cruzn246 at 05:11 AM on 26 September.. Or that you're anything less superficial than what you seem to be. Snowball earth. 2010 Re: cruzn246 (72. now. 77.. I am alive. You ignore every scientific rebuttal of your. another different climate. For instance." There was also a huge spike in water vapor being outgassed in those eras. The Yooper 75. Daniel Bailey at 04:41 AM on 26 September.3C per century) -. et cetera. et-way-too-many-al) Nothing you've said at any point shows you have an understanding of science. that comparing to those times is like comparing to another world.. I would bet changes on the order of 2C in a century over the N hemisphere would happen easily.Which is how you maintain your beliefs in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary.. Things were so different 500. Give us something solid to go on that shows we should ever take you seriously again. At all. various flood basalt incidents. Thank God it's mot like that anymore. It's gone up about 1C in the last 100 years." -2C in a century is free-fall and the current global +0. 2010 "There ARE cases where temperature peaked after CO2 did. Or that you're here to learn something and not just here to waste everyone's time.13C per decade (that's 1. truth be damned.000. The flood basalt incidents were in a completely different type of earth climate. various flood basalt incidents. Because as of now. the snowball Earth scenario ~650 million years ago. muoncounter at 04:55 AM on 26 September.and more for the NH isn't a warmup you can believe in? 76.000 years ago.. That is why they called those hot periods back then warm and humid. Of course I believe it's warming.." These temps are not in any kind of peak now. including continental placement. we've no other conclusions to draw. Deny the evidence to the contrary and you are free to continue believing what you want to believe. now. um. I was also alive in the 70s.13C per decade (that's 1. Let's try to keep this in the interglacial periods please. cruzn246 at 05:29 AM on 26 September. That kind of change has happened before.3C per century) -. It's not like CO2 was the only thing .3 per Century if it lasts a century. 74. 2010 "-2C in a century is free-fall and the current global +0.
2010 .going way up. CBDunkerson at 05:50 AM on 26 September. Guess why. 80. 79. that greenhouse gas no one mentions. Yep. cruzn246 at 05:49 AM on 26 September. we had the highest average dewpoints for the summer also. 2010 We just had a record summer for highest average low temperatures in my area. You know.
That is why they called those hot periods back then warm and humid. Oh. How the heck can we know when we can't put a reliable figure on such a crucial component? You can't. "You know. proving your wrong. tell me what the total world concentration of water vapor is today. Unfortunately you then go and ruin it with. especially when you agree that we are warming. Yes. 81. Enjoy your fantasy world where long term increased atmospheric water vapor is both the cause AND effect of temperature increases. You are not interested in learning the truth. the fact it was cold in your area doesn't mean anything. Moderator Response: Further discussion of water vapor needs to be on the thread Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. once we blinder ourselves to all evidence to the contrary your position only looks slightly ridiculous.. It's not like CO2 was the only thing going way up. you don't know? No. you use a very aggressive tone and denigrate the fine scientists who have produced a mountain of research supporting AGW. so your statement that CO2 rises never proceed temperature rises was. In fact. it was mentioned quite a few times in this thread alone. except for the current human driven one.." I'd explain why this is nonsense. false. but you all think we know exactly how this whole atmosphere works. but it obviously wouldn't make any difference. "There was also a huge spike in water vapor being outgassed in those eras.. but it obviously wouldn't make any difference." You don't just come here to say no. 2010 @cruzn246: "Well cripes man." Well debunkerson. Which we should also ignore. . you come here repeat debunk denier arguments and refuse to respond to actual counter-arguments with scientific evidence." What's a "high average low temperature"? I guess you're trying to say you've had "record low temperatures" in your area. archiesteel at 06:13 AM on 26 September. cruzn246 at 06:09 AM on 26 September.cruzn246. Enjoy your fantasy world where long term increased atmospheric water vapor is both the cause AND effect of temperature increases. but only want to be comforted in your nonscientific opinion. What's more. "We just had a record summer for highest average low temperatures in my area. that greenhouse gas no one mentions" If you're talking about Water Vapor. nobody can answer that question. is that it? Well. but we should ignore that and concentrate ONLY on a relatively recent period of glacial cycles during which there have been no sudden profound increases in CO2.. it is mentioned all the time. 2010 "I'd explain why this is nonsense. it's amazing you have any doubters here with the way some of you treat someone who says no. 82.
. At the risk of repeating an oft-seen graphic: . the 4% increase in atmospheric water vapor since 1970 due to the higher temperatures is about equal to the volume of Lake Erie.900 cubic kilometers in the air.4% of the atmosphere.000 cubic kilometers). Moderator Response: Further discussion of water vapor needs to be on the thread Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. 85.You seem to have a problem formulating a logically sound argument. don't gauge what science knows based on your own ignorance. I think our break from that kind of weather is about to end. The (Il mio nome è Nessuno) Yooper Moderator Response: Further discussion of water vapor needs to be on the thread Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. Again. In case you had an enquiring mind. Perhaps you should learn a bit more about the science before trying to argue with people who understanding better than you do? 83. 2010 #77:"Of course I believe it's warming. Daniel Bailey at 06:25 AM on 26 September. . you don't know? No. 2010 @cruzn246: "Well debunkerson.. tell me what the total world concentration of water vapor is today. or a bit more than the volume of Lake Superior (12. For extra credit. will happen again. nobody can answer that question" Actually. 84. but you also believe its all natural? Happened before. muoncounter at 06:26 AM on 26 September." So you do believe in warming. nbd. 2010 Re: cruzn246 (84) Magic 8-ball says 12. Oh. archiesteel at 06:19 AM on 26 September. water vapor represents about 0.
So. 2010 @cruzn246: temperatures are at the high end of the last 450. which looks like the prior warm episodes. as well. even though the climate optimum was a couple of thousand years ago. note vertical scale on the right. 87. though it will take a couple of decades until we get the full effect of anthropogenic CO2. Still believe its all happened before? And exactly when is this ice age of yours going to happen? 86. So what am I supposed to think? I know one thing about the end of the last interglacial. That didn't happen before on this time scale (you asked for glacial/interglacials only). 2010 "Answer: Now we're at 390ppm. Sea levels were a heck of a lot higher than they are now. Answer: Now we're at 390ppm. which would put the green line off the top of the chart. That is why we are still in a warm period and not cooling off yet. which would put the green line off the top of the chart.Let's see if we can spot the difference between today and previous episodes. Hint: CO2 is the middle graph. Still believe its all happened before? And exactly when is this ice age of yours going to happen?" Great.000 years. the reality is that temperatures are at the highest and ice cover is at the lowest since the last glacial period. cruzn246 at 08:25 AM on 26 September. Left-most point on that graph (the most recent) just peaks over 280ppm. archiesteel at 08:54 AM on 26 September. Not even close to the highest temperatures. That didn't happen before on this time scale (you asked for glacial/interglacials only).000 years. There was also a lot less ice. we are at the highest CO2 rates in the last 450. .
000 years. According to NASA. 89. water vapor represents about 0. 2010 "@cruzn246: temperatures are at the high end of the last 450.html Here is a quote from their article. the reality is that temperatures are at the highest and ice cover is at the lowest since the last glacial period. that means less reflection . So. but I really think it's piece is grossly overestimated. 90.nasa. Sure you can say high end but they are not at their warmest by any means. 88. They have been nearly 2C warmer than this in the Holocene. 2010 I'm responding to your erroneous Water Vapour claims on the correct thread. The previous 4 interglacial periods all ended with temps at least 2C warmer than we are now. Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change http://www. you have *no* idea what you're talking about. It ranges from 1 to 4% with the average being between 2 and 3%. as well. albedo. even though the climate optimum was a couple of thousand years ago. Funny how it takes so long to get feedback from CO2. 91. with water vapor the feedback is nearly immediate. archiesteel at 09:51 AM on 26 September." They are at the high end? They are near a middle value for the period of the Holocene. but no one is really sure what that average is on any given day.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming. "The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous. cruzn246 at 08:56 AM on 26 September. cruzn246 at 09:25 AM on 26 September. they say the increase in water vapor is probably playing a bigger part in warming now than CO2. Temperatures during the Holocene have been above this level numerous times and dropped back again. 2010 . My prediction is that in ten years they will see it as an even more important player in warming. I suggest you refrain from making any more fallacious comment and thus avoid embarrassing yourself any further. you have *no* idea what you're talking about. You melt more ice.In other words. and you have a warmer more humid earth without adding any CO2. I think all you need is a simple climate shift that has nothing to do with CO2 to put more water vapor in the air. though it will take a couple of decades until we get the full effect of anthropogenic CO2." Dessler said." Actually this is wrong.4% of the atmosphere. archiesteel at 08:59 AM on 26 September. Does CO2 add to this? Sure. I suggest you refrain from making any more fallacious comment and thus avoid embarrassing yourself any further.000 years. 2010 "Actually. that means more water. They are just starting to get a handle on water vapor feedback. Ice volumes are not as low as they were prior to the last glaciation. In other words. but they will not put numbers on either as far as the amount each is contributing. The temperature has been bouncing around in a roughly 4C range for the last 10.
it doesn't. 2010 "Actually. making less and less sense as counter-arguments pile up against his house of cards. Temperature now are way above the holocene mean. 2010 #86: "we are at the highest CO2 rates in the last 50.@cruzn246: I don't know why I'm wasting my time debating with a fanatic. "Sea levels were a heck of a lot higher than they are now. no. they haven't. He's beginning to break down." Please learn what "feedback" means." ??? We are still(?) in a warm period because sea levels were higher at the end of the last interglacial? Does that make any sense to anyone? 93." I'm almost from Missouri. with water vapor the feedback is nearly immediate. 2010 @muoncounter: "Does that make any sense to anyone?" No. 95. "Funny how it takes so long to get feedback from CO2. 96. but here goes: "They are at the high end? They are near a middle value for the period of the Holocene. See. 92. Not even close to the highest temperatures. There was also a lot less ice. 2010 Re: cruzn246 (95) "If you understood the connection to sea levels and ice ages you would get it." ??? We are still(?) in a warm period because sea levels were higher at the end of the last interglacial? Does that make any sense to anyone? If you understood the connection to sea levels and ice ages you would get it. and it seems the further we go the more shrill cruzn246 is becoming. and higher than any average temperatures since the last glaciation. Temperature now are way above the holocene mean. I think he's starting to realize he's really in over his head with his limited scientific knowledge. Daniel Bailey at 13:13 PM on 26 September. So what am I supposed to think?" Think: Temperatures will go higher. not that hard." . muoncounter at 09:51 AM on 26 September. The next logical step for would likely be to start making strawman aguments and ad hominem attacks.000 years. They have been nearly 2C warmer than this in the Holocene." Actually. show where you get this from. archiesteel at 10:00 AM on 26 September. no. 94. cruzn246 at 12:43 PM on 26 September. and higher than any average temperatures since the last glaciation. cruzn246 at 10:29 AM on 26 September. " References for that? "That is why we are still in a warm period and not cooling off yet. 2010 "That is why we are still in a warm period and not cooling off yet. they haven't.
the blue area is what was not under water. It is a well known fact that sea levels were much higher at the end of the last interglacial and temperatures were higher also. cruzn246 at 13:43 PM on 26 September. and stand in direct juxtaposition to more than a century of scientific research. The sea level connection to ice ages is simply this. it can be safely concluded that it is YOU who do not get it. If you bring sea levels up to the level that they reached at the end of the last interglacial you could effectively shut down the Gulf Stream. That would be what you all call a tipping point." Oh cripes. 2010 Re: cruzn246 (95) "If you understood the connection to sea levels and ice ages you would get it." "Insofar as you have presented no evidence to support your opinion.Insofar as you have presented no evidence to support your opinion. This is how high the water was in FL at the end of the last interglacial. Capiche? The Yooper 97. . it can be safely concluded that it is YOU who do not get it. and stand in direct juxtaposition to more than a century of scientific research.
98.Moderator Response: Try the What does past climate change tell us about global warming? thread. Daniel Bailey at 13:50 PM on 26 September." . or The significance of past climate change. 2010 Re: cruzn246 (94) "I'm almost from Missouri. or Working out future sea level rise from the past. show where you get this from.
CO2 and AGW: 1. and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems…. is caused largely by human activities. 2010 . you amply demonstrate that you simply have no idea about what you are talking about. You are merely "hypothesizing" (the supposition that this is similar to pulling small primates out of dark places is completely unrelated). credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring. Increasing the level of a greenhouse gas in a planet’s atmosphere. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. will raise that planet’s surface temperature. The new CO2 (as shown by its isotopic signature) is mainly from burning fossil fuels. 5. muoncounter at 14:22 PM on 26 September. The Yooper 99. 8. 4. 7. 2. that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. From multiple converging lines of evidence. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested. all else being equal. and supported by so many independent observations and results.Ok. 3. CO2 is rising. as summarized by the National Academy of Science in May of this year: "A strong. How about a complete guide to modern day climate change? Or an illustrated guide to the latest climate science? How about every scientific body in the world endorsing the science of global warming/climate disruption (use the term of your choice). 6. The warming is moving in close correlation with the carbon dioxide. we know the Earth is warming. Therefore (given 1-3 above) the Earth should be warming. where shall we start? How about a quick synopsis of GHG." Have you seen enough? Re: cruzn246 (97) And by presenting no mechanism to support your opinion. Therefore the global warming currently occurring is anthropogenic (caused by mankind). CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Check 8. 100. its about causes of climate change. in an interglacial cycle. There is no good reason we should not be warming now. How much is a guess at best. If not the gulf stream than I . but not the warmest of the Holocene. Therefore the global warming currently occurring is anthropogenic (caused by mankind). 2010 How about a quick synopsis of GHG. CO2 and AGW: 1. but no geologist on earth would put the land area in blue. Increasing the level of a greenhouse gas in a planet’s atmosphere. The warming is moving in close correlation with the carbon dioxide. muoncounter I checked the Quaternary map. Science 101. No doubt 6. Correlation does not mean causation. Yep 4. Therefore (given 1-3 above) the Earth should be warming. your map in #97 appears to be one of the 125ka highstand.#95: "If you understood the connection to sea levels and ice ages" Again. will raise that planet’s surface temperature. We are still interglacial and still recovering from a relative low point. the "Little Ice age". what is the significance of this remark? Ice ages cause sea level to drop. 7. Yep. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In today's world. 5. Please cite your source. it'll help you get the chronology correct. From multiple converging lines of evidence. The new CO2 (as shown by its isotopic signature) is mainly from burning fossil fuels. It still works for a reshaped FL that could screw up the Gulf Stream and trigger rapid cooling. It is better than the one I had. How much is still a guess. And check Quaternary sea-level history of the United States.cruzn246 at 14:49 PM on 26 September. But this is not about ice ages. These are the warmest temperatures lately. It's lovely. 2. all else being equal. we know the Earth is warming. BTW. We got warmer than this during the last interglacial also. Yep 3. CO2 is rising.
spring is still coming earlier. more warming at night. And yes. In fact. sea ice. In fact we expect human greenhouse gas emissions to cause more warming than we've thus far seen. Contrary to what some would like us to believe. etc. Sea levels are still rising. ice is still receding. upper atmosphere cooling) that we have indeed observed. register here. Moderator Response: See the post (and comment further there. The 2000s were hotter than the 1990s. the planet has not magically stopped warming. and ice sheetsare all receding. We also have various tools which have measured the warming of the Earth's oceans. © Copyright 2010 John CookLinks | Translations | About Us | Contact Us Friday. 24 September. we can quantify the amount of warming human activity is causing. The Earth is warming We know the planet is warming from surface temperature stations and satellites measuring the temperature of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere.. Satellites have measured anenergy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. 2010 The Big Picture Oftentimes we get bogged down discussing one of the many pieces of evidence behind manmade global warming. there's still a planetary energy imbalance. Prev 1 2 3 Next Post a Comment Political. Sea levels are rising. There are numerous 'fingerprints' which we would expect to see from an increased greenhouse effect (i. and in the process we can't see the forest for the trees. It's important to every so often take a step back and see how all of those trees comprise the forest as a whole. the 12-month running average global temperature broke the record 3 times in 2010. which were hotter than the 1970s. and verify that we're responsible for essentially all of the global warming over the past 3 decades. Login via the left margin or if you're new. You need to be logged in to post a comment. Humans are causing this warming There is overwhelming evidence that humans are the dominant cause of this warming.the planet is warming. off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Skeptical Science provides an invaluable resource for examining each individual piece of climate evidence. at higher latitudes. There's simply no doubt . Based on fundamental physics and math. Spring is arriving sooner each year. according to NASA GISS data. 2010 is on pace to be at least in the top 3 hottest calendar years on record. I think that this is the trigger for ice ages. Comments Policy. Glaciers. There is no way the Milankovich cycles could have that sudden an impact as what we get when we go icy.. Climate models have projected the ensuing global warming to a high level of . not here)We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age.suspect some other ocean current gets rearranged. etc. so let's make use of these individual pieces to see how they form the big picture. which were hotter than the 1980s. Human aerosol emissions are also offsetting a significant amount of the warming by causing global dimming.e. mainly due to our greenhouse gas emissions. the warming is continuing. due to the thermal inertia of the oceans (the time it takes to heat them).
accuracy, verifying that we have a good understanding of the fundamental physics behind climate change. Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries.
The warming will continue
We also know that if we continue to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, the planet will continue to warm. We know that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv (we're currently at 390 ppmv) will cause 2–4.5°C of warming. And we're headed for 560 ppmv in the mid-to-late 21st century if we continue business-as-usual emissions.
The net result will be bad
There will be some positive results of this continued warming. For example, an open Northwest Passage, enhanced growth for some plants and improved agriculture at high latitudes (though this will require use of more fertilizers), etc. However, the negatives will almost certainly outweigh the positives, by a long shot. We're talking decreased biodiversity, water shortages, increasing heat waves (both in frequency and intensity), decreased crop yields due to these impacts, damage to infrastructure, displacement of millions of people, etc.
Arguments to the contrary are superficial
One thing I've found in reading skeptic criticisms of climate science is that they're consistently superficial. For example, the criticisms of James Hansen's 1988 global warming projections never go beyond "he was wrong", when in reality it's important to evaluate what caused the discrepancy between his projections and actual climate changes, and what we can learn from this. And those who argue that "it's the Sun" fail to comprehend that we understand the major mechanisms by which the Sun influences the global climate, and that they cannot explain the current global warming trend. And those who argue "it's just a natural cycle" can never seem to identify exactly which natural cycle can explain the current warming, nor can they explain how our understanding of the fundamental climate physics is wrong.
There are legitimate unresolved questions
Much ado is made out of the expression "the science is settled." My personal opinion is that the science is settled in terms of knowing that the planet is warming dangerously rapidly, and that humans are the dominant cause. There are certainly unresolved issues. There's a big difference between a 2°C and a 4.5°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and it's an important question to resolve, because we need to know how fast the planet will warm in order to know how fast we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. There are significant uncertainties in some feedbacks which play into this question. For example, will clouds act as a net positive feedback (by trapping more heat, causing more warming) or negative feedback (by reflecting more sunlight, causing a cooling effect) as the planet continues to warm? These are the sorts of questions we should be debating, and the issues that most climate scientists are investigating. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population which is determined to continue arguing the resolved questions for which the science has already been settled. And when climate scientists are forced to respond to the constant propagation of misinformation on these settled issues, it just detracts from our investigation of the legitimate, unresolved, important questions.
The Big Picture
The big picture is that we know the planet is warming, humans are causing it, there is a substantial risk to continuing on our current path, but we don't know exactly how large the risk is. However, uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the risk is not an excuse to ignore it. We also know that if we continue on a business-as-usual path, the risk of catastrophic consequences is very high. In fact, the larger the uncertainty, the greater the potential for the exceptionally high risk scenario to become reality. We need to continue to decrease the uncertainty, but it's also critical to acknowledge what we know and what questions have been resolved, and that taking no action is not an option.
Posted by dana1981 at 09:19 AM
Printable Version | Link to this page
Prev 1 2 3 Comments 101 to 104 out of 104:
101.cruzn246 at 14:57 PM on 26 September, 2010
"A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems…. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities." I like how they covered their you know what here. "This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities." Very likely, but they are not certain. No doubt.
102.Tom Dayton at 15:01 PM on 26 September, 2010
cruzn246, you are incorrect in stating that "correlation does not mean causation." Correlation is necessary but not sufficient as evidence of causation. There are empirically-backed theoretical reasons for our prediction that CO2 levels will correlate with temperature. Those predictions were made long before it was even possible to adequately measure the global levels of either of those variables for sufficiently long to confidently detect that correlation. The correlation later was discovered to exist, thereby supporting the other empirical evidence and theory
103.johnd at 18:04 PM on 26 September, 2010
Daniel Bailey at 13:50 PM, your quick synopsis was a little bit too quick. Before you can use points 1-3 to arrive at 4, you have to decide one more condition as proffered in point 1, that being "all else being equal"
Where is the evidence that all else is indeed equal? Or has ever been equal for that matter.
104.RSVP at 18:05 PM on 26 September, 2010
Daniel Bailey #56 "So, essentially a global average temp of -2 degrees F, or about -18 degrees C. Thus, no liquid water anywhere and no life. All very well understood for over a hundred years." ...and since life did appear, one must assume there has always been some CO2. Not too much (mind you) lest it get too hot to support life. No, just the right amount to where life can get its start, and then reach the current equilibrium... ...the point at which creationist models almost begin to seem more attractive. Prev 1 2 3
Post a Comment
Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy... You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here. © Copyright 2010 John CookLinks | Translations | About Us | Contact Us
Thursday, 23 September, 2010
Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
"The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later..." --Kevin Trenberth, referring to our inability over the past 5 years to locate half a watt per square meter per year of energy accumulated on Earth as a result of anthropogenic warming of the planet, approximately half of the expected warming signal. It's a sad fact that while Earth's oceans are expected to absorb the vast majority of anthropogenically induced imbalance of the global energy budget, our physical observations of the caloric state of the deep ocean are conspicuously sparse when compared to daily remote sensing revisitations enjoyed by research subjects amenable to orbital remote sensing platforms. In some ways our instrumentation of such far-flung places as Mars and Venus is better than what we deploy here on Earth in the abyssal depths. While we have solid theoretical grounding for predicting storage of excess heat in the ocean, without the means to directly measure and accurately quantify this effect we're left missing not only heat but also a useful means of testing and validating predictions of climate sensitivity to forcing. As our technical capacities have risen to the challenge of dealing with an environment arguably more hostile to instrumentation than near-Earth orbital space, oceanographers at last are enjoying some of the same physical and scientific advantages as those long enjoyed by scientists working with space-based remote sensing platforms. The semi-autonomous Argo array represents a huge leap forward in our understanding of the characteristics of the upper ocean. With respect to anthropogenic climate change, of late we've been treated to increasingly dense and accurate measurements of upper ocean heat content, greatly refining our ability gather this important data. Unfortunately the present Argo implementation is depth-limited and we thus still have no automated systems in place for data retrieval from the slightly over one half of the ocean inaccessible to robotic probes. For this majority of ocean volume we still must rely on hardy investigators "going down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters." We landlubbers
The abyssal warming produces a 0. Thus warming in these regions. Purkey and Johnson's results. with that warming signal weakening to the north in the central Pacific. While integrating these new measurements into the global heat budget does not entirely close our observational gap. Failing the unlikely emergence of some new mechanism able to cause SLR. The three southernmost basins show a strong statistically significant abyssal warming trend.400 watt hairdryers each and running those appliances continuously for the 20 year interval between measurements. Now we may say some significant progress has been made in tracking down "missing heat. coauthor Gregory Johnson expressed the amount of heat identified in this study in amusingly prosaic terms: the newly located reservoir of energy is akin to what would be liberated by loading every man. By revisiting abyssal stations included in the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) conducted in the 1990s. Juxtaposing continuing sea level rise against OHC we don't observe. we're left with a substantial technical mystery. by producing their results Purkey and Johnson have crisply demonstrated how vast amounts of heat may have been left out of the budget for the simple reason of previously being invisible. about 20% of Trenberth's famous "missing heat" appears to have been tracked down. Finally." In Journal of Climate Sarah Purkey of the University of Washington and NOAA's Gregory Johnson report on an ambitious project to quantify heat being stored in the abyssal ocean ( Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters Between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budgets ).053 (±0. We compute warming rates with uncertainties along 28 full-depth. Excepting the Arctic Ocean and Nordic seas. western Atlantic. Their work is also a compelling case for improving our capability to routinely measure with less extraordinary effort the majority of ocean volume we're presently forced to ignore when accounting for accumulation of heat." but merely saying so is no substitute for direct measurements. Eastern Atlantic and western Indian Ocean basins show statistically insignificant abyssal cooling trends. We divide the global ocean into 32 basins defined by the topography and climatological ocean bottom temperatures and estimate temperature trends in the 24 sampled basins.027 (±0. woman and child on Earth with five 1. high-quality. the rate of abyssal (below 4000 m) global ocean heat content change in the 1990s and 2000s is equivalent to a heat flux of 0. In an interview. Terrestrial ice alone cannot account for the continuing sea level rise we see in the face of the slackened pace of upper ocean warming. it seems reasonable to conclude that these measurements bolster our confidence in SLR as a proxy for increasing OHC. The main reason for lamentation of "Trenberth's Travesty" is the declining upward pace over the past 5 years of the portion of ocean heat content (OHC) we're readily able to measure. and eastern Indian Oceans. we may say with reasonable confidence that continued SLR can at least partially be attributed to accumulating OHC we can't directly "see. Deep (1000–4000 m) warming south of the Sub-Antarctic Front of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current adds 0. hydrographic sections that have been occupied two or more times between 1980 and 2010.wondering about "missing heat" and suspecting it may be found in the ocean can only be patient as we wait for salt-crusted mariner scientists to return to shore and write up their results. an inability to "close the budget" of SLR as well as an inability to specifically account for the final destination of heat we know is accumulating on the planet ( Willis 2008 ).081) mm yr–1. found to be slowly traveling north from the Southern Ocean. accounts for a statistically significant fraction of the present global energy and sea level budgets. mapped: . Purkey and Johnson's abstract: We quantify abyssal global and deep Southern Ocean temperature trends between the 1990s and 2000s to assess the role of recent warming of these regions in global heat and sea level budgets.009) W m–2 applied over the entire surface of the Earth. ventilated primarily by Antarctic Bottom Water.062) W m–2.017) mm yr–1 increase in global average sea level and the deep warming south of the Sub-Antarctic Front adds another 0.093 (±0.068 (±0. We know that sea level rise (SLR) is principally caused by both thermal expansion of the oceans and water mass contributed by continued melting of terrestrial ice.
relatively saline and thus dense water sinking at the extreme south of the globe."Mean local heat fluxes through 4000 m implied by abyssal warming below 4000 m from the 1990s to the 2000s within each of the 24 sampled basins (black numbers and colorbar) with 95% confidence intervals and the local contribution to the heat flux through 1000 m south of the SAF (magenta line) implied by deep Southern Ocean warming from 1000–4000 m is also given (magenta number) with its 95% confidence interval. in Antarctic waters. AABW is steered by . first plunging off the Antarctic continental shelf and then hugging the bottom as it displaces warmer water." (Purkey and Johnson. This mass of dense water is relatively free to travel north. AABW is derived from enormous quantities of chilled. 2010) How can Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) influence abyssal temperatures so far north of the Antarctic? To understand this. it's helpful to grasp the huge role in deep ocean circulation played by the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic.
South-flowing products of deep convection in the North Atlantic are converted into upper-layer mode and intermediate waters and deeper bottom waters and returned northward.bottom topography and Coriolis forces and only ceases moving and thus influencing abyssal temperatures when it has reached equilibrium density with surrounding water. Even after traveling some 60 degrees north of its source. and water masses (AABW – Antarctic Bottom Water. NADW – North Atlantic Deep Water. SAF – Sub-Antarctic Front. A pair of illustrations of Antarctic and Southern Ocean circulation may be helpful in understanding the process of AABW transport.Antarctic Mode Water)" (Figure 1. "South (left) to north (right) section through the overturning circulation in the Southern Ocean. AAIW – Antarctic Intermediate Water and SAMW – Sub. SCAR "Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment" ) . density differences are still large enough to drive substantial amounts of AABW past the circulation barrier imposed by the equator. Marked are the positions of the main fronts (PF – Polar Front. thus permitting diminished but still measurable circulation effects of AABW to be measured in the abyssal depths of the Northern Hemisphere. Lower and Upper Circumpolar Deep Waters. LCDW and UCDW. and STF – Subtropical Front).9.
the interface between AABW and North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) has deepened over the past few decades and as well there are indications of diminished abyssal circulation in regions of the North Pacific influenced by AABW. Taken together. As is so often the case. these indicators are broadly consistent with changes in the thermal regime of the deep ocean connected with AABW and its source. ozone depletion and greenhouse gas proliferation. Our instrumentational inability to closely track climate change is a general problem." a lamentable and unnecessary condition. if AABW circulation is driven partly by the relative density of water chilled in the Antarctic. Complications abound in forming an exact assessment of the proportionality of natural versus forced variations. the pace of instrumentation improvements is set in part by budgetary limitations involving amounts of money small in the grand scheme of things. Purkey and Johnson's work suggests some improvements we could make in the level of urgency we attach to exploring our planet. it's truly odd that such a important research topic so crucial to public policy should find itself lacking the equipment to quantify changes nearly everybody agrees present us with multi-trillion dollar risk and decision choices and outcomes. Beyond shedding enlightenment on a specific research topic. as would be expected in a scenario where density gradients are diminishing ( Johnson 2008. won't distribution of this water change as deep waters warm in response to heating by AABW circulation. 2007 ) One might wonder. .Role of Southern Ocean in global circulation ( Lumpkin and Speer. not to the exclusion of secular changes outside of the SAM but significant nonetheless. we're effectively blind to enormous changes in the physics of our planet because we won't make paltry expenditures for better "optics. the SAM itself appears to be in a process of adjusting to two anthropogenic influences. for instance. NOAA is working on upgrading our ability to sample deep and abyssal ocean water via robotic instrumentation. Purkey and Johnson show beyond doubt how vital better observational ability is when it comes understanding our role in shaping the climate. thus robbing AABW of some of its physical transport impetus? This does seem to be the case. Numerous other variations in circulation behaviors controlled by thermally induced density variances may be found in Purkey and Johnson. It's important to note that to a greater or lesser extent the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) plays some role in controlling changes observed in Purkey and Johnson. Kouketsu 2008 ).
with the ice packs breaking up in the north. This might explain why we see less warming in the upper oceans than we expect. 2010 Bering strait flow is probably too small to include in that wonderful image but I think it should be a two-headed arrow. jyyh at 11:35 AM on 23 September. The graphs and maps casually flung out in little essays such as the one above inadequately express countless thousands of cold and dripping hours spent in hostile conditions far from hearth and home. 4. Instruments aboard satellites allow researchers to collect their data while lounging in shirtsleeve comfort. at personal risk. facing nothing more dangerous in the daily routine than slipping and falling while taking a morning shower. SoundOff at 13:09 PM on 23 September. directly exposed to the uncaring vagaries of fickle weather and heavy machinery. Thanks for this. scientists are rewarded with brief spurts of information separated by long intervals of plodding. orbital space is in some ways a far friendlier environment than the oceans. it's worth pausing a moment in appreciation of the fanatical dedication and perseverance needed to collect data of the kind used to produce Purkey and Johnson's paper. 3. Earth's oceanic abyssal depths have aptly been compared unfavorably to extraterrestrial space. True enough it's an all-volunteer army. . Think of cold fresh melt water spreading over the surface while the original warmer saline water is pushed down deeper. For researchers investigating Earth's climate. 2010 Excellent job Doug. the sea is also extraordinarily costly in terms of the personal investment of time required to wrest every few hundred kilobytes of data from the cold dark of the bottom.Officially Off-topic: A Salute to Oceanographers In terms of effective inaccessibility and remoteness. Very interesting stuff. 2010 Nice job. dana1981 at 13:41 PM on 23 September. After dealing with a commute of thousands of miles to their laboratory enviroment. akin to "crossing the ocean at a jogging pace" as NOAA's Gregory Johnson expresses the matter. conducting their observations from the pitching. if the now more open passages might be allowing new colder currents to flow south within the upper levels of the oceans. equipment or vessel failures or even inclement weather may exact the ultimate penalty on oceanographers seeing to the meticulous collection of data. career hazards not faced by many other scientists investigating climate-relate phenomena. Errors in procedure. but recognition of this effort is still due Posted by doug_bostrom at 04:40 AM Printable Version | Link to this page Comments Comments 1 to 34: 1. Have to "digest" the content before commenting on the science. rolling decks of ships with course and speed set for instrument deployment as opposed to comfort and safety. Albatross at 14:22 PM on 23 September. For all these reasons. Just thinking out loud. 2010 I wonder. 2. Quite apart from the kinetic drama of working from small ships on the surface of such storied locales as the notoriously stormy Southern Ocean. doug. Oceanographers often must wrest their primary information from the ocean.
citizenschallenge at 16:36 PM on 23 September. we were so tired that no one could eat or take a shower. When the instrument was finally on board. I commented that everything went wrong but my collegues laughed at me and said "welcome to oceanography!" Thank you Doug for reminding me this experience. mixing dynamics? Any info? 9. Also. 7. Climate is not single factor. Matt.and am wondering how many in the target audience will finish it. 2010 MattJ #7 said: "I love the title! Unfortunately. i thought it was going to be almost a couple of days out at sea on vacation.. so I didn't finish it -. the article is both long and dense. 2010 Articles like this one. are like some books on our shelves. 2010 There are several cooling / flat periods over the last 100 years of ocean temperatures. Plenty of cycles to move heat around within the ocean without changing total OHC. 12. adelady at 16:49 PM on 23 September. I'm back to wondering about how the Pacific Decadal Oscillation might interact with deep sea thermohaline circulation. 10. We had a simple task. 2010 I happened to work for a few days on a oceanographic ship in the much warmer and calm mediterranean waters. It's terrific. Even if we have read the whole thing.and am wondering how many in the target audience will finish it.. The weather was fine and the sea smooth. take an instrument left at the bottom (2000 m) back home. Still wearing our wet clothes we hung over the deck for a long while drinking coffee. First class. The operation plan was simple. We barely have adequate measure of OHC now let alone anything remotely useful covering the last 100 year. I would expect to periods of static and cooling because changes in solar and aerosols should have affected it. It turned out to be the hardest 36 hours of continuos work of my life. Riccardo at 17:54 PM on 23 September. and surely its been identified? 6.sometimes. 8. citizenschallenge at 16:40 PM on 23 September.5. 2010 Yes. Gratitude to all of them. 11. Doug. scaddenp at 14:44 PM on 23 September. it's always instructive to return and reread with more understanding. dorlomin at 21:22 PM on 23 September. 2010 I love the title! Unfortunately. 2010 The relevance of this paper is to total ocean heat content (OHC). distributed to all of us printed on paper it was about a single page. And we should all echo your sentiments about the fanatical dedication of people prepared to take such risks for the benefit of science. so I didn't finish it -. If we did however. nigelj at 14:32 PM on 23 September. informative post. (I'm not lost on calling it heat either). don't forget . so surely this is an ocean cycle or sunspot affect or la nina. 2010 . one just needs the words to explain the situation. excellent. " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That is why ScepticalScience folks are writing the basic version explanations as well. the article is both long and dense. MattJ at 16:03 PM on 23 September.
" so to speak. Read it completely twice before leaping to conclusions. doug_bostrom at 22:20 PM on 23 September. 14.long. I'm not the sort to buy even a single lottery ticket so maybe I'm not the best judge of these things. travels north and warms the deep water up to the Equator. hot. An early lesson for me on how seriously stupid it is to burn petroleum after working so hard to get it. A real addition to the blog. Long ago this chain of coincidences became conspicuous and has since reached the point of being far beyond the realm of probability worth the investment of our faith. Chilled denser water slides down deep off Antarctica. if AABW circulation is driven partly by the relative density of water chilled in the Antarctic. finding a reasonable portion of that missing heat is a real big break. w/mosquitoes. We don't know for sure. Stinky. thus robbing AABW of some of its physical transport impetus?" I am certainly wondering at this mechanism Doug. P&J's paper on the other hand is a model of circumspection and caution. Sea level rise is like the shadow cast by the heat. It's an education all by itself on the general topic of Southern Ocean circulation as well as providing an excellent list of references for becoming better acquainted with the subject of the Southern Ocean's influence on the rest of the planet.apparent signal is down to some cyclic behavior. Choosing to interpret this enormous bulge of heat as being unrelated to AGW as usual requires that one simultaneously believe a myriad of -other. Regarding parts of this heat distribution being cyclic. I see a monotonous refrain in comments to the effect of "it's natural. Texas. It's even remotely possible that by some chance the -entire. I highly recommend reading Purkey & Johnson's paper itself. Ken Lambert at 00:06 AM on 24 September. To get the full picture here. 13. so little of other people's time in which to say it. it -is. too! In my case (ironically!) standing in the middle of an old landfill outside of Houston. more measurements will help to resolve the proportionality of influences. "Crude. One would have thought it would have mixed and cooled such . as natural as anything can be at this developing stage of the disruption game. muddy. MattJ. so much to say. servicing instrument packages being sent down a prospective oil well.things are also coincidentally entirely in keeping with predictions arising from some fairly simple physical principles we've set in motion. For my own part. I struggle with my bloviation. ~36 hours happens to be the longest I've ever worked in a single shift. 2010 doug_bostrom #Original post "One might wonder.Excellent article. Driller did not want to believe hydrocarbon show at the "wrong" place in the hole. 2010 Riccardo. won't distribution of this water change as deep waters warm in response to heating by AABW circulation. as I mentioned in the post it's probably the case that some of what's being measured is a natural feature. my post is an absurdly compressed synopsis of the publication and is as much as anything a general remark on how ill-equipped we are to scrutinize what lies shortly past the end of our collective noses. that's the best course to set." To believe that this finding reflects only a natural process means expanding and then continuing to bear the burden of an already terminally cumbersome and awkward caveat.
. michael sweet at 01:20 AM on 24 September.095 +/-0. and thanks for pointing that out.027 + 0." But I'm repeating myself. I did a poor (incomplete) job with explaining.m of which he can account for about 0.068 (±0.5mm/yr." 0.water.1 2.053 (±0.146mm/yr of SLR is tiny compared with the current trend of 2.017) mm yr–1 increase in global average sea level and the deep warming south of the Sub-Antarctic Front adds another 0.093 (±0. there are several thing going on. This would be the case unless the process was very long.55W/sq. Deep (1000–4000 m) warming south of the Sub-Antarctic Front of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current adds 0. 0. If it was long we would not see a large effect like what has been observed. Of the 0.081) mm yr–1. I have to disagree w/you on the relative magnitude of the heat located in P&J 2010.m with wide error bars. 17. The abyssal warming produces a 0.as a sailor myself I know what a heaving deck in a 50 knot storm is like.062) W m–2. A total contribution 0.09 W/m2 is in itself a substantial fraction of Trenberth's gap and as well is an indicator of how "missing" does not automatically imply "does not exist. One problem is that I left out the "haline" part of "thermohaline circulation. 15.m 'missing' the above analysis (0. Oceanographers have a tough job . the rate of abyssal (below 4000 m) global ocean heat content change in the 1990s and 2000s is equivalent to a heat flux of 0. 2010 Ken.m Dr Trenberth's TOA imbalance is 0.9W/sq." I'll fix the paragraph after pondering on it a bit. 16.071W/sq.095) accounts for about 27% . yeah. The fact that most areas went up suggests a common mechanism--AGW. 2010 If the change in heat measured were due to natural cyclical processes you would expect that some areas would go down in heat content while others went up. It's a bit more complicated than what I suggested. "Excepting the Arctic Ocean and Nordic seas. 2010 I also ought to lighten up my dismal perspective on instrumentation by mentioning NOAA's plans to equip a subset of Argo buoys for deep operations as well as their scheme to deploy some lurking benthic samplers that will run on the bottom for an extended period of time before emerging to report back. The amounts of SLR and OHC increase from this mechanism seem to be small. Permanent tethered buoys reporting the oceans at regular coincident times is the ideal we should be financing . doug_bostrom at 00:55 AM on 24 September.35W/sq.again with wide error bars. Perhaps the few areas where heat content went down were due to a long term mechanism.009) W m–2 applied over the entire surface of the Earth.m = 0. doug_bostrom at 01:04 AM on 24 September.068 W/sq.027 (±0.not technical fantasies like CCS.
the Argos buoys have not been deployed there. nuclear submarines have plied the depths of the world’s oceans. 2010 Since the launching of the USS Nautilus in 1954. The stakes are high!. wouldn’t it make sense for the IPCC to establish a special committee to discuss this matter with the governments of those countries with nuclear submarine fleets? Perhaps there is way for the data to be made available without compromising national security concerns. If people find two pages too long to read they can just read the introduction and the conclusion. which only require that they can hide below the thermocline. They're optimized for their military missions. Badgersouth at 04:45 AM on 24 September. My working assumption is that these vessels collected a wealth of information about the temperature of the lower layers of the global ocean system. Has the US Navy shared with climate scientists the temperature data that has been collected by nuclear submarines operating in the Arctic Ocean? For obvious reasons. 18. excellent post as per your normal stuff. KR at 04:19 AM on 24 September. some Arctic data from the US Navy has been carefully released. are there indications ofchanges in circulation over the last decade that might be increasing transfer of heat to the bottom waters. 2010 Badgersouth at 04:05 AM on 24 September. GFW at 06:07 AM on 24 September. However. Given the time frame of the Trenberth missing heat. it's extremely informative.Doug. Al Gore was involved in convincing them to do it. Badgersouth at 04:05 AM on 24 September. 2010 Since the launching of the USS Nautilus in 1954. The following link claims 300m max operating depth with likely hull collapse at 450m (again. If I recall correctly. one can assume that they can go deeper than the military publicly admits. It’s worth a try.Excellent article. I have to admit I was stunned to hear that part of the Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) actually reaches the Northern Hemisphere. 19. 22. Notwithstanding the classified nature of the data. somehow I . 2010 Yes. not go super deep. 2010 Doug Bostrom . Very very shallow operation compared to the depths of the ocean. I also acknowledge that the data collected by the fleets of nuclear submarines is highly classified. 21. dorlomin at 04:30 AM on 24 September. 2010 @Dorlomin: I didn't realize that the maximum operating depth of a nuclear submarine was that shallow. Indeed military subs don't operate very deeply. away from what is currently measured by the ARGO program? 20. nuclear submarines have plied the depths of the world’s oceans ========================== The maximum operating depth of the Los Angeles class is usualy given at around 200m.
fas. probably the best way to start tracking down changes in circulation would be to dig into the P&J paper's references. Newer class subs will have a classified capability beyond that publicly revealed.suspect that hasn't been precisely tested with a billion+ dollar boat. GFW FBM's and attack subs are indeed designed for near-surface ops. Badgersouth at 06:58 AM on 26 September. 2010 Re: Badgersouth. properly worded to degradate the true resolution and comprehensiveness of the datasets. A FOIA request from a connected Congressman or Senator.html 23. rather because it's so complicated and I don't really know how to answer your question. I'll close with this: every US sub commander is intimately acquainted with the story of the Thresher. so it's probably conservative. In particular you might want to check Orsi's On the meridional extent and fronts of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (full text. "Research" vessels (not necessarily nuclear) exist with deeper dive capabilities. http://www. 24. While there thus exists extensive datasets with good spatiotemporal resolution. could be used to obtain coverage to fill in any "gaps" in the Argo grid. GFW at 06:10 AM on 24 September. Daniel Bailey at 07:32 AM on 24 September. The Yooper 27. but I do not recall anything about ocean temperatures.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/submarines/ssn688_la. Rob Honeycutt at 07:02 AM on 24 September. 2010 GFW: I do recall that the US Navy released data about the thickness of the Arctic sea ice collected from nuclear subs. 25. pressure and salinity data are all acquired during normal sounding operations (to get an accurate corrected depth) and should all have a time-stamp with a GPS accuracyequivalent lat/long. 26. 2010 HELP! In this posting and commnet thread. Temperature. 2010 Apparently the Seawolf class can go deeper The Ohio class is probably in-between. PDF) and follow citations of that paper forward in time. Badgersouth at 06:40 AM on 24 September. 2010 KR not to simply punt. . 28. but it reinforces the point that another term for max operating depth is "neverexceed depth"). I utilized a number of sounding datasets that I was able to pass San Board review & incorporate in various mapping products for the military (classified & unclassified) and the merchant marine (unclassified). ocean heat content is expressed in W m–2. doug_bostrom at 13:16 PM on 24 September. 2010 No one has mentioned this yet but I'm assuming this has implications for Dr Pielke's recent statement that "global warming has stopped" while referring to OHC. security constraints will probably keep it from full utilization for OHC research purposes.
Why the use of two different measures? What's the crosswalk between "W m-2" and "Joules. I knew the basics. . A unit of electrical energy equal to the work done when a current of one ampere is passed through a resistance of one ohm for one second. The Yooper 30. while W m-2 is used to describe units of solar irradiance (the energy falling on a unitarea over a unit time).The International System unit of electrical. Daniel Bailey at 07:32 AM on 26 September. that is often called flux. 32. But then. Perhaps I am missing something. 2010 Yooper. and thermal energy.a. Looks like it might be what you want. 2010 @Daniel Bailey & muoncounter: n. Thus 100 Watts/m^2 represents the power consumption of a 100 watt bulb spread out on a surface area of one square meter. Watts are Joules per second. but it seems to me that any measure of the heat content of the ocean must be done by volume. In this context. Watt/m^2 is a measure of energy per unit time spread out over an area. Not quite the same thing. Try here. the measure of power consumption (think 100 watt light bulb). 2010 @ Daniel Bailey & muoncounter: Thanks for chiming in. Joules is a measure of energy in the SI system. 2010 Re: Badgersouth (28) My understanding is that Joules is a measure of power per unit time. (Abbr. Watts/m-2 seems related to area only.In the posting and comment thread re Dr." 29.. Badgersouth at 08:58 AM on 26 September. ocean heat content is expressed in Joules. 31. Roger Pielke and the "missing heat". 2. I still do not understand why this article uses Watts/m-2 and the Pielke article uses Joules. maybe nobody knows. muoncounter at 07:53 AM on 26 September. mechanical.. J or j) 1. Badgersouth at 09:06 AM on 26 September.
The first principle is the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide and other gases. in everyday language. Login via the left margin or if you're new. continuing their campaigns of disinformation. This means that W/m^2 is the rate that energy arrives on a per-square-meter basis.org Following the failure to reach a strong agreement at the Copenhagen conference. 22 September..htm Post a Comment Political. 2010 Badgersouth . I also found the answer to my question at: http://oceanworld. 2010 Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect Guest post by Alan Marshall from climatechangeanswers. The Greenhouse Effect . register here. KR at 15:21 PM on 26 September. Badgersouth at 15:43 PM on 26 September. You need to be logged in to post a comment.b.2. Think of this as in water: as gallons per minute versus total gallons in your swimming pool. In such an atmosphere it is vital that we articulate the basic science of climate change.com 33. the principles of physics and chemistry which the skeptics ignore. 34. Comments Policy. Few people have any feel for the numbers involved with the latter. while summing up all of those Joules over many seconds results in an energy sum that is the accumulated energy.] Per Answer.One Watt is one Joule per second. © Copyright 2010 John CookLinks | Translations | About Us | Contact Us Wednesday. 2010 KR: Thanks for the explantion. climate skeptics have had a good run in the Australian media. sometimes referred to as climate lag. the two key principles which together determine the rate at which temperatures rise.. so I will deal with it in more depth. The second principle is the thermal inertia of the oceans. The purpose of this article is to clearly explain.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_01. [After James Prescott JOULE. A unit of energy equal to the work done when a force of one newton acts through a distance of one meter. off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted.tamu.
Of course they have not done so. it was first measured 150 years ago by John Tyndall [i] using a spectrophotometer. Anyone who tells you different is selling snakeoil. Burch in 1962 and 1970. the impact of CO2 on the climate is well understood.” and you may find it useful to search for this term when doing your own research. in particular to the 15 micrometer band. After 150 years of scientific investigation. since 1970 satellites have measured infrared spectra emitted by the Earth and confirmed not only that CO2 traps heat. but trap heat radiation on its way out. and we have not yet seen the full rise in temperature that will occur as a result of the CO2 we have already emitted.The greenhouse effect takes its name from the glass greenhouse. Scientists tell us that even if CO2 was stabilized at its . We do not question Newton’s laws of motion because we can demonstrate them in the laboratory. The molecular structure of CO2 is such that it is “tuned” to the wavelengths of infrared (heat) radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface back into space. The Earth’s average surface temperature has already risen by 0. This is the essence of the scientific method. You would think that the onus would be on the climate skeptics to demonstrate that CO2 behaves differently in the atmosphere than it does in the laboratory. there should be no dissent that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. his results have been confirmed and more precisely quantified by Herzberg in 1953. and also at wavelength for absorption by methane. The extent to which temperatures will rise due to a given change in the concentration of greenhouse gases is known as the “climate sensitivity. but that it has trapped more heat as concentrations of CO2 have risen. their vibrations absorbing the energy of the infra-red radiation. and the source of knowledge on which we have built our technological civilization. The molecules resonate. The Thermal Inertia of the Oceans If we accept that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. We no longer question that light and infrared radiation are electromagnetic waves because we can measure their wavelengths and other properties in the laboratory. Likewise. and others since then. Given that the radiative properties of CO2 have been proven in the laboratory.8 degrees C since 1900. The above graph clearly shows that at the major wavelength for absorption by CO2. In fact. A relationship between cause and effect is proved by repeatable experiments. Like glass greenhouses. that less infrared was escaping in to space in 1996 compared to 1970. the next concept that needs to be grasped is that it takes time. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 2 ppm per year. Most principles of physics are beyond question because both cause and effect are well understood. greenhouse gases allow sunlight to pass through unhindered. because that too has been demonstrated in the laboratory. and it is by this mechanism that heat energy is trapped by the atmosphere and re-radiated to the surface. In line with the scientific method. given that they are dependent on CO2’s unchanging molecular structure. which farmers have used for centuries. In fact. you would expect them to be same in the atmosphere. It is vibrating molecules that give us the sensation of heat. trapping heat to grow tomatoes and other plants that could not otherwise be grown in the colder regions of the world.
With 40 years between cause and effect. The delayed response is known as climate lag. This simple analogy explains climate lag. but with greenhouse emissions causing a planetary energy imbalance of 0. The mass of the oceans is around 500 times that of the atmosphere.5 which I have rounded to 40 years. In recent times. The graph below from Australia’s CSIRO [vi] shows a clear rising trend in temperatures as well as a rising trend in sea-level. has profound negative consequences for humanity. The reason the planet takes several decades to respond to increased CO2 is the thermal inertia of the oceans. Consider a saucepan of water placed on a gas stove. Implications of the 40 Year Delay The estimate of 40 years for climate lag.6 degrees “in the pipeline”. climate skeptics have been peddling a lot of nonsense about average temperatures actually cooling over the last decade. there are positive consequences as well. If findings from a recent study of Antarctic ice cores is confirmed. the water takes a few minutes to reach boiling point. it means that average temperatures of the last decade are a result of what we were thoughtlessly putting into the air in the 1960’s. Because of the difficulty in quantifying the rate at which the warm upper layers of the ocean mix with the cooler deeper waters. the last figure will prove to be conservative [ii].current level of 390 ppm. The mid-point of this is 37. It should then be no surprise to anyone that the 12 month period June 2009 to May 2010 was the hottest on record [v]. the time between the cause (increased greenhouse gas emissions) and the effect (increased temperatures). A paper by James Hansen and others [iii] estimates the time required for 60% of global warming to take place in response to increased emissions to be in the range of 25 to 50 years.85 watts per square metre [iv]. However. if governments can find the will to act. there is inevitably a continual rising trend in global temperatures. Although the flame has a temperature measured in hundreds of degrees C. The time that it takes to warm up is measured in decades. There was a brief dip around the year 2000 following the extreme El Nino event of 1998. It also means that . there is at least another 0. there is significant variation in estimates of climate lag.
3 NASA GISS temperature record (see http://climateprogress. Synthetic trees. If an international agreement can be forged to provide a framework for not only limiting new emissions. available at www.cmar. “350 ppm CO2 The Target”.asp? cu_no=2&item_no=330396&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26 Institute of Science in Society. and demanding to see the effects before action is taken. and has received positive feedback from both members of the three largest parties.the true impact of our emissions over the last decade will not be felt until the 2040’s. This thought should send a chill down your spine! Conservative elements in both politics and the media have been playing up uncertainties in some of the more difficult to model effects of climate change. By refusing to acknowledge the cause. available at www.pdf.org. References i Gulf Times.scienceonline. past governments have brought on the current crisis.gulf-times.com. available (after free registration) at www. p.org/cgi/reprint/1110252v1.4 ii Science AAAS. The positive consequence of climate lag is the opportunity for remedial action before the ocean warms to its full extent. is another.html Posted by alan_marshall at 19:23 PM Printable Version | Link to this page Comments 1 2 Next Comments 1 to 50 out of 57: 1. Biochar is one promising technology that can have an impact here. and for extensive coverage of the science of climate change and its technological. www. ”Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications”. 2010 .i-sis. We need to not only work towards reducing our carbon emissions to near zero by 2050. If past governments had troubled themselves to understand the cause. while ignoring the solid scientific understanding of the cause. climate change would have been contained with minimal disruption. economic and political solutions.csiro.climatechangeanswers. and its implications for humanity. I wrote the original version of this article in February 2010 to help inform the Parliament of Australia.com/site/topics/article. but sequestering old emissions. with carbon capture and storage.au/sealevel/sl_drives_longer.uk/350ppm_CO2_the_Target. and acted in a timely way.1 iii iv NASA. it will too late to deal with the cause. but well before then to begin removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere on an industrial scale. p.org. then the full horror of the climate crisis may yet be averted. By the time they see those effects. All of us who understand clearly the science of climate change. should do what we can to inform the public debate. To find out more about this information campaign.php. perseus at 19:40 PM on 22 September. Spreading the Word The clock is ticking. please visit my web site at www. available at www.org/2010/06/03/nasa-giss-jameshansen-study-global-warming-record-hottest-year/) v vi CSIRO. “The Ocean Heat Trap”.ocean. “A Last Chance to Avert Disaster”. The letter was sent to 40 MPs and senators. p. “Sea Level Rise”.
rather than shrink . it radiates more heat out to space until eventually. And yes.2 Reto Ruedy. the planet steadily accumulates heat and warms. After solar activity peaked in the mid20th century.3 Makiko Sato. As it warms.has actually increased as CO2 levels have increased.sciencemag.Perseus.more energy coming in than going out). Of course it isn't mentioned.1.has been modelled. scientists have recently concluded that the Earth is absorbing more energy than it emits.1 Gavin A. modelled using greenhouse gas models.1. Yes. So the way climate time lag works is the planet gradually warms over decades and the energy imbalance gradually shrinks. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. the planet's energy imbalance . you guessed it.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5727/1431 2. there is no reason why the ~40 year ocean heat lag should only apply to greenhouse gases. You can get a feel for their reasoning from the very first sentences in the following abstracts.1. 1.2 Andrew Lacis. for sake of 'brevity'. "Using a climate model that incorporates anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.2* Larissa Nazarenko.6 Tica Novakov. calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0. thingadonta at 21:09 PM on 22 September. driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols.2 Gary Russell. sleepership at 21:07 PM on 22 September." http://www.2 Nicholas Tausnev3 "Our climate model.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. among other forcings.1. as I understand it. the way climate time lag works is when the planet is in energy imbalance (eg .85 ± 0. .which is what is happeningOr does time lag mean the CO2 emitted today will be around 30 years from now? Anyone care to explain? 3.1.3 Surabi Menon.2 Josh Willis.5 Dorothy Koch.4 Anthony Del Genio. Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications James Hansen. or some such.1.1. the energy out equals the energy in and the planet is back in equilibrium. The 'energy imbalance' referred to by the moderator and claimed to be increasing since the mid 20th century. It also applies to heat from the sun.6 Judith Perlwitz. not measured. 2010 re#1. 2.Could this same 40 year lag in increased tempeatures be used as an 'explanation' by a sceptic for the Solar influence which peaked way back in the last century? Response: No.1. That's not what we've seen over the last half century. 2010 Is this time lag an absolute? Co2 now at around 390ppmv will 'only Be felt' in temperatures around the year 2050 (with all the significant feedback's)Or does that 390ppmv today have any effect on us? Hansen has said that ice will melt and soften up in the arctic at 375-400ppmv. Schmidt.5 Ken Lo.
Understanding the caveats and assumptions. Hansen and McKibben have put a maximum level of 'safe' CO2 at 350. grypo at 22:50 PM on 22 September. sleepership at 21:57 PM on 22 September.but for all practical purposes 350ppmv is the goal we can only hope to reach. I see the role of thermal inertia as a mechanism for delayed heating response.theoretically. when compared to temperature measurements. http://www.30-35 years ago when the CO2 level was 330-340ppm.the warming we feel today be goes back to the late 70s or early 80s.org/publication/content/7678 3. 2010 sleepership.. Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters Between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budgets I can’t find any other work that covers the deep ocean over the globe." http://www. 2010 "With 40 years between cause and effect" This is perplexing. I'd think it wasn't mentioned because the high solar activity in question was ~80 years ago. thingadonta. However. 5. how much does this help in filling out Earth’s energy budget (Trenberth’s travesty)? . My questions are: 1.. As is well known.wri. the surface of the Earth is 70% water. When you add in that this water is always moving and the vast VOLUME of the oceans it is obvious that the vast majority of the warming goes first into the oceans.com/2009/07/how-do-climate-models-work/ 4. muoncounter at 22:46 PM on 22 September.the immediate effects also can be felt.drroyspencer. the '91 Pinatubo eruption produced both a short-term cooling and flattening in the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 (see Robock 2003 and the MLO mean rate of change table. Roy Spencer has some alternative ideas. 2010 There is a new paper out from NOAA on deep ocean temperature measurements and I’m wondering how significant its findings are. Basically. That said. CBDunkerson at 21:48 PM on 22 September. just as when you put a pot of water on the stove it does not immediately begin releasing heat to the air above the water so also does the extra heat going into the oceans take time to make its way into the atmosphere.but even that may be to high. some of the additional heat goes directly into the atmosphere. 2010 Thanks number 4 CB The time lag as you explained. the cause of the lag is explained in the article. indicates a lag in atmospheric warming. but I have to wonder about what happens in the other direction. 'for sake of brevity'? Gee. Why no lag in this case? Would such a large volcanic event be too short-lived to even make a dent in the lag you discuss here? 7. Is there any other study that measures that deep over the globe? 2. yes there is also an immediate effect.The energy imbalance. 6.
but as far as Ice melt. AMS Journals. 2010 CO2 @ 390ppmdo we see immediate effects? Was the heat the planet experienced this summer from 1980 C02 or from recently? If from 1980.and that would see the CO2 lag from 1990 around 360ppm. When you add CO2 to the atmosphere the level stays elevated and thus continues to build up greater heat which circulates around in the oceans for decades before making its way to the atmosphere. Riccardo at 23:28 PM on 22 September. 12.then we are in deep deep trouble when today's levels overcome the 'inertia' around the year 2040. less heat went into the oceans during those few years and thus there is also a 'long term' impact. but since the 'forcing' from the dust only lasted a short time the cumulative cooling effect was small.an ice free arctic ocean is certainly possible. They make a good case that deep ocean heat needs to be accounted for in the energy and SLR budgets. 2010. 2010 Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?. The ice melt in the arctic seems over the last few years seems at the level of CO2 of between 370-390ppm however. but that the full effect will be seen later. If we apply a constant forcing equivalent to that of Pinatubo eruption. it will cool much more than what we've seen. 2010 grypo. 11.1 mm/yr global impacts from the sampled deep basins. for example.027 W/m^2 and 0. That should put to rest arguments that heat can't possibly be making its way into the deep oceans quickly enough to be responsible for discrepancies in the energy and SLR balance calculations. All that dust in the air had an immediate impact on temperatures.... Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:47 PM on 22 September.” . Yes. but can't show that these make up the current budget gaps.: “The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). well the study found statistically significant (greater than 97. the meaning of lag is not that the response starts whith a delay.but I assumed that an free arctic in the summer would be the product of a co2 level of 390 +---All interesting. CBDunkerson at 23:45 PM on 22 September. Schwartz et al.8. 2010 muoncounter and sleepership. sleepership at 23:17 PM on 22 September. it cooled a few tenth of a degree just because it was very short (in time) and because of the inertia (lag) of the climate system. 9. but within a couple of years it had all fallen back to the surface and was no longer a factor. Pinatubo was the equivalent of turning the stove off for several seconds.5% confidence) warming of deep ocean basins (below 4000 m) in the Southern ocean all the way down to the sea floor. It seems that by 2020. the amount of data gathered for this study is not sufficient to develop a robust GLOBAL picture of deep ocean warming.the arctic is responding to the levels we currently have.when CO2 was just passing 350ppm. However. 2010 Following on Riccardo's comments and going back to the 'pot of water' analogy.the 'Inertia' of lag time in warming seems possible in feedback's and general warming. With the available data they estimate 0. CBDunkerson at 23:26 PM on 22 September. 10.
. 40% of the uncertainty ..m. of temperature-driven CO2 by 2100 ..” “Our results ." Uncertainties as to the distribution of CO2 sink in the ocean does not change what we know about the carbon cycle and what content is in the atmosphere... from a few to more than 40 p. ....” “Yet. considerable uncertainties remain as to the distribution of anthropogenic CO 2 in the ocean. great scatter .... and I have to invest billions of dollars in synthetic trees ...57 with a 50-year CO2 response lag—such timing is consistent with modelled CO2 response to a temperature step change.. increasing to 0. "Reconstruction of the history of anthropogenic CO 2 concentrations in the ocean.... But to understand fully what this paper suggests. 2010.. Schwartz et al. The passage before what ..”.” Summarize: . . and the relative roles of the ocean and terrestrial biosphere in anthropogenic CO 2 sequestration. Reconstruction of the history of anthropogenic CO 2 concentrations in the ocean. Frank et al. 80% less potential amplification .. ? 13. great scatter in c. and thus of its positive feedback strength.” Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate. wide range . suggest 80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming.. ... Nature : “But themagnitudeof theclimate sensitivityof theglobal carboncycle (termed c).. large uncertainties in global warming projections .. such allowable future emissions is unconstrained . 2009.. AMS Journals. which is an important component of the global climate system..m. If thesensitivity is greater.” “Approximately 40% of the uncertainty related to projected warming of the twenty-first century stems from the unknown behaviour of the carbon cycle..“Current uncertainty in climate sensitivity is shown to preclude determining the amount of future fossil fuel CO2 emissions that would be compatible with any chosen maximum allowable increase in GMST. its rate of uptake over the industrial era.47 over the pre-industrial 1050–1800 period (all years are AD)..v... closely reflects the choice of the individual temperature and/or CO2 estimates used for analysis..p. Particularly relevant to constraining sensitivities of the Earth’s coupled climate system is the amplitude of hemispheric to global-scale .: “Although much progress has been made in recent years in understanding and quantifying this sink..... the allowable incremental emission decreases sharply ... grypo at 00:24 AM on 23 September.. per uC. .p. . 2010. . Khatiwala et al. is under debate. . 2010 Thank you CB! Arkadiusz Semczyszak "Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?.:" This paper discusses some uncertainty as to whether Climate Sensitivity is at the low range or whether aerosols contribute more to cooling than previously thought. even the sign of SUCH ALLOWABLE FUTURE EMISSIONS IS UNCONSTRAINED.. continued emission ofCO2 at the present rate would exhaust in just a few decades the shared global resource of the incremental amount of CO2 that can be added to the atmosphere without exceeding proposed maximum increases in GMST. and is actually negative for greater values of this sensitivity. .” “Coupled carbon–climate models show a wide range in feedback strength. with 20–200 p. “The average correlation between individual temperature reconstructions and the mean CO2 record is 0.. you need to read the conclusions: "Even if the earth’s climate sensitivity is at the low end of the IPCC estimated ‘‘likely’’ range... considerable uncertainties .. giving rise to large uncertainties in global warming projections....”.v. essentially to zero at the present best estimate of climate ensitivity.
and C)2 has a 1/100 effect compared to all greenhouse gases. statements should be accurate. and keep on subsidizing our ever-growing appetite for fossil fuels. 2010 What stood out most in the article was the line "The mass of the oceans is around 500 times that of the atmosphere. 17." Khatiwala says there are still large uncertainties. Even in a basic version.] This is the key point that has mad me a true skeptic on the oeverall effect of CO2 causing global warming. This does not even include the effect of the land mass as well (perhaps another 1/7 more land/ocena versus atmospheric effect). but trap heat radiation on its way out. greenhouse gases allow sunlight to pass through unhindered. perhaps compounded by the ocean's slow circulation in the face of accelerating emissions. 2010 nerndt writes: What stood out most in the article was the line "The mass of the oceans is around 500 times that of the atmosphere. . All energy in the atmospaher has a 1/500 effect compared to the oceans. "Like glass greenhouses..." This is an extremely compelling point specifying that the total effect of atmospheric conditions on climate change has at best a 1/500 effect compared to the oceans. The surprise is that we may already be seeing evidence for this." is incorrect and should be modified. 2010 #12 Arkadiusz Semczyszak As usual. the more acidic the ocean becomes. 16.. Thus. and C)2 has a 1/100 effect compared to all greenhouse gases. and ignoring the authors' interpretation of their own work. over time." he said. The ocean plays a crucial role in mitigating the effects of this perturbation to the climate system. the ocean is expected to become a less efficient sink of manmade carbon. 15. 3." [. and I have to invest billions of dollars in synthetic trees .. Although much progress has been made in recent years in understanding and quantifying this sink" ". but in any case.. The number DO NOT add up. 4. The number DO NOT add up. "The more carbon dioxide you put in.. natural mechanisms cannot be depended upon to mitigate increasing human-produced emissions. 14. but greenhouses stay warm largely because they prevent convection. Ned at 02:10 AM on 23 September. This is the key point that has mad me a true skeptic on the oeverall effect of CO2 causing global warming. "What our ocean study and other recent land studies suggest is that we cannot count on these sinks operating in the future as they have in the past.. reducing its ability to hold CO2" said the study's lead author. All energy in the atmospaher has a 1/500 effect compared to the oceans. "Because of this chemical effect. nerndt at 00:26 AM on 23 September. an oceanographer at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Phila at 00:28 AM on 23 September. ?" Nothing you've posted here would lead anyone to not invest in mitigation and adaption. you're cherrypicking. beam me up scotty at 01:41 AM on 23 September.. 2010 Greenhouse gases do trap radiation. 2010 Question: What percentage of the current . sequestering 20 to 35 per cent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions2. the statement.8C warming is due to CO2 that was emitted in 1970? Can that be calculated? 18. Jeff T at 01:15 AM on 23 September. Samar Khatiwala..you quoted in the abstract says: "The release of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere by human activity has been implicated as the predominant cause of recent global climate change1.
see Quantifying the human contribution to global warming. Because the effects of different GHGs overlap. while gas Y causes percentage Q. eventually covering the place where I now sit with over 2 km of ice. muoncounter at 02:24 AM on 23 September. CBDunkerson at 05:03 AM on 23 September. we can safely ignore climate change . 2010 #10:"meaning of lag is not that the response starts with a delay. Short answer. but that the full effect will be seen later. 21. the greater the number of contrarian/trolling comments. 2010 Is it just me. but that didn't prevent the very radical climate change in which ice sheets spread southward for 80. The mass of the ocean was just as large at the end of the previous interglacial. This essentially delays the continued heating and that should have an effect on the furious discussion over Hansen's 1988 projections. the statement "C02 has a 1/100 effect compared to all greenhouse gases" is just plain wrong. #11: "continues to build up greater heat which circulates around in the oceans for decades before making its way to the atmosphere. or are contrarians becoming increasingly sloppy here? I guess it's a tribute to the science presented here that there would be so many scientifically poor comments trying to attack the points made in the articles: the more influential a science web site becomes. the more it is perceived as a threat by those who are politically opposed to it. why does ocean heat storage even enter into the discussion of surface (air) temperatures? 20. Why would the mere existence of massive oceans prevent us from altering the climate in a similarly dramatic fashion in the opposite direction? That's just wishful thinking. 22. for vastly more detail: CO2: An Insignificant Trace Gas? As for your general idea that since the mass of the ocean is much greater than the mass of the atmosphere." In addition to 'turning off the burner' for a bit. archiesteel at 02:33 AM on 23 September. " The deep oceans are very cold. 2010 . the flattened rate of increase in CO2 after Pinatubo also 'took the lid off the soup pot' (its lunch time here). Thus. But CO2 clearly has a large warming effect on the climate.First off. dana1981 at 04:39 AM on 23 September. I would imagine the lag for measurable ocean heating is orders of magnitude more than 40 years.000 years. 2010 beam me up scotty @ #17 . frankly. it's approximately 100% over the past 35 years and approximately 80% over the past century. Since the air heats up (and loses heat) far more rapidly. well. that just makes no sense.. See How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas Or.. it's not straightforward to say that gas X causes percentage P of the total effect. 19.
but difficult to quantify. The ability of it to radiate heat off. Let's say CO2 had stabilized at the 1970 level. in the atmosphere falls within certain limits due. transfer heat to other adjacent matter will depend again on the state of the environment rather than any specific property of CO2 given it remains a gas at normal pressures at temperatures well in excess of anything within the normal environment. If you are really looking for the warming from CO2 emitted in JUST the year 1970 then we are talking about less than 2 ppm and the resulting warming would be exceedingly tiny. johnd at 06:05 AM on 23 September. dana1981's answer is probably the most useful you'll get. different climate sensitivity factors would yield different results. the behavior in the atmosphere should follow. In that case.8 C warming is consistent with the 3 C 'fast feedback' sensitivity estimate. I get.BmuS #17. but must be due that of the environment itself as CO2 can absorb heat to temperatures far in excess of normal conditions without any change of state occurring as this chart shows. but the current 0. The absorption of IR. heat. 2010 On the point made in the lead article of this topic of CO2 properties as having been established in the laboratory.58 C Since we are 40 years past 1970 pretty much all of that warming should have now been cycled through into the atmosphere. being thermal energy. . I think that was around 320 ppm. not to the properties of CO2. assuming a climate sensitivity of 3 for a doubling of CO2. If you meant all CO2 emitted up THROUGH 1970 that's a much bigger factor. ln(320/280) * (3 / ln(560/280)) = 0. Obviously. 23.
2010 As for your general idea that since the mass of the ocean is much greater than the mass of the atmosphere. 2010 Ned . The caption says "Half of 270 Gtons [the cum to 2000] emitted since 1974". The amount of heat retained in the atmosphere itself is SMALL (not "trivial") compared to the amount in the oceans. muoncounter at 06:40 AM on 23 September. 2010 . but CO2 has a minimal effect being a small percentage of greenhouse gas effect and that the atmosphere has a minimal effect on the overall energy of the earth (being more than 1/500 of the totla mass).. The atmosphere only has 1/500 (or less) overall mass than the oceans and has minimal effect. for example. 28. Hi Ned. Riccardo at 06:44 AM on 23 September. See the cumulative graph in the figures here. but the atmosphere is CAUSING a great deal of that oceanic heat accumulation. Moderator Response: See the post (and take the discussion there): CO2 effect is weak 26. we can safely ignore climate change .Of course global warming and cooling occurs.. frankly. So if we are just now seeing the heating effects of the first half (its ~40 years post 1974) and have yet to see the heating effects of the second half --ouch!!! For example. Atmoshperic conditions are trivial. was that due to cum CO2 up to the 40's? That's why I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around a 40 year lag. but that didn't prevent the very radical climate change in which ice sheets spread southward for 80. Can anyone here see the big picture? The key point is that mankinds increase of CO2 to the atmosphere pales in comparison to the effects on the oceans and land by other conditions. arctic ice melt started accelerating in the '80s.000 years. 2010 repsonse to #18 Ned at 02:10 AM on 23 September. eventually covering the place where I now sit with over 2 km of ice." This is simply false. nerndt at 06:11 AM on 23 September. 2010 #22:"If you meant all CO2 emitted up THROUGH 1970" A cumulative plot using the CDIAC data shows that most of the emissions prior to 1950 or so don't make much of a contribution compared to everything since.. The one time this may not be the case would be in a large catastrophic event (huge volcano or metror strike) which then changes the absorption of energy by the oceans and land masses and quickly causes climate change. nerndt at 06:06 AM on 23 September. well. and thus a solid ball of ice. but the water and land masses. that just makes no sense. The point I was trying to make is that the largest contributor to any global warming is not the atmospher. CBDunkerson at 06:28 AM on 23 September. 27. The mass of the ocean was just as large at the end of the previous interglacial.. 2010 nerndt #25: "Atmoshperic conditions are trivial. Why would the mere existence of massive oceans prevent us from altering the climate in a similarly dramatic fashion in the opposite direction? That's just wishful thinking. 25.24. Basic physics tells us that without the atmosphere the planet would be about 33 C colder.
for that matter) is an intrinsic property of the molecule. and it is the environment itself that determines the width of the absorption frequency. heat accumulation that is causing the warmth in the atmosphere.. Try a google search for pressure and Doppler broadening. the properties of CO2 as proven in the laboratory as referenced in the lead article. 2010 scaddenp at 08:04 AM. The absorption properties of a molecule depend on the characteristic frequencies of vibration of the molecule which in turn depend on the physical properties of the chemical bond.john. 2010 john. The properties of CO2 allow it to absorb and radiate thermal energy over a far greater range than what is found in the natural environment. How near surface temperatures just below the surface vary over the course of a year indicates that at times incoming solar energy is excess of what is being lost into the atmosphere and so is accumulated as thermal energy below the surface. heat. johnd at 06:52 AM on 23 September. 32. Pressure and temperature of the gas only slightly widen and shift the absorption band. IR is an electromagnetic wave as any other. But these are subtleties. "The absorption of IR. No relation with temperature here. I fail to see what you are driving at here. Re your second comment. whilst at other times incoming solar radiation is less than that being lost to the atmosphere from below the surface where the thermal energy stored begins to decline.. The environemnt has an impact on the width of the absorption frequency (and very little on the central frequency) but not on it's ability to absorb or radiate EM waves (apart from extreme "pathological" cases which are not relevant to our atmosphere). is it not instead that the ocean. think cause and effect. and illustrated in the diagram posted. Riccardo at 08:20 AM on 23 September. 2010 johnd. I remain extremely confused by both your posts. being thermal energy. in the atmosphere falls within certain limits due. obviously the laboratory Phil. In short. In accurate radiative transfer codes the broadening effects are taken into account because the "wings" of the wider emission at higher temperature and pressure near the ground is less absorbed in the upper atmosphere. 2010 Riccardo at 06:44 AM. johnd at 07:33 AM on 23 September. 2010 CBDunkerson at 06:28 AM. 29. molecular absorption of CO2 (or any other molecule. not to the properties of CO2 [. 31.]" It's not so. your claims are physical absurdities. "far greater range than found in natural environment". It is emitted by warm bodies and this is why it is associated to heat. and land. annually averaged heat capacity of surface materials varying in any significant way on the time scales we are interested in. 33. Incoming solar radiation must first be intercepted and absorbed by matter on the surface BEFORE being converted to IR that then transfers into the atmosphere. re "unnatural environment". . I'm making the opposite point. First of all. I think you are making the same point as I was. johnd at 08:22 AM on 23 September. What unnatural environment are you talking about then? That temperature of surface varies with season is hardly surprising. nor is the globally. scaddenp at 08:04 AM on 23 September. 30.
can you perhaps clarify these points for me. That diagram just tells you that at 1 bar pressure CO2 is a gas between 200 and 400 K. Good to know. (pressures of 1bar or less). Unlike GHG concentrations. 2010 johnd. that limitation being solely the range of the diagram. johnd at 10:27 AM on 23 September. that is exactly the point I am making. johnd at 08:31 AM on 23 September.what is the range of temperatures that CO2 absorbs thermal energy and emits thermal energy? 39. there's no relation between a PT diagram and vibrational absorption/emission. scaddenp at 08:44 AM on 23 September. 2010 scaddenp at 10:10 AM. it all comes back to trying to establish how as mentioned in the lead article CO2 "is “tuned” to the wavelengths of infrared (heat)" when it is clear that it absorbs and emits thermal energy at wavelengths beyond that "tuned" range found in the atmosphere. the relevance of your questions to anything in climate is hard to guess. then I can only point you at the classic Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 paper which tested just that. For comparison think H2O and the changes of states that occur that affect the absorption and release of thermal energy. at 1 bar pressure the absorption band for thermal energy exceeds the range of 200K to 400K." As MichaelM already said. johnd at 09:41 AM on 23 September.answer to 1 and 2 would be "all temperatures and pressures found in the atmosphere. confirmed by numerous other studies since. 1 . 38. Riccardo at 09:18 AM on 23 September.34. 2010 John . at 1 bar pressure the absorption band for thermal energy exceeds the range of 200K to 400K. 37. 35. in #28 I copied part of your previous post and said it was not true. 40. no significant change means no cause. It looks like the colored-in version of this. that limitation being solely the range of the diagram. Again. MichaelM at 08:55 AM on 23 September. but then what? There's no thermal energy nor absorption lines shown there. Can you elaborate on your answer as to clarify whether CO2 also absorbs and emits . In #34 you're switching argument: "As the diagram indicates. 2010 John. 2010 Riccardo at 08:20 AM.at what temperatures does CO2 exist as a gas? 2 . Maybe now you agree with me. As to whether laboratory measurements are born out in the natural world. It indicates at what pressure/temp combination CO2 changes state eg at 10Bar/225K CO2 will be liquid and boil at 230K. 2010 Riccardo at 09:18 AM. As the diagram indicates. and how they relate to the natural environment. 2010 Johnd: The chart at #23 is just a pressure-temperature phase diagram and has nothing to do with IR absorption bands. The 200/400 limits of tempeature are just what the creator of the diagram chose. 36. scaddenp at 10:10 AM on 23 September.
The equilibrium temperature rise for 390 ppm is in fact at least 1. 41. They will absorb it. and the surface temperature will rise as projected. A CO2 molecule DOES absorbs radiation only in certain frequencies. and it is very frightening indeed. Heat is energy being transferred by conduction between bodies at different temperatures. the atmosphere emits radiation in approximately the spectrum of the Planck's Law for a blackbody radiator (modified by the gas absorption bands). IR is not heat for starters.when CO2 was just passing 350ppm. Glad that's settled. scaddenp at 11:26 AM on 23 September. A molecule excited by absorption "heats" other molecules by collision. Phila at 10:45 AM on 23 September. However. yes. To use these in construction and such would be preferable to many other materials. 43. 2010 Also. The only ray of hope is that the oceans have not yet absorbed all of this heat. 2010 #25 nerndt Atmoshperic conditions are trivial. 46. It's really too bad so many climatologists are in the dark on this point. The temperature of the atmosphere reflects both processes. 44. huh? 42. 2010 I'd like to point out that carbon fibers do not really decompose in a short time. We need not only to move rapidly to a near-zero carbon economy – we need to remove the bulk of the CO2 emitted from 1750 up till now. 2010 Question: Did the economic recession in the 1930s contribute much to the mid 20th century cooling.massive confusion here. I guess they're just dumb.then we are in deep deep trouble when today's levels overcome the 'inertia' around the year 2040” A deep political problem at the moment is that the majority of our politicians see the current warming of 0. so we are only part way there. 2010 Re:#8. The following extract from your comment on my article is insightful: “Was the heat the planet experienced this summer from 1980 C02 or from recently? If from 1980. That will require either carbon sequestration on an industrial scale. The stated goal of the Copenhagen Accord of keeping global warming below 2 C is looking increasingly difficult to achieve. the atmosphere is also warmed by conduction.sleepership You have seen the future we are currently headed for.8 C (if they concede there is any connection to CO2 at all) as being related to the current atmospheric concentration. Good to know. and thus is not "tuned" to any specific range.4 C. or geoengineering. if the current energy imbalance is not reduced. The CO2 molecule will also gain energy by collision with other molecules. 2010 John .thermal energy at temperatures and pressures BEYOND those found in the atmosphere. jyyh at 18:30 PM on 23 September. as there is this delay? . 45. alan_marshall at 17:21 PM on 23 September. scaddenp at 11:05 AM on 23 September. IR is energy as electromagnetic radiation. jyyh at 12:24 PM on 23 September. It is anything but "clear" that it does otherwise.
. does the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase ..” “It shows that we shouldn't over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another. here). (And that was my goal . you're cherrypicking . Indeed." the IPCC): “The climate system continues to change and science continues to improve. not only in the Himalayan glaciers will melt by at least 300 years. 2010 “Nothing you've posted here would lead anyone to not invest in mitigation and adaption. If. or efficient energy storage in solar and wind power (in the periods when they do not produce energy) . so policy must be kept current with our best understanding. ONLY (and solely) suffered final consumers (therefore: "normal" people). containing such a large question .. Everyone knows that of teams the authors . I will pay for research such as thermonuclear fusion. 2010 @Arkadiusz: first.cited the work (especially the second and third) is an “avowed” great proponents of the theory of AGW..for whatever reason . 48. or if it was a consequence of a warming world." „As usual. if a rigorous scientific basis is to continue to inform the growing challenge of decision-making on climate change.indeedfundamental.. Being a huge difference .The IPCC Must Maintain Its Rigor) Susan Solomon (real boss section "of science... Reformulating the science/policy interface should be considered and be open to change but must acknowledge lessons from the past.” The aim of the actions already adopted in Kyoto was that the cost of fighting the AGW.” In 2010.” “.Guardian: “She said it was not clear if the water vapour decrease after 2000 reflects a natural shift..not moved their production to countries where there is no this "struggle.“not ticking ". however. Instead. Such a large number of papers of supporters of the theory of AGW. is probably the result of appeal (2008 . so that the producers of energy . archiesteel at 01:53 AM on 24 September. my aim was not to summarizing the work of the authors .which I cited. acting as a negative feedback to apply the brakes on future temperature rise.1 / 3 warming . there are serious reasons for that..” Korhola: “Decision-makers should make sensible choices regarding theoverall benefits in the environment of UNCERTAINTY..from "our" CO2. here is an interesting use of the thermal inertia of the usual molten salt).” This is not true.to submit questions . and they have such fundamental questions .in the context of chaos theory "the wings of a butterfly" . If the latter is true.I hope not omitted any of their doubts because only then .an additional 20 or 200 ppmv in the XXI century must be the great importance what specific actions we take.almost certainly . you should really stick to simple sentence.written in recent times. .if I ignored this question . For example. Solomon does not know (but) nothing concrete (sufficiently accurately) about-at least . as your English does not appear to be strong enough to form complex sentences without making them confusing (non-English speaker.for 40 years .it is always useful(for example. In one word: "clock" .47. then more warmingcould see greater decreases in water vapour. These questions show that it really practically nothing (sufficiently accurately) do not know what will happen . Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:47 PM on 23 September.” Rather than pay for the synthetic tree CO2 removes.it would be "cherrypicking")..due to rising costs .
to submit questions .I hope not omitted any of their doubts ." I don't know what you're trying to say. "These questions show that it really practically nothing (sufficiently accurately) do not know what will happen . That is not true. here is an interesting use of the thermal inertia of the usual molten salt).however."the wings of a butterfly" .(And that was my goal . I will pay for research such as thermonuclear fusion. please. however.Second.for 40 years . sorry if I misunderstood some of your post." Okay. You seem to be implying (I may be wrong.“not ticking ". then more warming could see greater decreases in water vapour" I know this is quoted from an article. Are you implying that there is no cause for alarm and therefore we shouldn't be worried because we have plenty of time to wait and see? That sounds terribly irresponsible. right? Again. but it may still take decades to get something that requires less energy to control than it produces. you make a couple of puzzling statements: "For example.because only then ..almost certainly .. Just because we don't have exact predictions doesn't mean we can't say it will be warmer using a climate sensitivity value of about 3C. and seems to be a misunderstanding of what Chaos Theory is about.in the context of chaos theory . Efficient energy storage for solar and wind (using molten salt. there are serious reasons for that. and one that appears extremely unlikely. Being a huge difference . here. and they have such fundamental questions .indeed fundamental. not only in the Himalayan glaciers will melt by at least 300 years. it seems to be an extrapolation made by the journalist. but now you seem to say it is a real artefact? I'm confused. for example) *are* ways to mitigate CO2 emmissions by lowering our use of fossil fuels.if I ignored this question . for that paragraph is unclear) that more CO2 simply means more uncertainty in the resulting effect..it is always useful (for example. I'm all for it. Phila at 02:06 AM on 24 September. "Instead. . Warmer world = more water vapor over the long run. I first thought your mention of the synthetic tree was a image representing all CO2 mitigation efforts.from "our" CO2. there's nothing preventing us from pursuing that research *in addition* to mitigation efforts. factual sentences. As for nuclear fusion. 49. 2010 #47 Arkadiusz Semczyszak If. In fact." Quantify "sufficiently accurately".an additional 20 or 200 ppmv in the XXI century must be the great importance what specific actions we take. or efficient energy storage in solar and wind power (in the periods when they do not produce energy) . "If the latter is true. but it's important to note this isn't directly attributed to Solomon." Chaos theory and the Butterfly effect have little to do with long-term trends and the clear effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere.it would be "cherrypicking"). does the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase . keep to short. As I said earlier.. In one word: "clock" .for whatever reason . "Rather than pay for the synthetic tree CO2 removes.
undertaken in defense of a position that's logically incoherent. "Here we address these questions [i. these uncertainties] by presenting an observationally based reconstruction of the spatially resolved. Comments Policy. The stakes are high!.. 1 2 Next Post a Comment Political..e. you also ignored the fact that the "uncertainties" to which they refer at the beginning of their paper are precisely what their paper tries to address..Of course it's cherrypicking. off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. things can also be worse than we expect. you're treating the paper's initial acknowledgment of existinguncertainty as the take-away message of their paper. which is an absurd way to approach the matter. It’s worth a try. In addition to ignoring the authors' conclusions. 50. (Where uncertainty exists. and there's nothing clever or rigorous about the "skeptical" stunt of using this basic convention of scientific discourse as a weapon against science itself. time-dependent history of anthropogenic carbon in the ocean over the industrial era. 2010 Since the launching of the USS Nautilus in 1954. register here. The intellectual pathology that sees uncertainty about AGW as positive is a whole other matter. Badgersouth at 02:33 AM on 24 September." In other words. You need to be logged in to post a comment. Notwithstanding the classified nature of the data.) So yeah. © Copyright 2010 John CookLinks | Translations | About Us | Contact Us Wednesday. My working assumption is that these vessels collected a wealth of information about the temperature of the lower layers of the global ocean system. Scientists are trained to communicate in a measured way. Login via the left margin or if you're new. 22 September. that'd be cherrypicking. wouldn’t it make sense for the IPCC to establish a special committee to discuss this matter with the governments of those countries with nuclear submarine fleets? Perhaps there is way for the data to be made available without compromising national security concerns. 2010 Does Climate Change Really Matter? Guest podcast by Kevin Judd (a transcript of a radio podcast) . That's why they say. I also acknowledge that the data collected by the fleets of nuclear submarines is highly classified. nuclear submarines have plied the depths of the world’s oceans.
So why does global warming cause an increase in storms? Big storms and extreme weather require a lot of energy to drive them. either does not understand how weather and climate works. so that we'll know why we should listen to you instead of. which might seem contradictory. #1 cruzn246 2. The additional heat from global warming means that the weather will more often boil-over into very big storms. that lead to flooding and wind damage. In higher latitudes heavier snow falls are expected too. hail. and at other times an increased likelihood of heavy rain.Thomas Karl. Scientists cannot attribute to climate change any one extreme weather event.com.rtrfm. Posted by Kevin Judd at 12:50 PM Printable Version | Link to this page Comments Comments 1 to 23: 1. Please keep in mind that these podcasts are intended for a general audience and required to be less than 3 minutes. say. The same happens for big storms on earth. but turn up the heat just a little. it is not that simple. 2010 There is no upswing in extreme weather. and it soon boils over. Unfortunately. cruzn246 at 13:15 PM on 22 September. . but it is not.Climate scientists are telling us that the earth's average temperature is going to rise 2 to 3 degrees over the next 50 to 100 years. Please present compelling evidence when you make claims. For example. Anyone who tells you that you and future generations are not going to be effected by the consequences of climate change. We are already seeing this happen. NOTE: this post is also being "climatecast" by Kevin Judd on RTR-FM 92. like say the recent hail-storm in Perth. In my next segment I will consider what we can all do to prevent the damaging effects of climate change.30 AM WAST today. of course. but the trend to increasingly extreme weather can be directly attributed to global warming. or is being deliberately misleading.1 around 11. which does not sound like something to be bothered about. or the World Meteorological Association. The effects you are most likely to experience is an increase in extreme weather. Similarly. But does it really matter that temperatures will rise this much? You might think that this rise tempertures only means that winters will be a little milder and summers a little hotter. which. You can listen to a streaming broadcast of RTR-FM online viahttp://www. Phila at 13:37 PM on 22 September. and high winds. or the flooding in Pakistan.au/listen. Insurance companies. have seen the frequency of big storms triple in the last 30 years. Big storms that used to occur only once every one hundred years are now ocurring about every 30 years. You might know that a pot will simmer on the stove for long time. heat-waves are more common and severe. means more wild fires. 2010 This is a science site. an increase in extreme heat-waves in summer. who keep careful records of damaging storms.
the only clue that the text was written for Australians is the . Since a dog can't both be happy and mad at the same time. jsam at 16:17 PM on 22 September. "Could they ever occur simultaneously. but many "happy dogs" have bitten people. So there you have it.S. So. ScruffyDan at 14:59 PM on 22 September.such as in Scotland). Australia"." Now I don't believe in God. Remember you WANT more Yanks reading your articles! But for us. 2010 Perhaps the following question might be more pertinent. "rise 2 to 3 degrees" becomes. "Perth. so they bite you. Roger A. it is impossible that the dog is wagging the tail and the tail is wagging the dog at the same time. People believe that happy dogs wag their tail."Unless man can devise a way to live happily ever after with giant clouds of methane burbling up from the ground and oceans. Then the next question might be." which makes them mad. This is relevant. so no one knows what the outcome will be. Wehage at 18:14 PM on 22 September. text not in the original transcript (since this was broadcast over the radio) in square brackets. And this is up to 2009 . It is kind of curious to note. just as easily as any other "animal. 7. 2010 Is there a rss feed for the climatecast? Response: RTR FM have a podcast page but not specifically for the fortnightly climate podcast. MattJ at 17:03 PM on 22 September." . prolonged 2-3 degrees rise of the ambient temperature in humans leads to a situation where the individual in question normally goes to a doctor.".2010 is even warmer. "Does the dog wag the tail or the tail wag the dog?" Suppose that both are possible. what would be the consequences?" "Scientists" believe that tail wagging indicates a state of conflict. 'Perth" becomes. 2010 cruzn246 .edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin. such that it can be both happy and mad at the same time? Now the dog can wag the tail and the tail can wag the dog at the same time. Likewise. That has never before been seen in nature. But what if a 2-3 °C rise in global temperature were to cause some weird change in a dog's disposition. jyyh at 15:31 PM on 22 September. and if they did. If people are interested. The use of unadorned numbers for temperatures in degrees Celsius is a prominent example. http://www. "rise 2 to 3 degrees Celsius". so I tend to think that man was not created in His image and can therefore become extinct. since there are other points in the article that are much clearer once you realize it was written for an Australian audience.3. But we can easily see 2-3 degrees Celsius as much more significant.ucar. he ought to be taking more seriously prospects of the "Day of Judgement. that for those of us who do not know RFR FM is an Australian station. 4. I suggest the site deal with this problem by the use of the common convention of putting explanatory text. 5. 'degrees' measuring temperature as assumed Fahrenheit unless we are told otherwise. however. 2-3 degrees Fahrenheit really is small.au suffix in the URL (there are other cities named 'Perth' -. for example. 2010 A good article. This leads to the possibility that the tail may be wagging these "happy dogs. I could ask the UWA folk whether it would be possible to host their audio recordings on Skeptical Science. 2010 A suddenly appearing.jsp# 6. Think what would happen to the poor dog if simultaneous dog wagging tail and tail wagging dog were to cause a "Positive Feedback."Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.
fewer algal NPP . Phenomena in the atmosphere does not occur linearly. This explains the theory of fluid mechanics. Hence warming only if in a strictly defined temperature range .described above .000 people . we understand that with the increase of the energy supply to such an system.” Nothing could be further from the truth. however.1-5.: “Warmings over the tropical oceans compete with one another. Warmings in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans win the competition and produce increased wind shear which reduces US landfalling hurricanes.6 thousand years ago) has always followed a significant increase in strength of ENSO . was twice smaller than in the nineteenth century [!!!]" In periods other former cooling (8-8.5 ° C will reduce the frequency of high-pressure system (anticyclones).. "Great Hurricane" (much stronger than Hurricane Katrina) killed at least 22. Heat waves in the NH (2003. as always. (on N and S) Ferrell cell.7.) write: "In the years 1701-1850.twice as frequent. The same cooling. In the summer there are only shallow lowpressure systems. if we treat the global atmospheric circulation as a cybernetic system. 2010 “Big storms and extreme weather require a lot of energy to drive them.will increase the number of extreme events. when the estuaries are much more densely populated . 2008.. Beautifully seen an example of the Sahara. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:22 PM on 22 September.” The authors also say: “This paper uses observational data to demonstrate that the attribution of the recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity to global warming is premature and that global . as in Siberia). 2006. 4. Compared with the current temperatures. also lose their importance as barriers to the mountains.like cell zone separating the two areas of high pressure (the same way as . Also. Hadley cell expands. The increase in temperature causes the droplets merge is declining. Hadley cell may even disappear . Polish scientists (Natural Disasters. and 2-1. They join fewer and much milder. Currently. 2010) are associated more with violent beginnings of La Nina . the largest ever recorded in the so-called. stationary anticyclones (indeed. will reduce pressure gradient in the atmosphere. with the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans increasing wind shear and the tropical North Atlantic decreasing wind shear. Rising temperatures have already by 1.5 ≈ 2. extend. On the surface hydrophobic water droplets combine (and simultaneously disconnect) rapidly only in the specified temperature range.3..8.1.cooling of the oceans. the extension of the troposphere. Currently.tropical cyclones . 2008. As a result of warming of 3-4 ° C.number of extreme events as a result of warming MUST be reduced. and from 1851 to 1950 .. Wang and Lee. The violent weather phenomena occur in the specified temperature range.. In the United States during the beginning of Dalton minimum in 1780.in the summer in the Sahara). Global warming and United States landfalling hurricanes. he will be able to run additional feedbacks stabilizing system .cloudiness (CLAW hypothesis). ie during the period when the Earth was in the so-called Little Ice Age in the Caribbean basin hurricanes were almost three times higher than in the second half of last century. growing up (more "lazy") drops consisting of several smaller drops. 5. Great storms require a considerable variation in energy over a small area.. but only in winter powerful. [!!!] Total number of tropical cyclones on Earth in the twentieth century.
Our body’s hold a general temperature of around 98.” May vary regionally (IV IPCC report and „. might it not be more likely that the effects most readers (who will be more likely to come from relatively rich developed countries with more moderate climates) will be the knock on effects of extreme weather elsewhere. Rob Honeycutt at 01:56 AM on 23 September. There is no divine promise of personal or civilisational protection.warming may decrease the likelihood of hurricanes making landfall in the United States. but it will be one of the significant background causes. so I tend to think that man was not created in His image and can therefore become extinct I do believe in God and tend to think that humanity was created in God's image.. (comment 6) pointed out. are they really that much different? The nature of the planet we live in is in no way less intricate than the incredible complexity of our bodies. The Yooper 11. declining globally (with warming) gradient of "vertical wind shear" decides to lower the intensity and frequency of all storms. That is.” Now I know our bodies are different than the entire world. 2010 . is also observed to have a downward trend for global hurricanes over the past two decades when consistent satellite imagery has been available. not just the big.6 degrees Fahrenheit." I agree with Mr. entering a state of “sickness.. 2010 The effects you are most likely to experience is an increase in extreme weather. which has been used to measure tropical cyclone activity.” . If the conditions in which these systems operate are altered even slightly. Daniel Bailey at 00:06 AM on 23 September. Byron Smith at 23:50 PM on 22 September. but I suspect that many more will face knock on consequences of declining food production. but one needs to consider the scale upon which we are viewing these changes. Actually. climate change will probably affect many people in ways that they don't think of as due to climate change." Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on us here.weakening of the AMOC . 2-3 degrees Celsius is equivalent to 4-6 degrees Fahrenheit. Judd’s argument. are you 12. the consequences can be exponential. experienced as economic turbulence and the political effects of food insecurity. However. John Bear at 04:21 AM on 23 September. the North Atlantic to warm more slowly than other oceans . Consider the human body for example. 2010 Re: cruzn246 (1) "There is no upswing in extreme weather. but I also think that we can become extinct. 2010 There's a minor grammatical error in the second to the last paragraph. or. Wehage Now I don't believe in God. @Roger A.cooling of the North Atlantic) and the gradient of "vertical wind shear" may rise. I believe that would be "affected" not "effected. But hard to know exactly what is going to hit a given person personally first. If you have a fever and catch a cold. An increase in several degrees might seem minute at first. both exist in a delicate balance. 9. As Matt J. Some may experience extreme weather directly. Countless systems work together in harmony under an ideal set of conditions..” “The accumulated cyclone energy index. with a less than a two degree increase in our body’s core temperature we are classified as having a fever.. 10.
The liquid forms a uniform layer. and large (not cherry-picked) data sets? . If you weren't here to be deliberately negative. they then dipped until 1760. but for future generations to come. ie during the period when the Earth was in the so-called Little Ice Age in the Caribbean basin hurricanes were almost three times higher than in the second half of last century. I think you are making an assumption and then automatically correcting something without knowing what Kevin was referring to.do not join because they do not .” Arkadiusz Semczyszak response "Nothing could be further from the truth. 13.” No. Great storms require a considerable variation in energy over a small area.". 14. during a large chunk of the 'LIA' there were both larger numbers and fewer. Where are the peer reviewed papers. At the hydrophobic surface sufficiently heated. 2008. then started peaking again. Specifically between 1576 and 1601 there was a huge peak. Given that the Polish were no where to be seen as far as Atlantic exploration is concerned.." The Ville: Sorry. Since Kevin didn't actually define what a big storm was.” the symptoms of our planet getting sick can be devastating not only now.. eg. I think Spanish records are probably more accurate.and in addition." The Ville: By your own definition you are incorrect. 2010 I find this post disappointing for its lack of data to support the premise that warming will drive more extreme weather events." The Ville: Tell us something we don't know Arkadiusz. statistically significant trends. 2010 “By your own definition you are incorrect. Arkadiusz Semczyszak: ". Arkadiusz Semczyszak: "Polish scientists (Natural Disasters. 15. That's why (among other things + no Panamanian isthmus) in the Oligocene tree ferns (with extremely fragile stems) grew almost from the equator . Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:18 PM on 23 September. 'Polish scientists' were cherry picking or wildly wrong. You earlier stated "Great storms require a considerable variation in energy over a small area. Violent phenomena virtually disappear. the same species. The Ville at 05:18 AM on 23 September.) write: "In the years 1701-1850. ianw01 at 23:46 PM on 23 September.we understand that with the increase of the energy supply to such an system. not increased or decreased energy..number of extreme events as a result of warming MUST be reduced. you would have asked for a clearer definition of what a big storm was and then made a comment on that..practically to the North Pole . See Ricardo García-Herreras work on Spanish records of hurricanes in that area and era. 2010 Kevin Judd: “Big storms and extreme weather require a lot of energy to drive them. drops generally do not combine ..so defined area .around ..able to operate at your normal day-to-day level? Now consider Earth “catching a cold.
noaa. Sep 20. Instead you have gone off in some unrelated tangent. " Only 2010 was begining of "violent" La Nina as i think. "I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. I'm not saying it is or isn't true." he said. fewer algal NPP . 17. technical articles. 2010) are associated more with violent beginnings of La Nina . the post is a podcast. Furthermore.In the absence of any supporting data. The predictied changes to the Arctic climate system that is already built into the system will have profound effects on the global climate system. (Don't anyone get worked up .gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears. It doesn't even relate to your own previous comment. 2010 @Arkadiusz "Heat waves in the NH (2003. it provides fodder for the distractions that deniers tend to latch onto. It is all part of a plan :-) 16.shtml . Source: “Arctic Ice in Death Spiral. director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the U. light pieces and detailed.it is just to make a point about the need for evidence.cloudiness (CLAW hypothesis). The Ville at 03:38 AM on 24 September.” IPS. articles like this discredit the generally solid scientific story behind global warming. climate scientists are reporting. 2010 The carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have melted the Arctic sea ice to its lowest volume since before the rise of human civilisation. Badgersouth at 04:01 AM on 24 September.of ice left in the Arctic likely reached the lowest ever level this month. Serreze told IPS. city of Boulder.cooling of the oceans." said Mark Serreze. 2010 http://ipsnews. dangerously upsetting the energy balance of the entire planet. 2010 Arkadiusz you haven't responded to a remark I have made. It's not going to recover. In the absence of any data. but the lack of data or references is a red flag.extent and thickness .asp?idnews=52896 I encourage everyone perusing this comment thread to read this article in its entirety.both basic. The volume . However.) Sure. pdjakow at 04:13 AM on 24 September.cpc. 2006.S. Response: It was for this reason that Kevin asked me to specifically mention this was a transcript of a very short message for a broad audience. Kevin is probably the only climate scientist I know whose public communications are accused of being too simple (and I'm not sure he's a big fan of that fact).net/news. "The Arctic sea ice has reached its four lowest summer extents (area covered) in the last four years. currently there is a diverse range of styles on offer at Skeptical Science . Colorado. Other posts on extreme weather such as the page about record snowfall and extreme precipitation events feature many peer-reviewed references. and therefore less extreme weather. but the bar must be set higher for inclusion on this site. 18. I could argue that greater warming in the polar regions will result in smaller temperature gradients in general. http://www.
Or something like that. archiesteel at 01:11 AM on 25 September. linking extreme weather events with climate change is treading on uncertain ground as you noted.19. 2010 doug_bostrom at 10:04 AM. Comments Policy.. but as this passage from a CLOUDSAT overview would indicate. doug_bostrom at 10:04 AM on 25 September. John. without solid evidence. (http://cloudsat. off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. so they then provide a nett cooling effect to the Earth's climate. These considerations lead scientists to believe that the main uncertainties in climate model simulations are due to the difficulties in adequately representing clouds and their radiative properties. However uncertainty remains about the high level cirrus clouds. Post a Comment Political. These feedbacks may be positive (reinforcing the changes) or negative (tending to reduce the net change). it gradually releases heat. 2010 @ianw01: that's why it's always safer to say that an increase in extreme weather events is "consistent" with AGW theory. johnd at 10:24 AM on 25 September. 2010 Shorter johnd: More convection will manifest itself invisibly. In my view it is one of the weakest aspects of the "alarmist" positions. That drives direct to the quintessence of the dilemma as it stands. depending on the processes involved. 2010 Thanks. anthropogenic aerosols. ianw01 at 23:42 PM on 24 September. even small changes in cloud abundance or distribution could alter the climate more than the anticipated changes in greenhouse gases. condensing out forming different cloud types in sequence until finally the air becomes dry above where cirrus clouds are the last to form. 23. extreme or otherwise. . The albedo effect dominates the low altitude clouds. which alone cover about 35% of the earths surface.atmos. The link and references therein were helpful." 22. are driven by the same combination of a heat differentials and moisture. or other factors associated with global change. 2010 ianw01 at 23:42 PM. As the water vapour picked up rises. johnd at 09:52 AM on 25 September. for the reply regarding data supporting extreme weather. You need to be logged in to post a comment. all weather events. re "or something like that" Beautiful. we must be careful about attributing too many weather events to global warming. 20.edu/overview) "Because clouds have such a large impact on Earth’s radiation budget. and they all unfold the same way. But still.. Changes in climate that are caused by clouds may in turn give rise to changes in clouds due to climate: a cloud-climate feedback.colostate. Login via the left margin or if you're new. register here. 21.
7. The striking feature is each scientist addresses and explains a different error. 4. his conclusions are based on a misunderstanding and misapplication of that work. ignoring the vast difference in the rate of change of CO2 levels compred to millions of years ago 3. 2010 Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation On May 2010. based on his misinterpretation of the Pinker paper. He incorrectly argues that the present rapid increase in CO2 is harmless to coral. citing a 2005 paper by Dr. ocean acidification. Rachel Pinker. Each climate scientist examined the part of Monckton's testimony related to their particular area of expertise and summarised their responses in the report Climate Scientists Respond. 6. as well as Monckton’s conclusions.with associated adverse impacts. Monckton ascribes the recent rise in global temperature to global brightening. Congress. Monckton’s assertions are shown to be without merit. Monckton made a number of assertions about CO2 warming. 8. Pinker herself has stated. 1. 2. Christopher Monckton testified to the U.. Monckton claims a single benefit of higher CO2 levels – increased yields on selected crops – but fails to mention the wide-ranging negative consequences for plant species and agriculture. The result is thorough. Two recently published papers discussed in this report thoroughly discredit the paper by Lindzen and Choi. Monckton's claim that CO2 is not causing ocean acidification provide a compelling example of his lack of understanding of ocean chemistry.S. record-breaking global mean temperatures.© Copyright 2010 John CookLinks | Translations | About Us | Contact Us Wednesday. Climate Scientists Respond refutes Monckton's testimony in 9 major areas. demonstrating a number of obvious and elementary errors and based on a thorough misunderstanding of the science.” As you read through the document. For each of Monckton's claims. Monckton's testimony is so riddled with errors. and the correct response is “to do nothing”. As the responses demonstrate. This report states that a “decision to delay action to reduce greenhouse emissions is not a decision 'to do nothing'. and indeed as Dr.. the benefits of elevated CO2.. 5. Monckton argues that “global warming is a non-problem”. as well as on a recent paper by Lindzen and Choi. 22 September. 9. with an exceptional rate of warming.. His assertion that 'global warming ceased in 2001' is contradicted by recent. temperature trends and climate sensitivity. Recently. it takes a number of scientific expert to debunk all the disinformation! . a group of 5 scientists solicited responses to Monckton's testimony from more than 20 world-class climate scientists. Despite Monckton’s assertions. Monckton argues climate sensitivity is low. there are responses from a number of different scientists.committing the world to higher levels of global warming. It is a decision to continue emissions of CO2. methodical and devastating. where he argued there was no need to take quick action to address climate change. it becomes apparent why so many scientists were involved in this effort. treating the events as if they were contemporaneous. Monckton misunderstands how carbon dioxide (CO2) played a role in lifting the Earth from a cold 'snowball' state. compilations of global temperatures show that the late 20th century was exceptionally warm compared with the last 1500 years.
Dr. Michael Mann and Winslow Briggs. Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington DC 14. Dr. School of Earth Sciences. Why wasn't this done years ago? Scientists who contributed to Climate Scientists Respond Research Institute for Global Change 1. James Annan: Member of the Global Change Projection Research Program within the 2. James Hurrell: Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section and Chief Scientist for Community Climate Projects at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. mentally disable or having had their emails stolen in Climategate (good to see he still eschews ad hominem attacks). David Archer: Professor. Dr. Dr. Lee Kump: Professor of Geosciences. John Veron: Professor. Dr. Gavin Schmidt: Climate Scientist. Colorado 19. Michael MacCracken: Chief Scientist. Dr. Scientific Services Division. Department of Geophysical Sciences. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg: Professor of Marine Studies. Dr. Dr. Dr. University of Melbourne. Colorado 10. Ray Weymann. Dr. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies 6. Colorado 8. Peter Reich: Regents Professor and Distinguished McKnight University Professor. Barry Bickmoreresponds to Monckton's response. Benjamin Santer: Research Scientist. Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. University of Queensland 21. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 17. Dr. National Center for Atmospheric Research. Department of Global Ecology. Dr. Monckton sent a characteristically unhinged reply where he labels the climate scientists as either criminal. Boulder. Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI).This is an immensely useful. National Oceanic and 5. University Center for Marine Studies. serial liars. Dr. Dr. Australia. Carnegie Institution. 4. Jeffrey Kiehl: Senior Scientist. Dr. I have one criticism. Dr. Reto Ruedy: Scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies 16. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. Ken Caldeira: Senior Scientist. Dr. fascinating and important document. University of Chicago 3. Pennsylvania State University 12. Boulder. Barry Bickmore. Posted by John Cook at 02:20 AM Printable Version | Link to this page . Bruce Wielicki: Senior Scientist Radiation Sciences. I would strongly recommend to any place where Monckton is public speaking that copies of this document are handed to the people attending the talk. Boulder. Dr. Nancy Knowlton: Holds the Sant Chair in Marine Science at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History 11. John Abraham. Climate Change Research Section. Dr. Norman Loeb: scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center 13. Colorado 20. Dr. University of Minnesota’s Department of Forest Resources 15. Kevin Trenberth: Senior Scientist and Head. David Easterling: Chief. Boulder. NCDC. Pieter Tans: Senior Scientist. Personal prediction: Monckton will follow this up in a few weeks with another Monckton Gallop of hundreds of questions. James Hansen: Director. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies 18. 7. David Karoly: Professor. Dr. Climate Scientists Respond: the full PDF report Press Release UPDATE 22/9/2010: The UK Guardian published an article about Climate Scientists Respond. Australia 9. University of Queensland. NASA Langley Research Center Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) California The five scientists who organized the report were: Drs.
. mehus at 03:48 AM on 22 September. tobyjoyce at 05:05 AM on 22 September. Misinformation has been spread long enough without proper response. Daniel Bailey at 02:58 AM on 22 September.. He is generally referred to as "Monckton" without the title. 2. 3. 2010 8. Albatross at 02:37 AM on 22 September. paulm at 03:58 AM on 22 September. Look forward to reading to the report. 9.Comments Comments 1 to 42: 1. I hope this is the first of a long row of public statements from climate scientists. 2010 I kinda share John's criticism. BillWalker at 05:03 AM on 22 September. 2010 Long overdue. Climate scientists respond to WHO? Will it be sent to the committee? Will they revise their conclusions? Why is this hind sight? 7. I note a careful "dissing" of the egregious Lord.edu/engineering/jpabraham/ 5. 2010 This is fantastic news! In fact. If he issued over 400 question to Dr Santer from his presentations I can only imagine how long and delusional his rebuttal to this will be. 2010 6.. His head might just explode. beam me up scotty at 03:16 AM on 22 September. 2010 This is a fantastic rebuttal using a who's who of climate change science. Alexandre at 04:05 AM on 22 September. 2010 I hope they're sending a copy of this to every member of Congress. It's just too bad they have to waste their time debunking Monckton's nonsense. Here's a nice presentation http://www. I can only imagine the response from Monckton. but let's not be grumpy. That task may keep Monckton busy for another year or two. Thanks! The Yooper 4. 2010 I will never understand why Monckton was allowed to testify to the US Congress since it's been clear for some time that he doesn't know what he's talking about. it made my day.stthomas. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 02:33 AM on 22 September. 2010 That list of 21 climate scientists has some very impressive names. 2010 10. dana1981 at 03:07 AM on 22 September.
The US scientists present at the hearing must have profoundly embarrassed that their Congress had invited what amounts to a "climate quack" to give testimony. Congress to give careful consideration to the implications this document has for the care that should be exercised in choosing expert witnesses to inform the legislative process".I hope the US politicians get the subtle message that they should be talking about science to scientists. rab at 05:16 AM on 22 September. not publicists. Lets move on and improve the real science." Oh I hope not. I'm sure that's now he will receive this report. 2010 Alexandre@8: "I hope this is the first of a long row of public statements from climate scientists. Almost meaningless and rambling stuff barely related to the issue. 2010 Note the last sentence on the cover page: "We encourage the U. Then. you will never understand the sheer venality of American politics. That's just what he wants. 2010 This is fantastic. He really seems to be genuinely driven by paranoia of a global neo-nazi conspiracy where science is somehow at the center of it all. . alas. Do you remember the outrageous responses he made to Dr Abraham's presentation? The least of which was calling him a "boiled prawn. SouthWing at 06:44 AM on 22 September. 11.S. It was fascinating. Monckton will surely take this as a frontal attack on his reputation. 13. They waste enough time already rebutting Monckton. The Ville. I don't think Monckton takes well to criticism. 2010 Actually. Rob Honeycutt at 07:47 AM on 22 September. It would be like inviting a homeopathic practitioner to testify at a hearing on healthcare. 12. Rob Honeycutt at 07:17 AM on 22 September. he says the things they want to hear. I watched a video clip the other day of Monckton debating a climate scientist in AU on some news program (not sure which one now). It matters not a bit to his Republican denier sponsors that Monckton is a mendacious blowhard. This is 21 climate scientists with considerable reputations to back up their assertions." That was one professor from a small college. 14. Once the climate scientist started to point out his inaccuracies Monckton reverted to talking over everything that anyone said including the interviewer. The Ville at 07:31 AM on 22 September. 2010 @1 Anne-Marie Blackburn I will never understand why Monckton was allowed to testify to the US Congress since it's been clear for some time that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's so incredibly important. 15. It's great these scientists have taken time from their busy lives to do this. so he is given a pulpit.
2010 In response to the question “Why wasn't this done years ago?”. More specifically.. at no matter what level. and this report is evidence of that. I understand that it's a political battleground but it's going to take me some time to get used to such an absurd system. we all need to get involved. I don't know how long it took for those great scientists to write that text. though I'm learning much about it through debates on climate change and creationism. Secondly. For one. I commend you for giving it a go. requiring a very substantial investment of time and effort. American Stinker is an awful place. I think everyone was a bit .. but ultimately. there is little prestige and recognition to be gained by publishing outside the traditional “peer-reviewed” journals. As for the scientists initially 'weak' dealings with the sceptics. but will the authors of this report get adequate recognition from their administrators and home institutions. I actually initiated a minor effort back in October. owing partly to the challenges described above. Completely. Who's making the popcorn? 16. I don’t believe the scientific community took the "skeptical" criticisms seriously enough.I live in the UK and don't have much knowledge of US politics. your stomach is stronger than mine. This too must change. and not sit back and assume that reason will prevail. The point of this “mea culpa” moment is that each of us has a duty to speak up on behalf of science. but this nonsense has lasted long enough. and in this regard. nothing came of it. and partly to my "dropping the ball". A system that allows unqualified people such as Monckton to testify on highly technical topics baffles me. But I sure hope they'll do it again if needed. SkS is very much in tune with this goal. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 08:35 AM on 22 September. I hope they won't have to do this again. each of these distinguished scientists has his/her own career to pursue. through thoughtfully worded letters of support sent to the appropriate institutions. I think they [mis-]underestimated the degree to which contrarian views would dominate the scientific debate. 2010 The Ville #14 You have a point there. and not allow the most strident voices to dominate. there are several responses.Expect a number of Fox News interviews to follow shortly. Alexandre at 08:21 AM on 22 September. partly to the overwhelming number of errors in the article. 2010 CG. adelady at 09:31 AM on 22 September. 17. 18. Who has the time to write a response to someone so uninformed on the scientific issues? This partly comes down to a question of priorities. I went as far as to solicit comments from several prominent climate researchers. This situation has now changed. and get their message out. 2008 to respond to a three-part article by Lord Monckton published in the dubiously titled journal “The American Thinker”. 19. SkS readers can potentially play a useful role. 2010 SouthWing . Here. CoalGeologist at 09:17 AM on 22 September. Thirdly (although of much less significance). but it's well worth to drop a line to the broader public now and then and make the message clear. The scientific community must roll up their collective sleeves.
Do not be content to just applaud on a blog. letters carry a lot of wait. My only quibble with Monckton’s critics is that they accuse him of misunderstanding science. MattJ at 09:46 AM on 22 September. At the outset. No wonder his side has been winning for so long. 2010 . people really are heavily inclined to believe statements framed that way: scientists seem to forget what long training it took to get -them. and then states his conclusion very forcefully.out of the habit of doing so! So the result is that it takes only a little bit of work on Monckton's part to persuade the misinformed. climate change or its other effects. 21. as we all should by now.people need to be proactive.”Expect a number of Fox News interviews to follow shortly” Well. but it takes much. ProfMandia at 10:01 AM on 22 September. with the formation of the IPCC. 2010 Why wasn't it done years ago? Good question. Good points-. 24. Tedious hard work. 2010 Rob Honeycutt @ 15 ….gov After doing that. eventual agreement. 20. MUCH more work to rebut him. But this is characteristic of Monckton's bad behavior: he strings together a lot of pseudoscientific statements. especially nowadays. You can locate your Reps and Senators at USA. each one of which sounds vaguely plausible to both Congressman and layman. consider writing to the top medial outlets. Murdoch knows. Unfortunately. he deliberately and knowingly misrepresents. Albatross at 10:17 AM on 22 September. 22. Thanks Scott. oslo at 12:51 PM on 22 September. the wily and mischievous Murdoch will not publicly support Monckton’s views. is wrong. Agnostic at 10:28 AM on 22 September. maybe. No doubt that has a lot to do with why it was left undone for too long. I have a lengthy list here. And now we're debating the physics of gases over and over and over again.misled by the success of the campaign to reduce sulphate emissions because of the obvious impacts of acid rain. With people who've been misled by the likes of Monckton and others wilfully conflating the issue with the Catastrophic Financial Meltdown alarmist nonsense. My guess is that while the Murdoch media is willing to give Monckton a free pulpit from which to spew his nonsense. It was important enough that it should have been done years ago. in my country at least. He does not misunderstand. long negotiations. implementation. that anything Monckton says on global warming. 2010 To my fellow Americans: Write to your elected officials and ask them to investigate Monckton and to consider if they believe he committed perjury. 2010 Re #21. 23. Those letters are not ignored and I have been told that. it looked as though it was going to go along the same path. But it took a lot of work.
Albatross at 02:19 AM on 23 September. Can we please stay away from recommending criminal prosecution? It may be justified. then surely as law abiding citizens we should not let such acts go unchallenged? Taking Monckton to task is not the same as the "witch hunt" undertaken by the Virginia AG. and nor should that be frowned upon. but motives to. blog. in the case of Monckton. Why should someone be given free pass in the event that they committed perjury? . when appropriate.before we give their findings too much weight. Albatross at 13:34 PM on 22 September. 2010 Oslo @24. 27. gee that's a tough one. Let's stick to the science.quelle surprise. Monckton has been debunked so many times to no avail. IMHO. suggesting that scientists are not permitted to take legal action when warranted. 26.-) Sorry to be OT. and it might prove the new Antarctic / Greenland ice loss study correct? 25. I hope that you can see the huge difference not only in terms of evidence. Until not too long ago I would have agreed with you Jeff. As to 'why people would oppose false views arguing against dealing with a dangerous problem'. is not fair nor reasonable. but it makes us too similar to the Attorney General of Virginia threatening Michael Mann. That "missing" heat. but let us not forget the dismal Douglass et al. IMO. 28. This is a very different kettle of fish. CBDunkerson at 23:02 PM on 22 September. oslo at 13:40 PM on 22 September. hence my delight that the scientists took the time and effort to counter Monckton using facts. 2010 I already had Douglas looked up . is working its way down much deeper than thought-.. If compelling evidence exists of perjury. but it seemed important in context with the new article at Pielkes Sr. Additionally. Thanks for the heads up.. 2010 Ken #27. we now have to fight fire with fire. I agree that one should stick to the science. 29.New important study announced (NOAA): Scientists Find 20 Years of Deep Water Warming Leading to Sea Level Rise It should debunk Pielke Sr. But. new spin on the matter: New Paper “Recent Energy Balance Of Earth” By Knox and Douglas 2010 Oh. 2010 Re #21 (ProfMandia) and #22 (Albatross). yes Monckton is just an eccentric extremist.. I have infinitely more faith in the UofW research that you linked to. who climate skeptics chose to represent their position before the US Congress.. (2007)--which was co-authored with Singer-. 2010 Jeff T. This is OT of course. Jeff T at 01:34 AM on 23 September. it appears. So.
) 33. Seriously though. Hmm. I think some politicans have borrowed a page from Hollywood-types in terms of antics used to "advance" their careers. And that's what happened. Look.. For Cuccinelli it was mission accomplished.. Also sorry if we're going OT. Yeah. Rob Honeycutt at 03:40 AM on 23 September. It's just grandstanding for attention. I think Cuccinelli was just trying to make noise in order to raise his own profile in politics. Hope John is not grumpy when he wakes up (. Cuccinelli's dad used to work in marketing for the American Gas Association and now has two companies that do advertising and marketing--including for "European" companies. Albatross at 02:51 AM on 23 September. I could be wrong but I think the AG probably can file a case regardless of whether it has grounds or not. 35. 2010 Rob @36. The case was completely without merit and was struck down by the judge.that said. committing perjury is actionable and there is compelling and legitimate evidence to make that case here. Albatross at 03:47 AM on 23 September. I'm sure that an AG can file a case whenever he or she chooses to (maybe I was not clear on that). 30. Scott Mandia started it!"-. Rob Honeycutt at 04:03 AM on 23 September.. I fear that John might edit this as it is OT.says the albatross pointing a huge wing at post #22. 31. 2010 The Guardian still doesn't have a working link to this article. I'm sure as soon as John gets up we're both busted. 2010 Hi Rob @38. . but to do so without sufficient grounds is probably not good for one's career . 2010 Rob @34. . 34. Albatross at 04:11 AM on 23 September. snapple at 09:05 AM on 23 September. I have a self imposed deadline to meet and am clearly procrastinating. In that. but I want to clarify something before letting everyone move on.. 2010 Albatross. the politicians are getting a lot of money from fossil fuel interests. the case didn't need to have any merit at all.Taking the high road does not mean that we have to check our principles and justice system at the door. 2010 Albatross. In contrast. "But Dr. The Virginia AG did not have grounds to investigate Mann. I do now feel obligated to answer questions asked of me. 32. nor was it a legitimate action-he was clearly on a witch hunt and fishing for something.-) Sometimes I think we're living in upside down world in US politics today where doing stupid things can actually propel your career. No need to apologise to me. I'm just concerned that we are distracting from the point of the post-. Literally.
Loehle. They are going to take over consumer affairs. "How to be a successful scientist. Also . Have at it. ." Yep. Philippe Chantreau at 02:00 AM on 24 September. They don't care what is true. 39." They are going to try to destroy the scientists by hiring politicians and lawyers. Cheers! 38. it's free money. CoalGeologist at 00:35 AM on 26 September. The importance and value of this document is that it directly addresses Monckton's arguments.Sometimes these "professional services" are just ways of laundering money from foreign entities to US politicians. 2010 Roger. Roger D at 12:30 PM on 25 September. 2010 Climate skepticism is like the Gold Rush. 23-Sep)." Maybe I'm missing something but some seemingly reliable internet sites state that corals did exist in the Cambrian. no fancy statistics. who wrote a book titled. symbiotic or otherwise: they had not evolved then. from the guy whose publication record is (almost?) exclusively in E&E.. there is a large public out there ready to pay you to continue telling them what they want to hear. who do the cooking and the laundry and sell the booze to the miners.that makes sense. to the climate scientists who worked on this. Maybe I'll have to dig out that 25 year old Historical Geology text. Veron: "There were no corals in the Cambrian. convened by the U. They want to sell gas. Steven Mosher with his climategate book. That's what they do in the part of "Europe" they come from. I have some experience of such "Europeans. 36. There is so little gold to be had that it's truly not worth the effort. without requiring people who are less well grounded in the scientific evidence to juxtapose this evidence on their own. But then there are the clever ones. No data analysis required. believe it or not. Roger D at 13:06 PM on 24 September. again.Thanks John C for the website 40.. They're the ones getting rich. . Then there is Watts. 2010 I've learned from an informed source that at hearings on "Extreme Weather in a Warming World" held two days ago (Thurs. Rob Honeycutt at 01:12 AM on 25 September. There are some very clever climate skeptics out there cashing in on the rush. I believe solitary corals developed in the Cambrian but reef forming corals came about in the early Ordovician. Quit wasting your time on a blog Ken. Bravo. 2010 An insignificant point really to Dr.. no Rossby Waves. They're all working hard for the miners and raking in the dough. And Monckton with his speech tour.S. Verons response to Monckton's faulty logic.. but on page 5 of Climate Scientists Respond there is the statement by Dr. just some good ol' talk in a book with a shocking title. no headache-generating line by line radiative transfer model. Anyway. 37. and all the ads he gets on his site. plus the exposure transferred to his electric car project.. a devastating rebuttal to Monckton. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that one Committee member requested that the scientists' rebuttal of Monckton be entered into the official record. 2010 Thank you Rob re: @38.
. 2010 Re: CoalGeologist (40. The first method is by modelling: . Login via the left margin or if you're new. 2010 UPDATE: Unless I missed it the first time.. Daniel Bailey at 01:14 AM on 26 September. then the planet isn’t going to warm up very much. This is very important because if it is low. There are two ways of working out what climate sensitivity is (a third way – waiting a century – isn’t an option.By the way. the hearing proceedings have just been posted: http://globalwarming. climate sensitivity isn’t one of them. © Copyright 2010 John CookLinks | Translations | About Us | Contact Us Tuesday. You need to be logged in to post a comment. concentrations of heat-trapping pollutioncontinue to rise in our atmosphere. but we’ll come to that in a moment). 2010 Risky Business: Gambling on Climate Sensitivity There are some things about our climate we are pretty certain about. If sensitivity is high. Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming: "Meanwhile. plus lots of other multi-media resources. committing us to further warming in the decades ahead... Unfortunately. Thanks again! The Yooper Post a Comment Political. register here. 41.41) Thanks for posting the links." Strong statement from a politician. This led me to an interesting and potentially valuable information resource related to climate change I hadn't seen previously.house. 21 September. CoalGeologist at 00:53 AM on 26 September. off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. as some sceptics argue. Markey. I pulled this statement out of the Opening Statement by Representative Edward J. Climate sensitivity is the estimate of how much the earth's climate will warm if carbon dioxide equivalents are doubled. then we could be in for a very bad time indeed. Comments Policy. providing a compilation of testimony presented before the Committee.gov/pubs?id=0023#main_content 42. Nothing posted yet from Thursdays hearings.
97°F) .24°F ) on average . with a likely maximum of 4.36°F). The lowest estimate of warming is close to the models .2°C (9.5°C (6. averaging 5.1°F).Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2. paleoclimate records.5°C (8. The second method calculates climate sensitivity directly from physical evidence: These calculations use data from sources like ice cores. at an average of around 3. ocean heat uptake and solar cycles.8°C (3.4°F). It’s all a matter of degree .3°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5. to work out how much additional heat the doubling of greenhouse gases will produce.but the upper estimate is a little more consistent. but upper estimates vary a lot.1.
huntjanin at 16:05 PM on 21 September. and a particularly foolish one. The 2007 IPCC report proposed a range of sea level rises based on different increases in temperature." That is the essential point of the post: it is a form of gambling. A minority claim the climate is less sensitive than we think. the implication being we don’t need to do anything much about it.To the lay person. if I were to ask to any change at all. Consider a rise in sea levels. nobody knows for sure quite how much the temperature will rise. MattJ at 16:31 PM on 21 September. But climate sensitivity is not just an abstract exchange of statistics relevant only to scientists. Posted by gpwayne at 14:19 PM Printable Version | Link to this page Comments Comments 1 to 7: 1. I was pretty pleased with the way it built up carefully to the pivotal and climactic statements. it would be right here. gambling with the entire ecology of the planet. This post is the Basic version (written by Graham Wayne) of the skeptic argument "Climate sensitivity is low". It also tells us about the likely changes to the climate that today's children will inherit. All the models and evidence confirm a minimum warming close to 2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with a most likely value of 3°C and the potential to warm 4.5°C or even more. the arguments against mitigation because of climate sensitivity are a form of gambling. Inaction or complacency heightens risk. but we now know they underestimated sea level rise. In fact. the arguments are obscure and complicated by other factors. for example. In this light. In fact. For the stout of heart. There are also many other possible effects of a 2°C rise (3. are very worrying. rather than at the end: . we should wait and see. In truth. as a result of a two degree rise in temperature. be sure to also check out theAdvanced Version by Dana which is currently getting rave reviews on Climate Progress.but on a planetary scale. but rise it will. and the actual increase will be governed by climate sensitivity. Predictions range from centimetres to many metres." 2. like the time the climate takes to respond. Others suggest that because we can't tell for sure. 2010 I thought the last sentence was already pretty good. Current estimates of sea level rise alone. It really doesn't need the "before it is too late" kind of thing huntjanin proposes. like that game 'chicken' middle schoolers play -. In this light. More worrying is that the current projections do not account for recently accelerated melting of polar regions. along the lines of "remedial measures should therefore be adopted befor it is too late. Even such a small rise would signal many damaging and highly disruptive changes to the environment.6°F) that would be very disruptive. "Even such a small rise would signal many damaging and highly disruptive changes to the environment. the arguments against mitigation because of climate sensitivity are a form of gambling. in part because of a lack of data about the behaviour of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets. perhaps by a factor of three. 2010 Good post but in my opinion it needs a last sentence. and the welfare of everyone on it.
My impression is that our time horizon is pretty near. and stressing the potential disastrous outcomes . 2010 I thought the entire article was well written. In this I'm more with Hansen. it affects everyone else as well. The sad bit is that some people look at that problem. it doesn't affect me" and push the button anyway. 2010 Riccardo "My impression is that our time horizon is pretty near. and alarmism on the other. a neighbourhood in Bangladesh.. adelady at 18:21 PM on 21 September." 3. 5. which will of course lead to dismissal by the denialosphere.. if you're wrong. Sure. that 'only' takes out your neighbourhood. but. When people talk about this they don't really visualise it.. In this sense we are culturally limited to the financial-style next quarter results. Michael Le Page at 20:16 PM on 21 September. (Mind you.." I really think it's a failure of the imagination. with planetary disaster for the price of losing. it's a bit of a hybrid but based on past changes in CO2. thanks. they just hope that they'll be decent people who'll enjoy life in much the same way we do.. I'd hope that our descendants will see that we did our best even though it was too little too late for some things they'll never get to see. we're not able (or not willing) to consider long term plans. it may just be a sub-kiloton tactical nuke. 2010 Apart from the die-hard skeptics. and they think "Meh. Regarding the above comments on gambling. but the price paid is unimaginably high compared to any other form of gambling. 2010 A few little things that struck me: It seems a little odd to include Royer 2007 in the climate model category. but with nuclear weapons. 4. it doesn't just affect you. for example. it'll be just the way the world is. Graham. the skeptic tendency to leave zero space between 'alarmism' and 'nothing to worry about' makes that a particularly difficult task. it might be the launch code for the world's entire arsenal. Then again. These considerations does not apply just to climate or global resources limitation but even to our everyday life. So I might. I think that for the general public is not even a gambling. And it's the prologue for the disaster. say.it's more like playing russian roulette. between over-caution on the one hand. Bern at 17:14 PM on 21 September. I see good possibilities if this generation and the next does the right thing. which may lead to complacency. I can speculate about my grandchildren's grandchildren. . Riccardo at 17:46 PM on 21 September. But my generation is not too thrilled about the way our predecessors mucked up our forests and agricultural lands and introduced pests of every kind.) If the more pessimistic results from the climate models are at all correct. one where the odds are not only heavily against us. but such a particularly reckless one. Of course for them. 6.I guess it's a fine line to be walked. I see nasty stuff if we and they don't.something to make it clear that we are not talking about just any 'gambling'. we're not able (or not willing) to consider long term plans. it's not just gambling .. change "a form of gambling" to "the worst sort of gamble. or a low-lying island nation. and see that it might not be their neighbourhood.
You need to be logged in to post a comment.The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure. why not include Lunt 2010 and Pagani 2010? 7. and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000.. Scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth. © Copyright 2010 John CookLinks | Translations | About Us | Contact Us Monday..." This is an astonishingly false statement to make. Riccardo at 01:20 AM on 22 September. It was also reproduced in Michael Crichton's science fiction novel State of Fear. Post a Comment Political. What I've tryed to say is that it's a broader cultural problem and consequently broader changes in our societies are required. Misrepresentations of Hansen's Projections The 'Hansen was wrong' myth originated from testimony by scientist Pat Michaels before US House of Representatives in which he claimed "Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0. which featured a scientist claiming that Hansen's 1988 projections were "overestimated by 300 percent. 20 September. Login via the left margin or if you're new.11°C. or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. In this. particularly before the US Congress. science alone is not enough. maybe i looked pessimistic while i'm not. Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth." Compare the figure Michaels produced to make this claim (Figure 1) to the corresponding figure taken directly out of Hansen's 1988 study (Figure 2). Hansen chose 3 scenarios to model. register here. Comments Policy. off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. . 2010 adelady. (1988) used a global climate model to simulate the impact of variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases and aerosols on the global climate. where does that the top limit for Royer come from? The paper states "GEOCARBSULF simulations cannot exclude the possibility of a high climate sensitivity"? Finally. 2010 A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections Hansen et al.. Unable to predict future human greenhouse gas emissions or model every single possibility..Also.
which did not occur. .Figure 1: Pat Michaels' presentation of Hansen's projections before US Congress Figure 2: Projected global surface air temperature changes in Scenarios A. Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth. In other words. and C (Hansen 1988) Notice that Michaels erased Hansen's Scenarios B and C despite the fact that as discussed above. to support the claim that Hansen's projections were "an astounding failure. B." Michaels only showed the projection which was based on the emissions scenario which was furthest from reality.
and flatten out in the 2010s. . then what was its climate sensitivity? This is obviously an oversimplified conclusion. Hansen's projections showed slightly more warming than reality. therefore Hansen was wrong." In fact. The rate of increase of CCl3F and CCl2F2 increase by 3% in the '80s. Yet a common reaction to Hansen's 1988 projections is "he overestimated the rate of warming. and it's important to examine why Hansen's projections didn't match up with the actual surface temperature change. observed global temperature changes (Schmidt 2009) As you can see. when skeptical climate scientist John Christy blogged about Hansen's 1988 study. Gavin Schmidt helpfully provides the annual atmospheric concentration of these and other compounds in Hansen's Scenarios.5% per year in the 2000s. 1% in the '00s. nor were they "an astounding failure" by any reasonably honest assessment. Figure 3: Hansen's projected vs. his entire conclusion was "The result suggests the old NASA GCM was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere. The projected concentrations in 1984 and 2010 in Scenario B (in parts per million or billion by volume [ppmv and ppbv]) are shown in Table 1. 1% per year in the 1990s. and flattens out (at a 1. 0. but clearly they were neither off by a factor of 4.9 ppmv per year increase for CO2) in the 2010s." Christy didn't even bother to examine why the global climate model was too sensitive or what that tells us. If the model was too sensitive.Gavin Schmidt provides a comparison between all three scenarios and actual global surface temperature changes in Figure 3. Hansen's Assumptions Greenhouse Gas Changes and Radiative Forcing Hansen's Scenario B has been the closest to the actual greenhouse gas emissions changes.5% per year in the 1980s. 2% in the '90s. Scenario B assumes that the rate of increasing atmospheric CO2 and methane increase by 1. That's what we'll do here.
a radiative forcing).24 ppbv 0.25*(0.541-0.16 W/m2 dF(CCl3F) = 0.022 W/m2 dF(CH4) =0.31x10-15 1750(1750*304)1.662 W/m2 dF(N2O) = 0.1750) .(f(M0.01x10-5 (1750*304)0. (1998).01x10-5 (1750*329)0. we can estimate what the actual climate sensitivity value would have to be for Hansen's climate model to accurately project the average temperature change.01x10-5 (2220*304)0. The relationship between a change in global surface temperature (dT).0.75+5. as projected by Hansen's Scenario B in 2010.036*( M . Hansen's climate model had a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.47*(ln[1+2.2°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 [2xCO2].1/343.036*( 2220 .221) = 0. climate sensitivity (λ).N0) . Actual Climate Sensitivity .080 W/m2 dF(CCl2F2) = 0.31x10-15 1750(1750*304)1. and radiative forcing (dF).31x10-151750(1750*329)1.18 W/m2 Total Scenario B greenhouse gas radiative forcing from 1984 to 2010 = 1.52]ln[1+2.N0)) = 0.Table 1: Scenario B greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration in 1984.75+5.937-0. and knowing the subsequent global surface temperature change.N0) .31x10-152220(2220*304)1.54 ppbv CCl2F2 .f(M0.32*(0.52]) = 0.378) = 0.12*( 329 .a.75+5.47*(ln[1+2.75+5.(f(M.f(M0. is dT = λ*dF Knowing that the actual radiative forcing was slightly lower than Hansen's Scenario B. based on the formulas from Myhre et al. Climate Sensitivity Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere (a.038 ppbv 0.35*ln(389.94 ppbv We can then calculate the radiative forcings for these greenhouse gas concentration changes.01x10-5 (1750*304)0.0.304) .06 W/m2 (NASA GISS). B 2010 Actual 2010 392 ppmv 323 ppbv 1788 ppbv 0. dF(CO2) = 5. Thus the greenhouse gas radiative forcing in Scenario B was too high by about 5%.54 ppbv 344 ppmv 389 ppmv 304 ppbv 329 ppbv 1750 ppbv 2220 ppbv 0.M0) .52]ln[1+2.8) = 0.N0)) = 0.k.12*( N .N) .1 W/m2 The actual greenhouse gas forcing from 1984 to 2010 was approximately 1.52]) =0. and actual concentration in 2010 GHG CO2 N2O CH4 CCl3F 1984 Scen.22 ppbv 0.
.4°C for a 2xCO2. while the latter shows a 0. as you can see." The question is. more pronounced warming over the land masses of the northern hemisphere.95 = 3. However. as well as hot spots in northern and southern Africa.One tricky aspect of Hansen's study is that he references "global surface air temperature. Had the sensitivity been 3. we're not yet in the decade of the 2010s (which will almost certainly be warmer than the 2000s).4°C warming for 2xCO2 In other words.20/0. we can then make a rough estimate regarding what its climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 should have been: λ = dT/dF = (4. this is due to the fact that as discussed above. the reason Hansen's global temperature projections were too high was primarily because his climate model had a climate sensitivity that was too high. So we'll assume that the global surface air temperature trend since 1984 has been one of 0. which is a better estimate for this. and is even a bit above the widely accepted value of 3°C for 2xCO2.21°C per decade warming trend. 1990s.26])/0. Given that the Scenario B radiative forcing was too high by about 5% and its projected surface air warming rate was 0. and had Hansen decreased the radiative forcing in Scenario B slightly. This is within the range of climate sensitivity values in the IPCC report.19°C per decade global warming trend.2°C * [0. etc. we can compare recent global temperature maps to Hansen's maps to evaluate their accuracy.2°C for 2xCO2. Although the decade of the 2010s has just begun. but rather an argument against climate sensitivity being as high as 4. Hansen et al.20°C per decade warming. he would have correctly projected the ensuing global surface air temperature increase. (2006) – which evaluates Hansen 1988 – uses both and suggests the true answer lies in between. the met station index (which does not cover a lot of the oceans). Hansen's model correctly projected amplified warming in the Arctic. and Hansen's climate model projected a higher rate of warming due to a high climate sensitivity. or the land-ocean index (which uses satellite ocean temperature changes in addition to the met stations)? According to NASA GISS. but it's also an argument for climate sensitivity being around 3. Although the actual amount of warming (Figure 5) has been less than projected in Scenario B (Figure 4). The argument "Hansen's projections were too high" is thus not an argument against anthropogenic global warming or the accuracy of climate models.4°C for 2xCO2. Spatial Distribution of Warming Hansen's study also produced a map of the projected spatial distribution of the surface air temperature change in Scenario B for the 1980s. west Antarctica. and 2010s. The spatial distribution of the warming is very close to his projections. the former shows a 0.26°C per decade.
it's likely larger in the long-term due to slow-acting feedbacks). After reading this. he would have projected the ensuing rate of global surface temperature change accurately. Not only that. Dana went ahead and wrote a Basic Version also.4°C for 2xCO2 (at least in the short-term. I realised Dana's rebuttal was a lot better than my original rebuttal so I asked him to rewrite the Intermediate Version. but he projected the spatial distribution of the warming with a high level of accuracy.Figure 4: Scenario B decadal mean surface air temperature change map (Hansen 1988) Figure 5: Global surface temperature anomaly in 2005-2009 as compared to 1951-1980 (NASA GISS) Hansen's Accuracy Had Hansen used a climate model with a climate sensitivity of approximate 3.5°C for 2xCO2. krab at 14:15 PM on 20 September. Enjoy! Posted by dana1981 at 11:38 AM Printable Version | Link to this page Comments 1 2 3 Next Comments 1 to 50 out of 121: 1. And just for the sake of thoroughness. The takehome message should not be "Hansen was wrong therefore climate models and the anthropogenic global warming theory are wrong. 2010 . This post is the Advanced version (written by dana1981) of the skeptic argument "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong"." the correct conclusion is that Hansen's study is another piece of evidence that climate sensitivity is in the IPCC stated range of 2-4.
2010 I wonder if you would consider typesetting the math with LaTeX? Would make it lots more readable.ma. "Hansen got it wrong" is a lie . krab at 15:12 PM on 20 September. 4. 3. If the temperature curve nicely follows Hansen's scenario B. 2010 One thing that folks should keep in mind is that your typical el-cheapo BestBuy/Walmart/whatever laptop has more computing horsepower than what Hansen had available to him to conduct his climate-modeling simulations back in 1988. and also give folks a fuller appreciation of Hansen's genius. http://residualanalysis. 2010 The other thing that I think should be pointed out is that Hansen scenario B was also taking into consideration a large volcanic eruption in 1995 while Pinatubo . and he is off by a few tenths of a degree over 22 years! And the fix is very clear . 2010 It is hard to look at Hansen's 1988 work without seeing he got it right! A few quibbles.once you also correct for that the scenario B already looks identical to real measured values! 6. Says 1998. 2010 @paulm: That website proves nothing. Moderator Response: Please provide more context when you post a link. But its contribution to dF is much smaller than the linear part.. With 22 years more research.. 8. The particular objection raised is that for example d^2F/d(CO2)/d(N2O) is not zero. thanks 2.codecogs. The takehome message is climate scientists have this dialed in. use http://www. Radiative forcing F is a multivariate nonlinear function. paulm at 15:11 PM on 20 September.which can be clearly seen in the actual data .was in 1991 . we can Taylor-expand and to first order it is the sum of the first derivatives. should be 1988. 7.us/tth/ 5.php.belmont.com/2010/02/twin-ghgs-paradox. Or if you already know LaTeX.html The Twin GHGs Paradox The means by which a greenhouse gas (GHG) forces climate change is sometimes called radiative forcing. You cannot simply compare one of Hansen's scenarios with what actually happened in terms of outcomes. krab at 16:05 PM on 20 September.com/latex/eqneditor. But for small variations.g. Sense Seeker at 20:26 PM on 20 September. caerbannog at 16:52 PM on 20 September.blogspot. it contributes to the uncertainty (error-bar) in the calculation. actually thoughtfull at 14:30 PM on 20 September. 2010 Something here does not make sense. I agree it's not.he used 4. just use TTH: http://hutchinson. This should put things in perspective here. Response: Fixed. As it's unknown.4 for climate sensitivity.pure and simple.2 instead of 3 or 3.Misprint on the first line. but the emissions increased . You could e. but the major mechanisms are all included. 2010 Heres some interesting analysis. current models are that much better. Nowhere do you mention what the actual emissions WERE over the intervening period. if you do not take into account the inputs. macwithoutfries at 15:40 PM on 20 September.
Riccardo at 23:27 PM on 20 September. you needn't bother with any calculation. and then conclude that Hansen's model was almost accurate." 10. 2010 I clicked the link to NASA-GISS for the +1. you missed something. 12. Tenney Naumer at 21:14 PM on 20 September.. (Unless I missed something more. Two quotes from the post: "Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth. You can just read if from the graph. Ken Lambert at 23:04 PM on 20 September. The calculations did not use Hansen's model. 14. rather than the one from Scenario B? The calculations seem to be based on scenario B.txt and found data only to 2003 and nothing like +1. Riccardo at 20:46 PM on 20 September. 11. Please explain the calculation? My eyesight must be playing tricks for I see the actual temperatures running close or below Scenario C not Scenario B. his accuracy will have been prophetic. I can see Hansen got it about right. Sense Seeker at 21:15 PM on 20 September.) Shouldn't Table 1 give the realised Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Concentration in 1984 and 2010. If you only want to test the model. Is that what you meant? And what of the climate responses .e. is seems) with an unexplained NASA method. The real ones may be most like scenario B compared to A or C. but a set of equations from a different source (Myhre et al 1998). you are mostly right but not completely. Comparison with the forcings as established (beyond doubt. 2010 And if you want to test Hansen's scenario B as a prediction. 2010 There is one more thing I don't understand.. 2010 . Hansen's model was overestimating by a much larger margin. 15. according to scenario A). Sense Seeker at 21:22 PM on 20 September. I am sorry. which did not occur. but are unlikely to be identical.1. 9.where is the estimate of WV and Ice albedo feedback and radiative cooling feedback? Seems like a contrived Hansen apologia with only half the story to me. but this posting adds little to my understanding. Sense Seeker at 21:09 PM on 20 September.m 2010 relative to 1984 forcing here: http://data. not the realised emissions.1W/sq..giss. 2010 Ricardo.nasa. you need to use the observed emissions as input.exponentially (i. 2010 Once the data for 2010 are used. rather than the underlying model. 13. 2010 Sense Seeker.gov/modelforce/RadF. which is of course now a non-negligible option." "Hansen's Scenario B has been the closest to the actual greenhouse gas emissions changes.
Albatross at 01:19 AM on 21 September. I think I was still using an Atari 800 at the time. Riccardo at 00:23 AM on 21 September. indeed. natural cooling is ignored in GCM. Riccardo at 23:37 PM on 20 September.transparency and rigor that he demands of the IPCC? . How could he know the actual emissions in the future? Someone else could do now some new calculations with actual emissions and best available model now. Why should they be listed in the same table as the forcings? The albedo. Ken Lambert at 23:55 PM on 20 September. This attitude just highlight the unwillingness to learn the science but still dismissing it. do you? Anyway.both radiative and feedbacks. Riccardo at 00:19 AM on 21 September. 2010 First I want to say that to be able to come up with those projections in 1988 is remarkable. It happens on a time frame of millennia which usually is not considered. 20. 2010 Riccardo #16 Unfortunately the measures 'air surface temperature' and GISS and HADCRUT3 temperature anomalies are the result of ALL the forcings ." (sic). is the idea that we should be naturally cooling incorporated into the model. it's much more than this. So we are closest Scenario C with the temperature record?? 18. 2010 Ken Lambert. still confusing forcings and feebacks. Hansen calculation also are "the result of ALL the forcings . 2010 Wonder if Michaels is going to retract the misleading and erroneous testimony that he gave before US House of Representatives? I mean in the spirit of accountability. Of course I assume it is but just one of those nagging questions. water vapour feedbacks and others are the results of the full calculations and are not parametrized. Claiming that Hansen was out by only 5% on half the story when the feedbacks (particularly WV and CO2 interaction) are the least understood is the missing part of this article. 19.both radiative and feedbacks. And within 5%. feedback.) #13 the model is not on radiative forcing alone. 16. it's way too easy to talk about apologia without even bothering to look at the details on how things work. 2010 Ken Lambert. 21. 17. not forcings. #10 in this post there's a comparison of Hansen's calculation in 1988 not a thorough comparison of model results. Scrooge at 00:09 AM on 21 September. Now this may be a stupid question but as discussed in a previous post. A good idea for a new post . I think you should dig a little bit more on GCMs.Sense Seeker. 2010 Scrooge. NASA GISS provide a lot ofinformations (and the code itself) that I'm sure you'll find intersting. Radiative forcings come from radiative tranfer codes that are pluged into the GCMs. The feedbacks are. but this is a different story. it is called a General Circulation Model (GCM).
it was not obvious to me when I first read it.as the GISS forcing link only provided data up to 2003. Scenarios B and C were very similar (perhaps identical. so comparing to Scenario C rather than B doesn't make sense.. I can see what you were trying to do. dana1981 at 02:54 AM on 21 September. would seem to be arguing that Hansen 1988 was correct. 2010 A close look at Figure 3 shows that temperatures are actually running below Scenario C the zero-increase in CO2 from 2000.. Hansen 2006 essentially explained HOW the 1988 analysis got it wrong. which is what matters for these calculations. Am I correct in understanding that emission scenarios B and C were the same up until 2000? 22. This decline has not happened. It is a pity that the detour via forcings is there. Albatross . but I guess that is the best way to summarise all different emissions? (I cannot judge that. which are reasonably close to Hansen's values. If actual results continued tracking along scenario C for 15+ years then the model would be off significantly. 23. Hansen's 'short term' climate sensitivity factor in 1988 was definitely too high and thus his results should be expected to go further off as time goes by. 2010 angusman #22. Sense Seeker at 08:30 AM on 21 September. Also Hansen '88 provided his formulas for dT but not dF.. above in others). and then compare Hansen's output (= projected temperatures) with the real output (= realised temperatures). You are comparing the inputs of Hansen's scenario B (translated into forcings) and the actual changes in the input variables (as 'observed' forcings). Therefore.) You could consider explaining why the translation into forcings is necessary and justified.Excellent job Dana. 2010 A night's sleep does help. Since 2005 actual temperatures have been roughly in line with scenario C (below in some years. that is FAR too short a time frame on which to judge the validity of the model. 25. That said.06 W/m2. To guide the reader. scenarios B and C and the actual temperature record are all very similar to each other through 2005. the only conclusion that can be made from present day temperature readings is that Hansen (1988 & 2006) got it wrong.yes. but I did provide the actual radiative forcing associated with them. and I would suggest re-reading the rebuttal. so to say that 2006 is itself wrong. which completely misses the point. Actual emissions have not been very similar to Scenario C. so I used Myhre for the dFs. If the warming being seen this year continued then we'd be back 'on track' closer to scenario B. Several commenters have stated that the actual temperatures have run close to Scenario C.. I'd have to go back and look) up until 2000. From that you conclude that Hansen's model was 24% too sensitive. angusmac at 01:22 AM on 21 September.I didn't provide the actual atmospheric concentrations of the various GHGs. you could also consider indicating somewhere in the beginning of your . CBDunkerson at 02:04 AM on 21 September. However. 2010 Sense Seeker . Ken Lambert . I extrapolated to 2010 to get a value of approximately 1. :] 24.
explanation what you are going to do, in broad terms. (Determine difference in input values (GHGs) and compare to differences in output (temp) between Hansen's model and reality.) PS: typo "global surface temperature (dF)" should be (dT)?
26. Joe Blog at 08:49 AM on 21 September, 2010
Youve lost me with this analysis... in the top graph, the closest is scenario C to observations... A and B appear to clearly over estimate climate sensitivity... Now B is the closest to observed emissions clearly, But C is the closest to observations, how can this mean anything other than an overstated climate sensitivity? Now it dosnt matter one iota what anyone's opinion is on what the temps "will be" in a decade, all that matters for testing the model is a straight comparison between projected and observations.
It may be due
27. archiesteel at 09:01 AM on 21 September, 2010
@Joe Blog: "how can this mean anything other than an overstated climate sensitivity" Isn't that the conclusion of the article, i.e. that Hansen overestimated climate sensitiviy (4.2C instead of 3.4C)?
28. Joe Blog at 09:08 AM on 21 September, 2010
archiesteel Yes, so Hansen was wrong, in his climate sensitivity. It certainly doesn't prove Hansens projections were accurate, or disprove criticisms of his projections, as the article claims to do.
29. Rob Honeycutt at 09:23 AM on 21 September, 2010
Joe... You have to bear in mind this is coming from a study done in 1988 and it's an incredibly complex model. Given that Hansen managed to closely predict warming for the following 22 years is astounding. As well, give how much less was known at the time about climate sensitivity it's amazing that he settled on a number that is so close to reality. The scenario C is actually not as close because (I believe) it used more optimistic GHG emissions rates that didn't come to pass. B has the right GHG emissions and is only off on climate sensitivity by 0.8C. It's also impressive that his middle scenario is the closest. It's what you'd be aiming for in a study like this. Think of it this way. What if you had to guess what global temperatures would be 22 years from now. How close could you get? This is essentially Hansen hitting the first ring outside the bulls eye from a very very very long distance.
30. dana1981 at 09:57 AM on 21 September, 2010
archiesteel - you are correct. Joe Blog, you have missed the point entirely. The point, once again, is that yes, Hansen's model's sensitivity of 4.2°C for 2xCO2 is too high (in the short-term), but it also tells us that 3.4°C for 2xCO2 is approximately right.
This sort of inability to see past the conclusion you want to see is exactly what I was talking about - "a common reaction to Hansen's 1988 projections is 'he overestimated the rate of warming, therefore Hansen was wrong'...This is obviously an oversimplified conclusion, and it's important to examine why Hansen's projections didn't match up with the actual surface temperature change. That's what we'll do here..."
31. dana1981 at 10:04 AM on 21 September, 2010
Sense Seeker - you can't get to a surface temperature change from a GHG change without determining the associated forcing (and knowing the climate sensitivity parameter). I'm a big proponent of 'show your work', so I don't want to skip that step. Personally I think the logical process in the advanced version is reasonably clear, but the intermediate and basic versions are less detailed for those who just want to get the general gist.
32. dana1981 at 10:22 AM on 21 September, 2010
I did like your comment on adding the actual 2010 GHG concentrations to Table 1, Sense Seeker, and have updated the post accordingly.
33. John Chapman at 14:43 PM on 21 September, 2010
A slightly pedantic point ... in the calculation the input figures are 3 or 4 significnat figures. Please make them two. eg. 389 ppm -> 390, 329 -> 330, 1788 -> 1800. The rounding will not affect the final 2 sig fig result.
34. NETDR at 20:44 PM on 21 September, 2010
I think the article is far too forgiving with Dr Hansen. He got it significantly wrong. From 1988 to 2010 his graph shows his predicted warming to be. 1.0 ° C - .31 ° C = 69 ° C From 1988 to present [Aug 2010] the warming has been .53 ° C - .31 ° C = .22 ° C http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png Giving Hanson the benefit of the doubt and using GISS’s own numbers: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt The earth only warmed 31 % as much as predicted. This is less than scenario “C” which is what was predicted for what would happen with stringent carbon cuts. When the “debate is over” you have all of the answers and are expected to be correct. If he got climate sensitivity wrong that is just an excuse, this means his predictions of 2020 and beyond will be way off track and getting worse each decade.
35. CBDunkerson at 21:52 PM on 21 September, 2010
NETDR, there are a couple of glaring flaws in your analysis; "From 1988 to present [Aug 2010] the warming has been .53 ° C - .31 ° C = .22 ° C" 0.53 C is the anomaly for JUST August 2010 while 0.31 C is the anomaly for the entire year 1988. Monthly variations are, of course, greater than annual variations. This method is also subject to huge variations depending on the precise timing. If we pick different months, say March 2010 with 0.84 C anomaly minus November 1988 with -0.03 C anomaly we get a +0.87 C increase... MORE than the model predicted.
Also, LOOK at the Hansen graph in the URL you posted. The temperature values BEFORE 1988 diverge significantly from the actual temperature record in individual years. For instance, for 1981 scenario B 'predicted' (7 years after the fact) that the anomaly had been roughly double what the actual record showed. From this we can conclude either that Hansen's model was wrong before it was even released... OR we could be remotely logical and realize that these models were never intended to precisely match each and every year... which is the test you are applying. A model is 'accurate' if it matches the long term trend. Picking out individual years (or months) and saying 'the model is off by X% at this moment in time' is meaningless. Through 2005 the model trend lined up with scenarios B & C. Since 2005 it has lined up with scenario C while emissions have actually been just a bit below those assumed for scenario B. Thus, it could be said that the trend isn't matching the model's prediction for our approximate emissions over the past five years... except that is a ridiculously short period of time on which to base a trend.
36. NETDR at 00:15 AM on 22 September, 2010
CB Dunkerson  If you notice all scenarios start approximately together in 1988. They can’t possibly exactly predict the past exactly without cheating. They were adjusted to converge on the right answer in 1988. [No problem, I would do it that way too.] You complained that the time period I chose for my end point was too short. Let’s go back to 2009 and use a 5 year average. The 5 year average for 1988 was .25 ° C [Anomaly] The 5 year average for 2009 was .54° C The 5 year average for Hansen’s prediction is hard to get precisely but it seems to be .9 ° C http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt Let’s do the math. The chart predicts .9 ° C - .25 ° C = .65 Reality is .54 - .25 = .29 Even with uncorrected UHI and other surface station issues. If I had used Satellite data his predictions look worse, because there are no perking lots in space. In my book that is pretty poor performance. His excuses ring hollow to me, it is like the horse player who bets on the wrong horse but shows how he could have picked the right one if only. Everyone “could have” and “should have “. Putting those guesses to work on predicting the future will verify or refute them. Anyone can predict the past.
37. Baz at 00:25 AM on 22 September, 2010
Can someone help me out here? I can't see (by eyeballing) that the actual temps match any of them, even C. However, that's not important to me. Can someone please explain why the graph shows HadCRUt3 (in pink) dipping well into the 0.5s when the data says it hasn't.
CBDunkerson at 01:29 AM on 22 September. 41..54° C" Actually. CBDunkerson at 02:36 AM on 22 September.like the horse player who bets on the wrong horse but shows how he could have picked the right one if only. . 2010 NETDR #36 writes. The 'UHI skews temperature records' and 'satellite temperatures are different' bits have been debunked on this site so many times that I can't be bothered.9 C (the only one which comes close is 2009) it definitely IS hard to get how you come up with that average. Apparently you rounded down. 2010 .9 ° C" Yes. Or one can take the approach of imagining much of the field had never raced. Baz at 02:10 AM on 22 September. 2010 Re: Baz (37) "Can someone please explain why the graph shows HadCRUt3 (in pink) dipping well into the 0.5s when the data says it hasn't. it's a little irritating how many people can't get past the "it looks like Scenario C" perception.55 C based on the URL you provided. but after the Email Episode he stopped replying to my emails! 37.uea. :) The Yooper 39. Seriously.. "The 5 year average for 2009 was .. dana1981 at 02:02 AM on 22 September. 0. Is the entire rebuttal over their heads? Are they just incapable of seeing anything other than what they want to see? 42.txt I know there is obviously a simple explanation! Thanks. doug_bostrom at 00:58 AM on 22 September.http://www. anyone? Please excuse my ignorance.. thus concluding one's own pick won. 38. Daniel Bailey at 00:42 AM on 22 September.cru. down to the month. 2010 dana1981 #41: Are you assuming they actually READ the whole article? It seems pretty clear to me that several of those posting objections have not." You can try asking Phil Jones. how about ignoring most available data in order to gin up a comfy conclusion? 40.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl. since all of the values from 2005 through 2009 on scenario B are clearly less than 0. 2010 Thanks Daniel." Yet your prior post objected to their 'failure' to exactly predict the future. "They can’t possibly exactly predict the past exactly without cheating. Alternatively. 43. 2010 I have to say.ac. "The 5 year average for Hansen’s prediction is hard to get precisely but it seems to be .
. Figure 2 is virtually worthless to anyone not already familiar with its contents.The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure. in how they have chosen to interpret the predictions vrs temp. I still think we are effecting climate through co2 emissions. some of the criticisms cited are pushing the envelope. or more than four times less than Hansen predicted.. you have demonstrated it. This dosnt change anything. Im not drawing any other conclusion from this. Albatross at 03:30 AM on 22 September.. Climate Sensitivity (CS) in Hansen's early model was too high (4. Michaels said: "Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0. But Hansen had assumed a higher climate sensitivity than observations. Observed rate of warming between 1984 (year simulation started) and 2009 = +0.19 C per decade. does not actually make it right.4 C).5 to +4. this isnt a rebuttal.11°C.. Suggest that someone track down a color version of this graphic and replace the B&W with it. Although Figure 3 is a color graphic. 2010 Christy said: "The result suggests the old NASA GCM was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere.5 C presented in the IPCC's AR4. The relative values should be the same. Joe Blog at 02:55 AM on 22 September.. but I'd guess the problem is different baseline periods. C is the closest scenario to observations in temp.. but the absolute numbers would be shifted by whatever the difference between the baselines is. 2010 @Dana1981 & John Cook: Because it is a poor B&W copy of a color graphic.. that have made the exact same observation???? (John Christy) 45." Schmidt has shown that statement to be patently false. Now obviously. saying if we change his models assumptions to thus. But then you are claiming it as a rebuttal to criticisms. So what percentage of the temperature anomaly is B from observations? This is relevant. 44. Because he did. And you have demonstrated this. 2010 dana1981 at 02:02 AM No dana.Baz #37: I'm not sure which graph you are referring to.2 C versus 3. B is the closest in relation to emissions. Predicted rate of warming over same period (with GHG emissions being too high and with too high a climate sensitivity ." Schmidt and Dana showed this to be a gross exaggeration. Saying why something is dead dosnt change the fact it is dead. especially in the context of the range of uncertainty in CS of +1. If the anomaly numbers you are looking at were computed against a different baseline then the graph then you're going to get different values. but so is this one.. the colors chosen are pretty much shades of the same basic color. Badgersouth at 03:13 AM on 22 September. but a postmortem.. it is obvious from a glance at the predictions vrs observations. other than Hansen had it wrong in 88. but not "considerably" too high. or more accurate. Is it possible to use a different set of colors in this graphic? 46.
Also. [+.29 ° C This is using a 5 year average not a month by month value.6° C 5 Reality is . climate models have very short shelf lives. to my knowledge.in the model) = +0. Dr Hansen's model was seriously wrong but not as seriously as Pat said. . How many models have Dr. Hansen and his team developed since 1998? I presume that each succeeding model was an improvement over its predecessor. . 48. . I suggest that everyone's time and energy would better be spent on focusing on the validity of the forecasts being made today by current crop of climate models than constantly revisiting no longer relevant forecasts made in 1998 by a single model that is no longer in use. That is way beyond our capability at this time.54 ..25 ° C = . What I also found odd is that.26 C. So what? Who said anything about being able to predict the future or past down to the month ? He ran the models and back-cast to obtain the best possible fit. 2010 CB Dunkerson The Pat Michaels analysis is a straw-man defense. There was 44 % as much warming as predicted. Badgersouth at 03:39 AM on 22 September.29 ° C rate for 30 years is continued for 100 years you get about 1 ° C warming which is the value for CO2 alone with no feedback. NETDR at 03:43 AM on 22 September. His prediction Despite your quibbles he was seriously wrong ! The chart predicts .. 2010 As best I can tell from reading the literature. Of course each squiggle of the temperature chart is not matched exactly. 47. the error bars of the observations and predictions data overlap by quite a bit. His model points straight up for 2010 so the model will look worse next year. When you know all of the answers and the “debate is over” you have to be right ! No excuses allowed.25 = . I agree with CBDunkerson's assessment @43. neither Michaels nor Christy have made the effort to make their own predictions concerning the expected rate of warming 20-30 years form now.quibbles] So if the . For this we are seriously discussing tens of trillions of dollars of taxes and cap and trade ? Joe said it right : “This isn’t a rebuttal it is a postmortem” I wasn’t particularly interested in the excuses why Dr Hansen was wrong. And is that is not good enough.9 ° C .
No surprises there. Scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth. 2010 A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections Hansen et al. i suppose it comes down to how exactly you want to measure it.. effecting tropospheric pressure systems (or co2 doing the same) etc. Login via the left margin or if you're new. 50. he may have climate sensitivity right. and the reduced TSI is effecting it? the list goes on. and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000. Misrepresentations of Hansen's Projections . (1988) used a global climate model to simulate the impact of variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases and aerosols on the global climate. Hansen chose 3 scenarios to model. But how exactly this classes as an exoneration is quite frankly escaping me. Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth. Comments Policy. [in 88] Am I missing something ??? 49.. 1 2 3 Next Post a Comment Political. the answer is no. You need to be logged in to post a comment. register here. effecting stratospheric temps. There are actually other possibilities why the discrepancies... 2010 NETDR @48. Unable to predict future human greenhouse gas emissions or model every single possibility. 2010 Albatross at 03:30 I would consider 23% more sensitive substantial. Or did he assume a solar constant. if we go to absolute temperatures. Its just showing how the quantification's can become more confined with a greater data record. 20 September. Albatross at 03:50 AM on 22 September.. we can claim basically absolute accuracy.Any gambler can tell you why he was wrong ! So this article has proven he was wrong [in 88] and claimed it was a rebuttal to those that claim he was wrong. But the Q is. You ask "Am I missing something ???" Yes you are. There is a bit o seeing what yah want to see going on here. off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted.. but other unrelated factors have thrown it off.. © Copyright 2010 John CookLinks | Translations | About Us | Contact Us Monday. Maybe someone else feels more inclined... Why i dont know. say decreased UV effecting ozone.. But I am afraid that I do not have the patience right now. did Hansen 88 accurately model climate since its hindcast. i agree with Dana that this has nothing to do with proving AGW wrong. Joe Blog at 03:55 AM on 22 September. very much so.
." This is an astonishingly false statement to make." Compare the figure Michaels produced to make this claim (Figure 1) to the corresponding figure taken directly out of Hansen's 1988 study (Figure 2). particularly before the US Congress..11°C.The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure. which featured a scientist claiming that Hansen's 1988 projections were "overestimated by 300 percent.The 'Hansen was wrong' myth originated from testimony by scientist Pat Michaels before US House of Representatives in which he claimed "Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0. It was also reproduced in Michael Crichton's science fiction novel State of Fear. or more than four times less than Hansen predicted.. Figure 1: Pat Michaels' presentation of Hansen's projections before US Congress .
Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth.Figure 2: Projected global surface air temperature changes in Scenarios A. which did not occur. and C (Hansen 1988) Notice that Michaels erased Hansen's Scenarios B and C despite the fact that as discussed above. In other words. . to support the claim that Hansen's projections were "an astounding failure. B." Michaels only showed the projection which was based on the emissions scenario which was furthest from reality. Gavin Schmidt provides a comparison between all three scenarios and actual global surface temperature changes in Figure 3.
1% per year in the 1990s.5% per year in the 2000s. as projected by Hansen's Scenario B in 2010. but clearly they were neither off by a factor of 4.9 ppmv per year increase for CO2) in the 2010s. 0. 1% in the '00s. Scenario B assumes that the rate of increasing atmospheric CO2 and methane increase by 1. and actual concentration in 2010 ." Christy didn't even bother to examine why the global climate model was too sensitive or what that tells us." In fact. therefore Hansen was wrong. observed global temperature changes (Schmidt 2009) As you can see. Table 1: Scenario B greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration in 1984. and flatten out in the 2010s. nor were they "an astounding failure" by any reasonably honest assessment. then what was its climate sensitivity? This is obviously an oversimplified conclusion.5% per year in the 1980s. Hansen's projections showed slightly more warming than reality. when skeptical climate scientist John Christy blogged about Hansen's 1988 study. and it's important to examine why Hansen's projections didn't match up with the actual surface temperature change. If the model was too sensitive. Yet a common reaction to Hansen's 1988 projections is "he overestimated the rate of warming. his entire conclusion was "The result suggests the old NASA GCM was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere. and flattens out (at a 1.Figure 3: Hansen's projected vs. The projected concentrations in 1984 and 2010 in Scenario B (in parts per million or billion by volume [ppmv and ppbv]) are shown in Table 1. Hansen's Assumptions Greenhouse Gas Changes and Radiative Forcing Hansen's Scenario B has been the closest to the actual greenhouse gas emissions changes. The rate of increase of CCl3F and CCl2F2 increase by 3% in the '80s. That's what we'll do here. Gavin Schmidt helpfully provides the annual atmospheric concentration of these and other compounds in Hansen's Scenarios. 2% in the '90s.
and radiative forcing (dF).52]ln[1+2.038 ppbv 0.54 ppbv CCl2F2 .52]) =0.0.32*(0.75+5. (1998).31x10-15 1750(1750*304)1.47*(ln[1+2.25*(0.k.0.N0)) = 0.f(M0.01x10-5 (2220*304)0.GHG CO2 N2O CH4 CCl3F 1984 Scen.N) .94 ppbv We can then calculate the radiative forcings for these greenhouse gas concentration changes.01x10-5 (1750*304)0.N0)) = 0.221) = 0.f(M0.N0) . based on the formulas from Myhre et al.75+5.8) = 0.662 W/m2 dF(N2O) = 0.12*( N . which is a better estimate for this.036*( 2220 . dF(CO2) = 5. B 2010 Actual 2010 392 ppmv 323 ppbv 1788 ppbv 0.(f(M. the met station index (which does not cover a lot .31x10-152220(2220*304)1.52]) = 0.M0) . Actual Climate Sensitivity One tricky aspect of Hansen's study is that he references "global surface air temperature." The question is.a.31x10-151750(1750*329)1.75+5.22 ppbv 0.47*(ln[1+2.06 W/m2 (NASA GISS).1750) .18 W/m2 Total Scenario B greenhouse gas radiative forcing from 1984 to 2010 = 1.080 W/m2 dF(CCl2F2) = 0.54 ppbv 344 ppmv 389 ppmv 304 ppbv 329 ppbv 1750 ppbv 2220 ppbv 0. Hansen's climate model had a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4. we can estimate what the actual climate sensitivity value would have to be for Hansen's climate model to accurately project the average temperature change.2°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 [2xCO2]. Climate Sensitivity Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere (a. is dT = λ*dF Knowing that the actual radiative forcing was slightly lower than Hansen's Scenario B. climate sensitivity (λ).N0) . and knowing the subsequent global surface temperature change. Thus the greenhouse gas radiative forcing in Scenario B was too high by about 5%.(f(M0.1 W/m2 The actual greenhouse gas forcing from 1984 to 2010 was approximately 1.31x10-15 1750(1750*304)1.35*ln(389.75+5.16 W/m2 dF(CCl3F) = 0.1/343.12*( 329 . The relationship between a change in global surface temperature (dT).01x10-5 (1750*304)0.937-0.52]ln[1+2.378) = 0.24 ppbv 0.01x10-5 (1750*329)0.036*( M . a radiative forcing).541-0.304) .022 W/m2 dF(CH4) =0.
The argument "Hansen's projections were too high" is thus not an argument against anthropogenic global warming or the accuracy of climate models. Hansen et al. he would have correctly projected the ensuing global surface air temperature increase. Hansen's model correctly projected amplified warming in the Arctic. we can compare recent global temperature maps to Hansen's maps to evaluate their accuracy.26°C per decade. this is due to the fact that as discussed above.26])/0. while the latter shows a 0.2°C * [0. Had the sensitivity been 3. and 2010s. etc. we can then make a rough estimate regarding what its climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 should have been: λ = dT/dF = (4.4°C for a 2xCO2. (2006) – which evaluates Hansen 1988 – uses both and suggests the true answer lies in between. but it's also an argument for climate sensitivity being around 3.4°C warming for 2xCO2 In other words.2°C for 2xCO2. or the land-ocean index (which uses satellite ocean temperature changes in addition to the met stations)? According to NASA GISS. and Hansen's climate model projected a higher rate of warming due to a high climate sensitivity.4°C for 2xCO2. the reason Hansen's global temperature projections were too high was primarily because his climate model had a climate sensitivity that was too high. and is even a bit above the widely accepted value of 3°C for 2xCO2.20°C per decade warming. Although the actual amount of warming (Figure 5) has been less than projected in Scenario B (Figure 4). Although the decade of the 2010s has just begun. as you can see. So we'll assume that the global surface air temperature trend since 1984 has been one of 0.21°C per decade warming trend. However. . 1990s. more pronounced warming over the land masses of the northern hemisphere. as well as hot spots in northern and southern Africa. the former shows a 0. west Antarctica.95 = 3. This is within the range of climate sensitivity values in the IPCC report. and had Hansen decreased the radiative forcing in Scenario B slightly. The spatial distribution of the warming is very close to his projections.19°C per decade global warming trend. Spatial Distribution of Warming Hansen's study also produced a map of the projected spatial distribution of the surface air temperature change in Scenario B for the 1980s. we're not yet in the decade of the 2010s (which will almost certainly be warmer than the 2000s). but rather an argument against climate sensitivity being as high as 4.20/0. Given that the Scenario B radiative forcing was too high by about 5% and its projected surface air warming rate was 0.of the oceans).
Enjoy! Posted by dana1981 at 11:38 AM Printable Version | Link to this page Comments Prev 1 2 3 Next Comments 51 to 100 out of 121: 51. it's likely larger in the long-term due to slow-acting feedbacks).Figure 4: Scenario B decadal mean surface air temperature change map (Hansen 1988) Figure 5: Global surface temperature anomaly in 2005-2009 as compared to 1951-1980 (NASA GISS) Hansen's Accuracy Had Hansen used a climate model with a climate sensitivity of approximate 3. 2010 . but he projected the spatial distribution of the warming with a high level of accuracy. And just for the sake of thoroughness. I realised Dana's rebuttal was a lot better than my original rebuttal so I asked him to rewrite the Intermediate Version. The takehome message should not be "Hansen was wrong therefore climate models and the anthropogenic global warming theory are wrong.5°C for 2xCO2.4°C for 2xCO2 (at least in the short-term. Dana went ahead and wrote a Basic Version also." the correct conclusion is that Hansen's study is another piece of evidence that climate sensitivity is in the IPCC stated range of 2-4. Not only that. he would have projected the ensuing rate of global surface temperature change accurately. This post is the Advanced version (written by dana1981) of the skeptic argument "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong". After reading this. Albatross at 04:14 AM on 22 September.
that is the nature of science. "I would consider 23% more sensitive substantial" Dana is addressing misleading statement made by Michaels and Christy-. Can I assume that you agree with what Michaels and Christy have said on this? Science advances. or I. I for one am not trying to ignore that. or Michaels would venture to make such a prediction and get it even remotely correct. Regardless.20 C per decade). You give it you best shot. you are correct that Pat Michaels misled Senate but so has Dana1981 in this post. angusmac at 04:18 AM on 22 September. know how and guts to make a bold prediction. .Joe.I have also addressed that in my post @46. The range given by IPCC for CS is 1. Anyhow. that all things considered. using the best tools and information at your disposal now. What I take issue is with certain people spinning that. was in good agreement with what actually transpired (predicted warming of 0. They are compared with Scenarios A. Hansen's original model had a CS was clearly on the high end of that range. or down the road you improve upon your initial work.5 through 4. and then someone else comes along and improves upon your technique. 52. B and C in Hansen (2006). The NASA GISS data up to August 2010 are shown in Figure 1. I doubt that you. Hansen had the intellect.26 C per decade versus observed warming almost 0. The blue line denotes the Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI). Hansen's seminal work has served as a building block for others. what you might consider or think is "substantial" is not necessarily indicative of what the reality is.5 C. 2010 #43 Albatross.
Albatross at 04:45 AM on 22 September. 0.19. the claims made by Crichton and others are incorrect and misleading. B. B. certainly not ‘‘wrong by 300%’’ (14)" 54. Nice graph. or your claim (cited above) which is based on your Figure 1 is false. and C.32°C and 0. made a mistake and inadvertently swapped the warming rates for scenario B and C. I do agree #23 CBDunkerson that the time period is still relatively short for comparing the scenarios. even so. Observed temperature change is 0. the data in Hansen et al. and 0. (2006).24°C per decade for scenarios A. You use your Fig. and 0.59.33. 2 in Hansen et al. Hansen et al. Therefore it is incorrect for Dana1981 to contend that temperaturea are currently following a trajectory slightly below Scenarion B. 2010 @NETDR: "The Pat Michaels analysis is a straw-man defense. Nevertheless. 0. It is evident from Figure 1 that the best fit for actual temperature measurements is currently the emissions-held-at-year-2000-level Scenario C. I do agree that it would be helpful if the predicted rate of warming for 1984-2009 for Scenario C could be included in Fig. (2006) are for a different time window considered by Schmidt (2009). and 0. it is apparent that the first transient climate simulations (12) proved to be quite accurate. respectively. 3 in the post. What Albatross (not CBD) said . You state that Now there is an important caveat here of course. But. Let us have a look at Hansen et al. It is evident that the time windows chosen to validate the projections yield different answers. 2006) I have used the LOTI data in Figure 1 because the GISS website states that this provides the most relaistic representation of global meam trends. archiesteel at 06:29 AM on 22 September." Now either Hansen et al. for scenarios A.19 and 0.19 C is the same as the observed rate of warming in the LOTI data. Warming rates in the model are 0. respectively. They state that: "Modeled 1988–2005 temperature changes are 0. 2006] that the best fit for actual temperature measurements is currently the emissions-held-at-year-2000-level Scenario C". Because the warming rate for scenario B of +0. and C. Consequently I agree withHansen (2006) that we should wait until 2015 for distinction between the scenarios and useful comparison with the real world. B and C Compared with Measured NASA GISS LOTI (after Hansen.Figure 1: Scenarios A. (2006)) to make the assetion that: "It is evident from Figure 1 [after Hansen.21°C per decade for the observational analyses.36°C for the land–ocean index and meteorological station analyses.40°C. 2010 Angusmac.35." I'm not sure you know what a strawman argument is. 1 (which is what I assume to be an accurate replication of Fig. (2006) also conclude that: "Nevertheless. 53.
4 figure for climate sensitivity? "So this article has proven he was wrong [in 88] and claimed it was a rebuttal to those that claim he was wrong. or you don't believe this critique of Hansen 1988 is accurate." Another.certainly wasn't a strawman. unless I'm mistaken. It's important to note that Hansen later acknowledged the differences." As I understand it. "Dr Hansen's model was seriously wrong but not as seriously as Pat said. [in 88] Am I missing something ???" Yes. your bias is showing. do you agree with the 3.4C. So. Thus accuracy of the model has to be gauged in relation to scenario B. then we'd be comparing the record with C. The topic here is how contrarians have used the inaccuracy as an excuse to grossly underestimate climate sensitivity. and would find Hansen 1998 had been amazingly accurate! :-) Am I getting this right? 56. Therefore it is incorrect for Dana1981 to contend that temperaturea are currently following a trajectory slightly below Scenarion B. reality doesn't like such absolutes. An important fact for you to consider: if you agree with the analysis that shows Hansen was off on climate sensitivity by 0. So what?" There is such a thing as "a little wrong".2C value. "For this we are seriously discussing tens of trillions of dollars of taxes and cap and trade ?" Careful.4C for climate sensitivity. for that. would be that he answered it more accurately than others at the time. Had emmissions been closer to C. this means you *do* agree with a figure of about 3. You seem to believe that it's a binary condition.. he would have had to ascribe to you an opinion that wasn't yours. but your use of multiple interrogation point and apparent obsession for boolean certainty in science make me wary of continuing this dialogue. Albatross at 06:45 AM on 22 September. 55. "seriously wrong" and "completely wrong" in science. before we go any further. as this article does. 2010 @Angusmap: "It is evident from Figure 1 that the best fit for actual temperature measurements is currently the emissions-held-at-year-2000-level Scenario C. because we know real-world emissions are closer to emmission scenario B. archiesteel at 06:36 AM on 22 September. @Joe Blog: "But the Q is..e. That's the whole point of the article. 2010 . did Hansen 88 accurately model climate since its hindcast. one is either wrong or right. i. Let me put it another way: either you agree that climate sensitivity is about 3. you are. the answer is no. the question is not whether the actual record is closer to B or C.8C for his choice of a 4. equally valid answer. Unfortunately. and thus can't use it this particular evidence to support your affirmation that Hansen got it wrong.
My having a particular belief of climate sensitivity or use this article. You spin fallacy after fallacy. the only thing we know for sure is that the answer was wrong. They in no way reflect my views or any skeptics I know of. You just stated what I was thinking of saying. NETDR at 08:02 AM on 22 September. I don't have to have any particular view of AGW to believe that only 44 % of the predicted warming occurred between 1988 and 2009.e.Archiesteel @55. Selecting his extreme views as a straw-man to do battle with is lame. The errors compound so by 100 years from now the error will be huge. GHG forcing) for Scenario C after 2000 are not realistic. Actual temperature was below scenario "C" which was with carbon taxes and restrictions. Better luck on the net model. That is a fact. Earlier I suggested including the rate of warming for the 1984-2009 window for Scenario C. Just don't post the results where the public can compare them with reality. was probably pushing it. See my previous posts. Reading the graph of Dr Hansen's predicted warming and the climates refusal to co-operate with him doesn't take a PhD. . The rest is just speculation. 2010 Archiesteel 55 RE: Strawman defense: I had never before read Pat Michaels views on the subject. FWIW. Some other parameter could be wrong. I suspect that is the reason why Schmidt and Dana did not include it in their analyses which extend almost a decade beyond 2000. There is a big difference between being close and the miserable performance of his model so far.. By the way at that [1988 to 2009] rate of warming in 100 years turns out to be about 1 ° C which would be beneficial. Anyone with the ability to do simple math can figure out how wrong he was. you are getting it right :) 57. but in retrospect it is pointless comparing observations with Scenario C much beyond 2000 b/c the emissions (i. Anyhow. IMHO. is a false choice. included Scenario C in their validation up until 2005. and that. Hansen et al. Who needs this article to prove what almost any high school student can compute for himself? Far from being Boolean a model which predicts so much warming that only 44 % of it occurs is broken. but more eloquently and succinctly than I am capable of.
That is a fact.20°C.54 . angusmac. The correct statement is that *77%* of the *projected* warming between 1988 and 2010 occurred. NETDR at 09:45 AM on 22 September.29 °C Using GISS's own data.29/.25 °C = . dana1981 at 09:21 AM on 22 September. You'll never get the correct figure by cherrypicking the data points you like.6 % Where you got the 77 % I will probably never know. as discussed in the article). Joe Blog nailed the problem in #44: "Im not drawing any other conclusion from this.58. . 0. etc. it has to be true. Also given the fact that Hansen's model could have projected anything from rapid cooling to no change to rapid warming. 60." No.65 = 44. NETDR. Scenario C is irrelevant because it does not accurately reflect the actual emissions. Predicted warming = . what a newsflash. The fact that actual temps have been close to those in Scenario C doesn't matter in the least. 2010 Albatross and archiesteel are correct. and approximately the average climate sensitivity of today's climate models. The chart predicts[1988-2009] . Dr Hansen picked this particular cherry. The useful conclusion is that this tells us that the actual climate sensitivity is in the ballpark of 3. because so many people can't get past "it looks like C!". Generally speaking.26°C per decade vs. which is quite close.65°C warming.25 = . being off by 25% on the warming trend really ain't that bad. for something to be a fact.4°C for 2xCO2.. No. He should know that the climate is a negative feedback system [as defined in physics not climatology] Since it was warming in the years just before 1988 a cooling was inevitable." That's the problem with Joe."I don't have to have any particular view of AGW to believe that only 44 % of the predicted warming occurred between 1988 and 2009.. Climate models weren't perfect 22 years ago. Apparently it would have behooved me to pull a Michaels and erase Scenarios A and C from the figure. which is right in the middle of the IPCC range. 2010 NETDR # 57 . Hansen's model was not perfect. other than Hansen had it wrong in 88. Reality [1988 to 2009] is . But that's a useless conclusion.9 °C . actually it's not even remotely a fact. you have to look at the trends (0. The question is why not? The answer is that his model's climate sensitivity was too high. 2010 Dana 59 Using 5 year averages to avoid cherry picking. 59. He should have factored that in. Of course Hansen didn't perfectly project the future warming rate. Yes it was off by around 25%. unlike Scenario B. dana1981 at 09:16 AM on 22 September. The entire purpose of this rebuttal was to go beyond that grossly oversimplified and frankly useless conclusion.
.An overshoot like 1998 was followed by an undershoot in 1999 and 2000 it is predictable in negative feedback systems. just to be clear. is a false choice. "Far from being Boolean a model which predicts so much warming that only 44 % of it occurs is broken.) . so I should not nit pick at differences of 0. or you don't. "You spin fallacy after fallacy. Albatross at 10:23 AM on 22 September. but got it mostly right compared to. "My having a particular belief of climate sensitivity or use this article.. are clearly trying to push an agenda. The error was 0. I disagree slightly with Dana and suggest that for 1984-2009. 2010 @NETDR: So. 2010 NETDR @60.19/0. you know. archiesteel at 10:20 AM on 22 September.the climate "sort of" cooperated with his assessment. 73% of the predicted warming was realised (0. or that temperatures were going to stay the same.26 = . You're really gonna go far with that one." Try this: 0. and restating the same faulty calculation. Actually. say. [Climatology defines positive feedback differently than all of the other sciences. But keep on ignoring the arguments presented to you." Of course not. Your absolutism fools no one.e that temperatures were going to go up by a significant amount." Actually ." I certainly do not. It's simple logic: either you think the argument is scientifically valid. "Reading the graph of Dr Hansen's predicted warming and the climates refusal to cooperate with him doesn't take a PhD. 62. Hansen got it about 75% right.20/0. You.] When "the debate is over" and you know all of the answers you have to know all of the answers. 61. But there are those error bars in the observed and predicted warming." I'm just trying to establish your position here.8 on 3..05 . so about 1/4.. i.and this is the whole point of the article . Typical. someone who would have argued it was going to be cooling. You just want to cherry-pick the parts you like. It's kind of tricky with deniers (which you clearly are. on the other hand. "Where you got the 77 % I will probably never know.." Not 44%. you *don't* agree with Michaels when he says "the forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure.26). He overestimated the final result.01 C when the error bars are 0. by your approach and choice of rhetoric).4. and ignore the parts you don't.
Albatross ." That's incredibly unscientific. Claiming the temperature results from high emission scenario were Hansen's prediction and comparing that curve to actual temperatures which are actually more relevant to a different scenario is out and out dishonest." To avoid cherry picking.2 .20°C per decade warming. actually thoughtfull at 12:21 PM on 22 September.20 by 0. It's critical to know what is responsible for scientific inaccuracies. Hansen on the other hand is giving the results for the best climate model available at the time. scaddenp at 10:41 AM on 22 September. He didnt CHOOSE a sensitivity of 4." 67. 2010 .20.cherrypicking favorable data points no doubt. Redtrawing the graph so that those "confusing" other curves which would give a clearer picture shows this was a deliberate attempt to mislead. I have no idea where you're getting yours from . Are we surprised that model got it wrong considering how primitive it was? No. dana1981 at 10:44 AM on 22 September.I explain in the article why I use 0. I really need to stop multi-tasking. An imperfect model is not dishonesty. use the linear trends for both Scenario B and the temp record. Mea culpa Dana.if you don't know where I'm getting 77% then you've read neither the article nor my comments (or can't divide 0. 64. you state in the post: "So we'll assume that the global surface air temperature trend since 1984 has been one of 0.26. I like rounding.this is an output from the model. 63. 2010 Dana @64. 2010 Swinging back to the original point of this article. 66." I think the problem here is clearly that "Hansen was wrong" is a much more convenient conclusion for certain biased individuals than "Hansen's results are evidence that the IPCC and today's climate models have the climate sensitivity right". 2010 NETDR . approximately 75% of the predicted warming between 1984 and 2009 was realised. its about misrepresentation.How about. Albatross at 11:40 AM on 22 September. For example. Using averages but arbitrarily choosing dates is still cherry-picking. archiesteel at 10:50 AM on 22 September. 2010 @NETDR: "Using 5 year averages to avoid cherry picking. and we now understand why it was wrong too. as Albatross illustrates). I guess my problem here is that I'm expecting readers and commenters at Skeptical Science to think like skeptical scientists. Sorry. why was the UAH satellite temperature data so radically different from surface station data a decade ago? Were the satellites wrong? Were the surface stations wrong? Was somebody fudging the numbers or screwing up the analysis? No scientist would simply say "oh well the temperature data is just wrong and I don't care why. As you noted. 65. We still struggle to get an accurate number for short-term (10-30 year) climate sensitivity. It's the 'surface air temperature' issue and how that's defined. A skeptical scientist does not say "Hansen was wrong and I don't care why. But using 75% is fine.
I think that is valid because it is Hansen's error divided by Hansen's choice .thank you for making that point clear to me! Regarding my post 67 comes up with 19% because I choose 4.9 where . Is this a wrong assumption on my part? .4=.2-3.rather than Hansen's error divided by reality . and interested bystander thinking.which looks like a good match (based on temperature).neither the emissions nor the temperatures line up . Anne van der Bom at 16:02 PM on 22 September. so we easily rule out scenario "A" .8 /4. Finally . HumanityRules at 00:16 AM on 23 September. 2010 The other question I have is to do with scenario A.NETDR @48 4. just befuddles me! 70. actually thoughtfull at 17:22 PM on 22 September. AFAIK climate sensitivity is an outcomeof the climate models. 2010 There is a very interesting phenomena at work here . But I grant that it is pretty much semantics at this point. 2010 I must have got this seriously wrong." Many readers (and I include myself) need at least an acknowledgement that actual temperatures are at/near/below Scenario C (or to have our noses dragged through the point that "C" doesn't matter BECAUSE the actual emissions don't match that Scenario). based on 3 sets of inputs. 2010 John. not an input.so out the window it goes. it is one reason why I like this blog .not just restricted to the deniers. Dana1981 presents the information. Hansen's 1988 graphs show 3 lines.. is irrelevant.but my first reading I was wondering why Scenario "C" . B and C. Anyways. but are not germane to the discussion.19=19% = that is how much Hansen is off from reality. 69. I know realize that the whole point is to compare Scenario B temperatures to reality. 71. We all (except for Michaels but it is 2010 . Having read the paper I'd sort of assumed that A was the "business as usual" option and the catastrophists really on this for the fearful future.9 does not exist..mine is internally consistent. I think this is the difference between rigorous scientific thinking.2 = 0. You keep coming up with 44% by "eyeballing" .for anyone to look at this and be anything but amazed that someone. in 1988 when all the theories of climate that EVENTUALLY became AGW were still in the "maybe" column and not be amazed at how prescient and accurate Hansen was.because that is a pretty close match to actual emissions.I personally have no time for those that deny the world is warming). HumanityRules at 00:10 AM on 23 September. with technical support. I think I am accurately paraphrasing Dana1981 to say: Only scenario B is worth looking at .2 for the denominator. because Scenario B matches the emissions . Scenarios A and C are provided for completeness and context. What is the point of discussing if you don't keep your posts based in reality? 68. is there an assumption in your calculations that 100% of the temperature rise over this period is due to the forcing of human GHGs? Because the IPCC's "most" is starting to look like "all".
2010 at 11:38 AM Had Hansen used a climate model with a climate sensitivity of approximate 3.4°C for 2xCO2 (at least in the short-term. 20 September. . it's likely larger in the long-term due to slow-acting feedbacks). but he projected the spatial distribution of the warming with a high level of accuracy. he would have projected the ensuing rate of global surface temperature change accurately.72. Berényi Péter at 00:16 AM on 23 September. 2010 Posted by dana1981 on Monday. let's have a closer look. OK. Not only that. Hansen 1988 has also predicted the decadal mean temperature change for scenario B as a function of pressure and latitude.
The Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office has a near real-time updated dataset called HadAT (globally gridded radiosonde temperature anomalies from 1958 to present). since then we have got some actual data about this temperature trend distribution.Now. .
As you can clearly see. 1000 hPa data are from HadCRUT2v subsampled to the time-varying HadAT2 500hPa availability The image above is explained in this publication: Internal report for DEFRA. We can talk about if anthropogenic global warming theory were wrong on which the model was based or it was a flawed implementation. predicted and observed zonal trends have nothing to do with each other: neither high.Linear trends in zonal mean temperature (K/decade) in HadAT2 1979-2009. These features are absolutely lacking in Hansen's prediction. and Thorne.5°C/century) and the severe cooling between 65S and 70S along the entire air column (down to -5°C/century). Particular attention should be payed to the cooling trend in the tropical mid-troposphere (-0. pp. but there is no question about Hansen's failure. P. BTW. nor low level of accuracy can be detected. therefore the take-home message should be "Hansen's 22 year old prediction is falsified". the tropical upper tropospheric cold spot observed and documented in HadAT2 is inconsistent with surface warming according to even the most recent computational . 11 HadAT: An update to 2005 and development of the dataset website Coleman.W. H.
but there's no much point.you are correct. Good question. especially when not provided context or updates on the latest developments. 2010 Anne van der Bom . 74. 73. As for the percentages. people like John and Dana have to spend their valuable time addressing the confusion and trying to undue the confusion. 2010 Hi Badger. The IPCC looks at the temp change over a longer period of time. BP and HR (and HR enough with the rhetoric already HR (e. All Scenarios are included for completeness. the difference being the 5-10% excess in Scenario B forcing as compared to actual forcing. Albatross at 01:24 AM on 23 September. HumanityRules . Or. We could look at C and adjust for the differences in GHGs there too. 76. Hansen's model sensitivity was off by 19% and his temp projections were off by 23%. The only reason I can think of is because to this day "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW keep touting Hansen's projection as "evidence" that climate models do not work at all. So sadly. quite independent of Hansen's 1988 blunder. "catastrophists") is to please move on. since B is closer to reality. On the other hand. 2010 @Albatross: On the one hand.. dana1981 at 01:33 AM on 23 September.2°C for 2xCO2.g. Hansen employed a climate model which had a climate sensitivity of 4. I can understand why it is important to debunk all of the false charges made about the validity of forecasts made by Dr. why is the validity of forecasts made in 1998 cause for such consternation today? I’m not a scientist. Badgersouth at 00:51 AM on 23 September. and I tried to be careful in my phrasing. So neither Hansen nor his followers can get the sign of change right in some particularly important regions. but it really only makes sense to look at B. 75. A perfect analogy for this Hansen paper is the 1998 Hockey Stick paper (MBH98).climate models. that the projections were "wrong" then and so they will all be wrong now-silly logic. #70 is aimed at you. James Hansen in 1998.approximately 100% of the temp change since 1984 has been to GHGs. but he science has advanced (in part b/c of that seminal work) and technique shave been improved upon or refined. Taking into account this wider failure. 2010 Sorry Dana I didn't see you were the author. or is that 1988? My suggestion to NETDR.you got it. actually thoughtfull . MBH98 did have some issues (like all seminal techniques it was not perfect). which has been partially . I’m just trying to learn the lay of the land so to speak. yet the contrarians to this day are still stuck 1998. but for those not in the know such statements are at the very least confusing and/or sow doubt. HumanityRules at 00:19 AM on 23 September. given how far the state-of-art in climate modeling has advanced over the past two decades plus. we can safely bet "climate models and the anthropogenic global warming theory are wrong".
RATPAC and AOGCM data.e. 2010 BP @. I wanted to see how he would fare in “debating” with individuals who have legitimate expertise in these matters. you are neglecting the recent and valuable work undertaken by several scientists on discrepancies between the satellite. During the course of the past four weeks or so. Some of you have proven my contention that the NETDR’s assertions are akin to blocks of Swiss cheese. Bengstsson 2009) FOURTH. and the data you showed go to 2009. Thus Scenario B is effectively business as usual. Albatross at 02:37 AM on 23 September. If any you are gluttons for punishment. to claim his 'prediction was falsified' because one aspect may or may not be there is ridiculous.it's worthwhile to examine the accuracy of climate models 22 years ago. Trenberth 2006. Really. is is now only 2010. Titchner 2009. Allen 2008. Scenario A is constantly accelerating GHG emissions. there are way too few data points south of 45 S in the southern hemisphere to form a coherent picture. Haimberger 2008. 20102020). With all the correct projections made by Hansen (high accuracy in spatial distribution. Since he has repeatedly badmouthed Dr. That's like saying getting 90% on a test is an F because it's not 100%. they're still based on the same fundamental physics. you can check out my most recent marathon debate with the NETDR by going to: http://content. Berényi Péter . because even though they've vastly improved since then. Well.natural. the caption in one of the figures that you provided says it is for 2010s (i.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/09/global-warming-goodnews-fewer-big-ocean-storms-possible/1 78. 2010 In the interest of full disclosure… I am the one who prodded the NETDR to post on this comment thread. the NETDR and I have been mud wrestling about global warming/climate change on the comment threads of relevant articles posted on the website of USA Today.. within 23% of the warming trend). Hansen and his projections. 77. by cherry picking these particular data. whether the cooling you discuss even exists or if it's an error in the data. The data need to be placed in the appropriate context (Santer 2005. Sherwood 2008.the tropical toposphere remains a question mark. whereas B is a linear increase in emissions. The GCM that Hansen used was incredibly coarse grid spacing in the horizontal . THIRD. Badgersouth at 02:16 AM on 23 September. do you honestly want to go down this path? FIRST. Badgersouth . So how about we compare apples with apples and remove that Figure? SECOND.
LOTI shows it to be ~. so the grid spacing was near 1000 km) and also in the vertical. The southern oceans have also been warming. If the hypothesis is not in good agreement with real world observations then it should be amended until a reasonable agreement is reached. For example. Currently the hypothesis which supports Scenario B is not in good agreement with real world temperature measurements. hemisphere. I thought that real (sceptical) science was about making observations. see the maps provide by Dana in the post. 2010 All this wrangling over whether Hansen was 23% or 19% off seems to me to miss two basic points: -Way back at #5. am I missing something here? My contention is quite simple: real world emissions are following Scenario B whilst real world temperatures are following Scenario C.2005). Whether you choose B. 300% error just isn't there. Hansen 2005 stated that Scenario B "was on the money. Therefore it is either a poor hypothesis at best or it is incorrect at worst. Also see various surface and tropospheric temperature data sets. mwof pointed out that the cooling effects of the Pinatubo eruption should be factored out of the comparison.7 deg rise by 2010. Read more here 79. postulating a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis against the real world. Either way it should be amended. As if that were not enough of an impediment. There's no significance to the second decimal place.'s abstract which are relevant to this discussion: 1) "The greenhouse warming should be clearly identifiable in the 1990s. The fact that the model did as well as it did given that is a testament to the robustness of the underlying physics and Hansen's team. warming over continental land masses in N. muoncounter at 02:42 AM on 23 September. B predicts ~. the validation data should be on the same (or similar) grid spacing. 2) "Regions where an unambiguous warming appears earliest are low-latitude oceans. Hansen et al note that "Horizontal heat transport by the ocean is fixed at values estimated for today's climate. angusmac at 02:45 AM on 23 September. C or something in between. one degree is about 110 km. -Any claim that Hansen was off by 300% or 'got it wrong' is blatant nonsense. and ocean areas near Antarctica and the north pole" Verified-. China and interior areas in Asia. Now two conclusions from Hansen et al. (2003.for example. It was not even a truly coupled atmosphere-ocean model.6. albeit at a slower pace-. We have also observed-Polar amplification. as it effectively delayed the conditions necessary for continued heating. 80.(8 degress by 10 degrees. 2010 Dana1981.new research from the University of Washington is showing that the warming in the southern oceans extends down very deep. see Santer et al. In view of the coarse grid spacing." Now it looks as though Scenario . There is no way the effects of the eruption could have been predicted or modeled accurately and that renders such quantitative comparison moot. and the uptake of heat perturbations by the ocean beneath the mixed layer is approximated as vertical diffusion". the global warming within the next several years is predicted to reach and maintain a level at least three standard deviations above the climatology of the 1950s" Verified by observations. so the model would smooth out features.
2010 . And as dana1981 has repeatedly pointed out. 2010 angusmac .4C per doubling would be a better fit. the "hypothesis" has been amended--considerably! The models currently "use" a sensitivity lower than the one Hansen used. We don't currently believe that 4. The observed trend suggests that this is too high." Consequently. 2010 angusmac. 2010 angusmac writes: If the hypothesis is not in good agreement with real world observations then it should be amended until a reasonable agreement is reached. 2010 I presume that Dr. I put "use" in quotes because the models do not take the sensitivity as an input. The "hypothesis" that is most important is that temperatures were predicted to rise. Are any of the current crop of climate models designed to forecastof how the heat content of the sub-systems comprising the climate will change under different GHG forcing scenarios? 82.4C/doubling falls nicely within the IPCC's estimated range for climate sensitivity. Ned at 03:10 AM on 23 September.2C per doubling of CO2. 2010 In the context of this discussion thread and the one associated with the article about Dr. the "hypothesis" here is basically that temperature would rise at a rate corresponding to a climate sensitivity of 4. Scenario C is irrelevant. The improvements continue to be made to the underlying physics of the models. Less important is the exact rate of rise. the net effect of all the factors in the models is summarizable as a sensitivity. which is confirmed by comparing Hansen's results to reality. which is why research continues urgently. 3. Badgersouth at 02:58 AM on 23 September. Saying C is on the money is like saying if I go twice the speed limit and then half the speed limit. I'd really prefer not to have to repeat this for a sixth time. Can we all agree on this? FWIW. I have a question. Tom Dayton at 03:14 AM on 23 September. 86. and have. Badgersouth at 03:11 AM on 23 September. Hansen and his team have maintained a log of changes they have made to the forecasting model they used in 1998. 81.yes. the models started to be improved long before any meaningful evaluation of the accuracy of Hansen's prediction could be done. Is the log in the public domain? 84. dana1981 at 03:16 AM on 23 September. Instead. Roger Pielke Sr’s pronouncements about OHC. Albatross at 03:16 AM on 23 September. you're missing about 90% of my article. if real world trends continue to follow Scenario C then computer model forcing and consequential temperature increases should be revised downwards to match real world observations. as opposed to being unchanged or dropping. It's "on the money" because its' a combination of a too-low forcing and a too-high sensitivity. Yes. 85. The issue has been amended.2°C is the correct short-term climate sensitivity for 2xCO2. we believe it's around 3°C. I was going the right speed the whole time.C "is on the money. and that a value of 3. But those amendments were not made simply as a reaction to the misprediction of the original model. Of course the rate is important. 83.
Dana and Tom. you have the wrong end of the stick when you and others keep claiming that keep claiming that it is the scientists who are stuck in the past and not moving on. The new generation of AOGCMs even include atmospheric chemistry..well said.Angusmac. not a hypothesis. 2010 Tom Dayton .I really cannot understand why some people cannot see that. please tell me. PS: Are you familiar with the Earth Simulator 2 project in Japan? 87. What you said :) Current equilibrium climate sensitivity for the GISS model is about 2. 88.7 C. tackled in 1988. scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ sized volcanic eruption in 1995. and by considering new data and advances in the science that modelers have been able to dramatically improve the models. better code. dana1981 at 03:17 AM on 23 September. Anne van der Bom at 05:43 AM on 23 September. and that is what Hansen et al. it was imperfect-and Hansen et al. If you don't understand parts of it. So Angus. 2010 Badger @83. 90. 89.. Same holds true for the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Maybe this will help.it seems it is only the skeptics who are stuck in 1988. While the model in 1988 was imperfect. but as is often the case for seminal works. The science (and models) has advanced since then. Models are wonderful resources b/c they permit one to undertake carefully planned experiments. . "If the hypothesis is not in good agreement with real world observations then it should be amended until a reasonable agreement is reached. archiesteel at 03:44 AM on 23 September. It was through a combination of huge leaps in computing resources. 2010 @angusmac: please re-read my response to this at #55. How might the climate system respond to increasing radiative forcing from GHGs? The 1988 paper was seminal. That is what this whole post is about-. Pinatubo was much larger (about 4x I believe). The challenging part is getting models to simulate the complex climate system on the planet. it certainly was not nearly as imperfect as some contrarians have elected to falsely state on the public record. fully realized that much. so your point is still valid. and then seeing how the system responds to changes in internal and external forcing mechanisms. You claim." The physics behind GHG forcing is a theory. 2010 muoncounter #79 Actually. More info here. What you are complaining about in the quote (that I cited above) is actually exactly what scientists continue to strive towards. Albatross at 03:42 AM on 23 September.
2010 Badger. you've got to do much much better than this in terms of the way you go about assessing the evidence. Berényi Péter at 20:39 PM on 23 September. Follow the second link in my post @88 ("more info here"). angusmac's refurbished graph shows the model runs with a one year dip. but much more pervasive. muoncounter at 06:27 AM on 23 September. kdkd at 08:15 AM on 23 September. I'd assume there were more model runs and only these 3 made the paper. Comparing charts by eyeball like that is so ridden with pitfalls of subjectivity (conformation bias. 2010 Badger.. No need for confabulation. Albatross at 08:54 AM on 23 September. the ones that the IPCC will use in the new assessment process now getting underway? 93. It's definitely not an optical illusion and it is not just a weakness of Hansen 1988. Pinatubo (and the LOTI curve) was more like 2-3 years (see Robock 2003). but that's really not good enough. 2010 I'm sorry. irrespective of implementation details and any impressive advance in computing power. 2010 #90: "scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ " Yes. perceptual bias and so on) the only way you can hope to offer a valid comparison is through statistical comparisons. scaddenp at 09:13 AM on 23 September. but that's really not good enough. which suggests that even if quantified your analysis would be invalid in any case. 94. i. 91. Badgersouth at 07:11 AM on 23 September. The inclusion of one or more volcanic eruptions then becomes part of those scenarios alongside the emissions. And that's even before accounting for Albatross' comments at #78. Comparing charts by eyeball like that is so ridden with pitfalls of subjectivity (conformation bias. 92. you are look for PCMDI participants 96.e.The only way to deal with this is do multiple model runs. 95. plaguing effectively all computational climate models since then. As I've said previously. for the AR5. if you want to be taken seriously. which suggests that even if quantified your analysis would be invalid in any case. 2010 #93 kdkd at 08:15 AM on 23 September. perceptual bias and so on) the only way you can hope to offer a valid comparison is through statistical comparisons. The study below shows beyond reasonable doubt that even quite recent models (not a few but 22 of them) are inconsistent with observations in this respect and not just with . Where can I find a laundry list of the current generation of climate models. The situation is more serious than you claim. And that's even before accounting for Albatross' comments at #78. based on different scenarios. 2010 @ Albatross: Thanks for the link to the GISS webpage. 2010 BP #72 I'm sorry. You are welcome.
S. pages 1693–1701. Christy. 15 November 2008 DOI: 10. (3) The UMD T2 product trend is consistent with model trends. but also with three others (RATPAC [Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate]. IGRA [Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive] & RAOBCORE[RAdiosonde OBservation COrrection using REanalyses])." . using the 2σSE criterion of consistency: (1) In all cases. All this evidence points to some robust problem not only in individual models. but also in the underlying AGW theory all otherwise independent computational climate models are based on. (2) In all cases UAH and RSS satellite trends are inconsistent with model trends. John R.1002/joc. radiosonde trends are inconsistent with model trends.1651 A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions David H. Douglass. except at the surface. Issue 13. but we do know how surface data are picked & adjusted ad nauseam on the one hand while the very selection criterion for model set used in this study was consistency with surface temperature datasets on the other hand. Benjamin D.the HadAT2 dataset. so no wonder they match on this single point. Fred Singer Article first published online: 5 DEC 2007 "Our results indicate the following. Consistency is only found at the surface. Pearson. International Journal of Climatology Volume 28.
Given calibration problems and the fact that these complex systems are very likely sensitive to initial conditions (modeled and observed in quite different ways in all likelihood). there is good evidence that UMD T2 is spuriously warm. kdkd at 21:06 PM on 23 September. Climate sensitivity to changes in levels of well mixed gases showing some opacity in restricted bands of thermal IR is consistently overestimated by computational models.. I want to see more published examples of large scale evaluations of climate models.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ They even used an outdated RAOBCORE dataset version. We note.skepticalscience. And more importantly I want you to present quantified estimates of model precision and bias. then future projections of temperature change. indeed: http://www. Riccardo at 21:14 PM on 23 September. as outlined above. Thus. are likely too high. the trends of the lower stratosphere must be significantly more positive than any observations to date have indicated. are significantly negative. the agreement between modeled relative change in temperature ovr time versus observed relative change in temperature over time looks not too bad (although I'd have to evaluate that with a chi squared test of goodness of fit to be sure). is that the weight of the current evidence. But this case may be discounted. UMD T2. radiosonde trends are even more profoundly negative – and all of these observations are consistent with physical theory of ozone depletion and a rising tropopause.]" not quite so. first.realclimate. not the vague insinuations that you have presented. The most likely candidate for explaining model failure is insufficient theoreticaltreatment of deep moist convection of course (and ample production of extremely dry air parcels by association)."Evidence for disagreement: There is only one dataset. 2010 Berényi Péter." They can't help but say it. In order for UMD T2 to be a consistent representation of the entire atmosphere. right or wrong they may be. supports the conclusion that no model-observation agreement exists. also write: "If these results continue to be supported. In this case.. that T2represents a layer that includes temperatures from the lower stratosphere." "Our view. as depicted in the present suite of climate models. Why is it important? Because Douglass at al.com/tropospheric-hot-spot. they for sure should have used the last version available or justify the choice (which they didn't). 97.htm http://www." So. 2010 BP #96 Given your recent history of invalid analysis. I'm not sure that validating the model against absolute temperature would be the best procedure. as it is the case. . But all observed stratospheric trends. that does not show inconsistency between observations and models. for example by MSU T4 from UAH and RSS.org/index. thus implying complete disagreement. however. Finally. The take-home message is "no model-observation agreement exists". "The study below shows beyond reasonable doubt [. Also. and refusal to provide your data for checking (and thus laying yourself open wide open to accusations of scientific fraud) you'll excuse my cynicism when examining your argument. 98.
one does not need a climate model to infer ECS to doubling of CO2. In the mean-time the planet continues to warm at a rate very close to that predicted in the various IPCC reports.99.. One can use a good CPS (e.if you want to speak to that. Well. please go to the appropriate thread (see Riccardo's post for links). 50 km). Prev 1 2 3 Next Post a Comment Political. Login via the left margin or if you're new. and explicitly model convection at grid spacing <3 km. register here. Second. They are running the operational ECMWF global model at about 16 km horizontal grid-spacing right now. © Copyright 2010 John CookLinks | Translations | About Us | Contact Us Monday. moist convection issue. I personally will be ignoring any argument you put forth until you've convincingly addressed the glaring errors in your previous (and contentious) analysis. Regardless.archiesteel at 02:21 AM on 24 September. Many proxy records which implicitly include all the feedbacks and processes point to a EQS of +3 C. 2010 BP. Why ignore those and cherry-pick Douglass? And why include Douglass et al's paper above when you know that there data and analysis had significant issues? And as for your comment about the inability of GCMs to simulate convection. yes that was a tad difficult for Hansen et al. 20 September. You know that. Comments Policy." You shouldn't be accusing others of scientific fraud when you are yourself suspected of the same thing. Kain-Fritsch) at smaller grid spacing (say. you continue to argue a straw man BP-. Pardon my skepticism. with a 1000 km grid spacing.g. so it is going to be some time yet before modelers can address the deep. 100.. yet you posts on this thread seem a determined effort to convince the unwary that the models have no skill and will predict too much warming based on issues surrounding both the observation and modelling of the tropical hot spot feature.. and I am surprised that John has not deleted your posts for being OT-.this post is not about the tropospheric hot-spot. so no wonder they match on this single point. One final note. off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Albatross at 01:54 AM on 24 September. 2010 @BP: "Consistency is only found at the surface. several papers have recently come out which have superseded the Douglass paper (see my post @78). 2010 . but we do know how surface data are picked & adjusted ad nauseam on the one hand while the very selection criterion for model set used in this study was consistency with surface temperature datasets on the other hand. You need to be logged in to post a comment. but it really does not help your cause presenting a paper coauthored by Singer and Douglass.
. which featured a scientist claiming that Hansen's 1988 projections were "overestimated by 300 percent. (1988) used a global climate model to simulate the impact of variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases and aerosols on the global climate.A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections Hansen et al.11°C.The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure. and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000. Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth. Scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth." Compare the figure Michaels produced to make this claim (Figure 1) to the corresponding figure taken directly out of Hansen's 1988 study (Figure 2).. or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. particularly before the US Congress.. Misrepresentations of Hansen's Projections The 'Hansen was wrong' myth originated from testimony by scientist Pat Michaels before US House of Representatives in which he claimed "Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0." This is an astonishingly false statement to make. Figure 1: Pat Michaels' presentation of Hansen's projections before US Congress . Hansen chose 3 scenarios to model. It was also reproduced in Michael Crichton's science fiction novel State of Fear. Unable to predict future human greenhouse gas emissions or model every single possibility.
and C (Hansen 1988) Notice that Michaels erased Hansen's Scenarios B and C despite the fact that as discussed above. Gavin Schmidt provides a comparison between all three scenarios and actual global surface temperature changes in Figure 3. Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth. to support the claim that Hansen's projections were "an astounding failure." Michaels only showed the projection which was based on the emissions scenario which was furthest from reality. which did not occur. B. In other words.Figure 2: Projected global surface air temperature changes in Scenarios A. .
2% in the '90s. observed global temperature changes (Schmidt 2009) As you can see. Hansen's Assumptions Greenhouse Gas Changes and Radiative Forcing Hansen's Scenario B has been the closest to the actual greenhouse gas emissions changes. If the model was too sensitive.9 ppmv per year increase for CO2) in the 2010s.Figure 3: Hansen's projected vs. Scenario B assumes that the rate of increasing atmospheric CO2 and methane increase by 1. then what was its climate sensitivity? This is obviously an oversimplified conclusion. therefore Hansen was wrong. nor were they "an astounding failure" by any reasonably honest assessment. 1% per year in the 1990s. 0. and it's important to examine why Hansen's projections didn't match up with the actual surface temperature change. 1% in the '00s. Yet a common reaction to Hansen's 1988 projections is "he overestimated the rate of warming. but clearly they were neither off by a factor of 4. Hansen's projections showed slightly more warming than reality. That's what we'll do here. The rate of increase of CCl3F and CCl2F2 increase by 3% in the '80s.5% per year in the 2000s." Christy didn't even bother to examine why the global climate model was too sensitive or what that tells us. and flattens out (at a 1. and flatten out in the 2010s.5% per year in the 1980s. Gavin Schmidt helpfully provides the annual atmospheric . when skeptical climate scientist John Christy blogged about Hansen's 1988 study." In fact. his entire conclusion was "The result suggests the old NASA GCM was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere.
32*(0.304) . Thus the greenhouse gas radiative forcing in Scenario B was too high by about 5%.31x1015 1750(1750*329)1.(f(M0.N0)) = 0.31x10-15 1750(175 0*304)1.378) = 0. a radiative forcing).022 W/m2 dF(CH4) =0.(f(M.52]-ln[1+2.31x10-15 1750(175 0*304)1. Table 1: Scenario B greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration in 1984.01x10-5 (2220*304)0.24 ppbv 0. The projected concentrations in 1984 and 2010 in Scenario B (in parts per million or billion by volume [ppmv and ppbv]) are shown in Table 1.N) .12*( N . as projected by Hansen's Scenario B in 2010.54 ppbv CCl2F2 .06 W/m2 (NASA GISS).1750) .036*( 2220 . and actual concentration in 2010 GHG CO2 N2O CH4 CCl3F 1984 Scen. Climate Sensitivity Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere (a.01x10-5 (1750*329)0.221) = 0.8) = 0.94 ppbv We can then calculate the radiative forcings for these greenhouse gas concentration changes.22 ppbv 0.1/343.038 ppbv 0.N0)) = 0.f(M0.a.47*(ln[1+2.52]) = 0.12*( 329 .k.N0) .31x1015 2220(2220*304)1.1 W/m2 The actual greenhouse gas forcing from 1984 to 2010 was approximately 1.01x10-5 (1750*304)0.75+5. (1998).f(M0.541-0.662 W/m2 dF(N2O) = 0.N0) .080 W/m2 dF(CCl2F2) = 0.75+5.75+5.75+5.52]) =0.35*ln(389. dF(CO2) = 5.concentration of these and other compounds in Hansen's Scenarios.0. Hansen's climate model had a .M0) .16 W/m2 dF(CCl3F) = 0. based on the formulas from Myhre et al.25*(0.47*(ln[1+2.18 W/m2 Total Scenario B greenhouse gas radiative forcing from 1984 to 2010 = 1.937-0.52]-ln[1+2.54 ppbv 344 ppmv 389 ppmv 304 ppbv 329 ppbv 1750 ppbv 2220 ppbv 0.0. B 2010 Actual 2010 392 ppmv 323 ppbv 1788 ppbv 0.01x10-5 (1750*304)0.036*( M .
4°C for 2xCO2. Spatial Distribution of Warming Hansen's study also produced a map of the projected spatial distribution of the surface air temperature change in Scenario B for the 1980s.26°C per decade.20/0. and radiative forcing (dF). the met station index (which does not cover a lot of the oceans).20°C per decade warming. The argument "Hansen's projections were too high" is thus not an argument against anthropogenic global warming or the accuracy of climate models. (2006) – which evaluates Hansen 1988 – uses both and suggests the true answer lies in between. Hansen et al." The question is. we can estimate what the actual climate sensitivity value would have to be for Hansen's climate model to accurately project the average temperature change. Actual Climate Sensitivity One tricky aspect of Hansen's study is that he references "global surface air temperature. and had Hansen decreased the radiative forcing in Scenario B slightly.2°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 [2xCO2].95 = 3. and is even a bit above the widely accepted value of 3°C for 2xCO2.19°C per decade global warming trend. Although the actual amount of warming (Figure 5) has been less than projected in Scenario B (Figure 4).4°C warming for 2xCO2 In other words. Given that the Scenario B radiative forcing was too high by about 5% and its projected surface air warming rate was 0.2°C for 2xCO2. which is a better estimate for this. and Hansen's climate . while the latter shows a 0. the former shows a 0. we're not yet in the decade of the 2010s (which will almost certainly be warmer than the 2000s). but rather an argument against climate sensitivity being as high as 4. climate sensitivity (λ). and 2010s. we can compare recent global temperature maps to Hansen's maps to evaluate their accuracy. The relationship between a change in global surface temperature (dT). but it's also an argument for climate sensitivity being around 3. this is due to the fact that as discussed above.2°C * [0. we can then make a rough estimate regarding what its climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 should have been: λ = dT/dF = (4. or the land-ocean index (which uses satellite ocean temperature changes in addition to the met stations)? According to NASA GISS. he would have correctly projected the ensuing global surface air temperature increase. the reason Hansen's global temperature projections were too high was primarily because his climate model had a climate sensitivity that was too high. and knowing the subsequent global surface temperature change.global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.4°C for a 2xCO2. So we'll assume that the global surface air temperature trend since 1984 has been one of 0. This is within the range of climate sensitivity values in the IPCC report. Had the sensitivity been 3.26])/0. is dT = λ*dF Knowing that the actual radiative forcing was slightly lower than Hansen's Scenario B.21°C per decade warming trend. 1990s. Although the decade of the 2010s has just begun.
Hansen's model correctly projected amplified warming in the Arctic. as you can see. The spatial distribution of the warming is very close to his projections. Figure 4: Scenario B decadal mean surface air temperature change map (Hansen 1988) Figure 5: Global surface temperature anomaly in 2005-2009 as compared to 1951-1980 (NASA GISS) Hansen's Accuracy .model projected a higher rate of warming due to a high climate sensitivity. as well as hot spots in northern and southern Africa. etc. However. more pronounced warming over the land masses of the northern hemisphere. west Antarctica.
such as There's no tropospheric hot spot.Had Hansen used a climate model with a climate sensitivity of approximate 3. he would have projected the ensuing rate of global surface temperature change accurately.KR at 02:48 AM on 24 September.Philippe Chantreau at 09:47 AM on 24 September. After reading this. not only that the accused scientists/papers actually are wrong. I realised Dana's rebuttal was a lot better than my original rebuttal so I asked him to rewrite the Intermediate Version. but he projected the spatial distribution of the warming with a high level of accuracy. I advocate for the the moderator to strike any and all future posts that even remotely suggests fraud if there is no supporting evidence. when such accusation stemmed from his misintepretation of the papers). which states: "Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations.further posts regarding the tropospheric hot spot should move to the appropriate threads. 2010 Of note in regards to the Douglass et al 2007 paper BP referred to is the rebuttal by Santer et al 2008.4°C for 2xCO2 (at least in the short-term. Dana went ahead and wrote a Basic Version also. it's becoming obvious that this has become an obsession of his. The take-home message should not be "Hansen was wrong therefore climate models and the anthropogenic global warming theory are wrong. but that they deliberately are so with an intent to deceive.5°C for 2xCO2. Not only that. And just for the sake of thoroughness. as it's off topic here. 2010 I can recall so many previous instances of BP unambiguously accusing scientists of fraud without any evidence (for instance see Ocean acidification. 2010 Suggestion ." 102. . This post is the Advanced version (written by dana1981) of the skeptic argument "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong".KR at 02:50 AM on 24 September. As for discussing scientific evidence: in the interest of the discussion. it's likely larger in the long-term due to slow-acting feedbacks). 103. Enjoy! Posted by dana1981 at 11:38 AM Printable Version | Link to this page Comments Prev 1 2 3 Comments 101 to 121 out of 121: 101." the correct conclusion is that Hansen's study is another piece of evidence that climate sensitivity is in the IPCC stated range of 2-4.
I don't feel particularly inclined to let this go until he does come up with the goods. dishonesty or corruption will be deleted." Humble suggestion is in square brackets. 2010 #107 kdkd at 14:20 PM on 24 September. as his credibility as a commentator on this site hinges on it. 106.doug_bostrom at 10:22 AM on 24 September. Thanks. Yes. "I advocate for the the moderator to strike any and all future posts that even remotely suggests fraud if there is no supporting evidence" I'll second that. magically or otherwise.Albatross at 12:18 PM on 24 September. just to make it explicit. not to make our egos fatter. This applies to both sides. I agree it was implicit. 104. [fraud].Berényi Péter at 21:23 PM on 24 September. The blog policy currently states that: "No accusations of deception. Therefore if you keep accusing me of engagement in scientific dishonesty or incompetence or even scientific fraud it is your problem. Response: Fraud was implicit (doesn't that equate to deception. 2010 I know this is a bit off topic. Nevertheless.My own accusation of BP's possible engagement in scientific dishonesty or incompetence is based on data he's presented on this site. a clumsy way of wishing away facts. Stick to the science. Any accusations of deception.Albatross at 13:00 PM on 24 September. I've updated the Comments Policy to include fraud. not scientific.kdkd at 14:20 PM on 24 September. And it would not go away. but so far he seems reluctant to do so.Skeptics like to talk about burden of proof but it's something they gladly dispense of on too many occasions. although it is in context of the present discussion. dishonesty and/or corruption?). 107. 2010 My own accusation of BP's possible engagement in scientific dishonesty or incompetence is based on data he's presented on this site. 2010 The "fraud" thing is a magical incantation. but best to be clear I guess. 105. 2010 Hi John. no matter if I took up the gauntlet . 108. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives. He could make the problem magically go away if he just responded to the problem Your perception of a "problem" is rather odd. not mine. I thought we are here to learn and understand what's going on in climate science. He could make the problem magically go away if he just responded to the problem. 2010 Philippe @104.
increasing density has a more or less immediate warming effect while decreasing density shows up in a delayed manner (man made structures do not go away immediately as people move out). you have to wait some more for a meaningful and transparent analysis of UHI along these lines with all the statistics you may wish for. How to quantify it. if you do not do it yourself. It is not lack of statistics that makes an argument unscientific but mistreatment of concepts. As I haveshown you a sizable UHI effect is almost inevitable in the surface temperature record while global population keeps increasing on a finite surface. but the thing is statistics is worthless in establishing facts until the underlying processes are understood properly. selected to conform to reduced surface trends. but that's another story. Of course before this kind of publication process can get useful in exchanging ideas at least some revision control infrastructure has to be put in place. at least please stop whining. While we are at it.a. but actually uncovering specific errors and supplying a patch that removes it. they can get consistent with both tropospheric trends and with a different set of models.or not. as unfortunately I don't have much time to do it for free. the inconsistency between models and observations in the tropical troposphere can be resolved in a simple way if we assume the surface temperature trend has a long term warming bias (a. What about doing some work yourself? I have shown you the data sources used (SEDAC/GPWv3 and GHCNv2) and also described the basic method. Anyway. At least in software development this method is proven to be competitive with more traditional quality assurance procedures. I think you need a thorough understanding of the open source development cycle which is much closer to what is possible in the blogosphere than the old-fashioned scientific publication cycle with its closed peer review system. is another question. So. Debugging is not done by accusing others. if you are not willing to work. just to surface temperatures whatever the cause behind them happens to be. If you could uncover a good reason why the UHI effect should not be ergodic. That is. . For example I have just realized the easy-tounderstand tidbit there is a hysteresis between local population density and UHI effect. UHI).k. Rest assured I know how to use and abuse statistical tests. As the selection criterion of models included in Douglass 2007 was their consistency with the surface record and the "hot spot" has no any direct relation to CO2. enough for a hint. that would be a true contribution (as opposed to empty accusations and talk about credibility). if surface temperature trends are adjusted sufficiently downward.
and it should be a simple job for you to release the data as it was processed by you. 111. and revision control protocols (using git for what it's worth) in social science research which will hopefully be published in the Australasian Journal of Information Systems next year. it is not replicable by anyone else. Unfortunately. or continue to have your credentials and motivations questioned.In this case one would select the models that somehow avoid increasing overall IR opacity between 20N and 20S in spite of some increase in opacity in the CO2 band.kdkd at 21:39 PM on 24 September. 2010 BP writes: What about doing some work yourself? I have shown you the data sources used (SEDAC/GPWv3 and GHCNv2) and also described the basic method. It's not possible to do so without it. The link in BP's post is to this comment. frequently quite vigorously. and around 3% globally. 2010 BP #108.Ned at 23:02 PM on 24 September. Your attempt at justifying why you won't do so is very poor. Take home message: put up.kdkd at 21:46 PM on 24 September. Just do it. enough for a hint. I endorse it and support it for a number of uses. I don't intend to let it go otherwise. I think you'll find that I'm extremely familiar with the open source development model. I'll report back and then we can let it go. because you wrote in the very first . 2010 BP: By the way. the UHI effect would explain around 6% to 9% of recent observed warming over land. I'm also familiar with the problems surrounding scientific computing and the issues which cause a divergence from more traditional allegedly more rigorous software engineering practices. I want this so that I can assess the validity of your claim statistically. and argue for its use wherever possible with my colleagues. Isn't this the very kind of defensive behaviour that you claim is unacceptable among the professional climate scientists? 110. The analysis that kdkd has been repeatedly challenging you on was described in this other comment. In the immediately following comment I showed that even granting all your assumptions. 109. Anyway this is becoming increasingly off topic. I am just finishing the reviews for a paper I wrote that argues strongly for the use of an open source model. That's a very long winded attempt at justifying why you won't give me the raw data that you used to make the graph you presented. These are precisely the models with a negative water vapor feedback in the tropics.
it would be exceptionally simple to just post the F-test result or 95% confidence interval or whatever. (3) I don't think the quality of either the coordinate information in the GHCN metadata or the spatial resolution of the population density data are sufficient to actually support the type of analysis described. Thus. so it's understandable why kdkd would assume that you'd looked at the statistics for your model.angusmac at 23:27 PM on 24 September. My guess is that: (1) The significance of BP's model was probably very low (low enough to make it all meaningless). I enclose Figure 2 as explanation (click here for a high resolution image). On the contrary. You also stated that the correlation was "not very strong". Thus. It may help to think of Scenario C as a “black box” that gets the right answers. as I noted in the linked comments. If you had saved the results of that analysis.. 112. 2010 Dana#85 Scenario C is not irrelevant. You said it was "the most important finding".. Personally. and then didn't bother saving it.sentence "I have selected 270 GHCN stations worldwide with a reasonably uniform distribution over land [. wrote up that comment. you wrote: But the most important finding is that there is a (not very strong) correlation between these two parameters.]"without identifying the specific stations. My thoughts on BP's analysis were given here and here. . just that it's hard to get a representative sample. What kdkd has been bugging you about is simply the statistical significance (or lack thereof) of that regression. it is relevant because it matches actual temperatures better than the other scenarios. I was and am still skeptical. my assumption is that you probably did the analysis in a hurry. In that comment. I don't mean to suggest that this was deliberate. I don't see this as a really big deal. (2) The hand-picked set of stations seems to be very unrepresentative of the overall population of land stations. so a regression line can be computed.
Furthermore. 2006) It should be noted that the emissions in Scenarios B and C are similar until 2000. Thereafter they diverge. 2. Nevertheless.” CONCLUSIONS Hansen and his 1988 team are to be commended for producing models that are close to reality. it appears to be “on the money. Scenario C provides a better prediction of real temperatures than Scenario B.19 °C/dec and is significantly closer to reality than the Scenario B rate of 0. for the ten years that have elapsed since 2000.26 °C/dec.24 °C/dec. Scenario C emissions are curtailed at their 2000 level whist Scenario B emissions continue to increase. 3. the following points are evident from Figure 2: 1.Figure 2: Scenarios B and C Compared with Measured GISS LOTI Data (after Hansen. The Scenario C warming trend for 1984-2009 is 0. Scenario C in particular has shown significant skill in predicting actual temperatures.01 °C/dec. . Dana has shown that the Scenario B emissions are quite close to reality. The Scenario C prediction for 2000-2019 is nearly zero at 0. This is near to the measured rate of 0.
116. 2010 angusmac @112 Scenarios A. uses figures that are close to real-world emmissions. however. Will the “black box" that is Scenario C be right or will the real world move closer to Scenario B? 113. our past). The fact that Scenario C is closer is irrelevant. Do you understand your mistake? 114. realworld emmissions. but distinction among scenarios [B & C] and comparison with the real world will become clearer within a decade . Scenarios A B and C could be said (perhaps somewhat crudely) to correspond to predictions of different CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in the future. kdkd. The temperature change is based primarily on 2 factors. and thus offer the same basic parameters (except for climate sensitivity).Phil at 01:43 AM on 25 September.Additionally. 2010 RE: comments from myself. we can look at the currentactual CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and determine that emissions have most closely followed Hansens scenario B. There is no point in comparing to Scenario C. B and C all represent the same "black box" . Hansen’s (2006) comments on the 1988 models that. the CO2 emissions for future years (his future. Scenario B. but I've just posted a lengthy "reanalysis and commentary" over in the appropriate thread (Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?).” I concur. Since we are now in Hansens future. Scenario B has been quite close to reality. radiative forcing (which depends heavily on emissions scenarios) and climate sensitivity (which is a product of the climate model).archiesteel at 01:09 AM on 25 September. Thus scenario C (and A) is irrelevant because it was a prediction for a course of action the world did not take 115. let us wait until 2015 to see which scenario is correct.dana1981 at 02:37 AM on 25 September. 2010 angusmac. because it uses does not use real-world emmission values.Ned at 02:04 AM on 25 September. and BP above: It's off-topic for this thread.just with a different input value. Regarding the first factor. which has . I'll try one more time to explain to you.“… a 17-year period is too brief for precise assessment of model predictions. 2010 @angusmac: Scenario C is not relevant because it is based on CO2 emmissions that do not accurately represent actual.
The problem is that in Scenario C. and some others. which is a hypothetical world which does not match the real world. "There is simply no chance that Scenario C will continue close to reality because it does not reflect real-world emissions or radiative forcings" is extremely brave. My Figure 2 clearly shows that Scenario C is tracking the real world temperatures much better than Scenario B. Both of the factors mentioned above are incorrect in Scenario C. One is too high and one is too low. 117. 118.wrong (too high) .wrong (too high) temperatures out. As I showed in the article. I already understand the theory (hypothesis?) of AGW. are ignoring is that the real world is not following Scenario B. This is a case of right emissions in . probably because this would mean revising radiative forcings and/or temperature sensitivity downwards from currently accepted norms. 2010 #102 archiesteel. This is a case of wrong emissions in .angusmac at 19:19 PM on 25 September.4°C for 2xCO2. 2010 angusmac #117: "The point that I am trying to make and that you. Your statement that. The point that I am trying to make and that you. the forcing flattens out.climate sensitivity. are ignoring is that the real world is not following Scenario B. Since the real-world emissions and forcing have been close to B. we can then examine the second factor . because the real-world emissions do not. I prefer Jim Hansen's stance to wait until 2015 to differentiate between the outcomes of Scenarios B and C. I have not seen one yet. It doesn't matter if the temps follow closer to C. Scenario B is also incorrect – it uses the right emissions but over-predicts current temperatures. There is simply no chance that Scenario C will continue close to reality because it does not reflect real-world emissions or radiative forcings.CBDunkerson at 19:25 PM on 25 September. you don't need to explain. we can then determine that the real-world sensitivity has been around 3. You're obsesing with Scenario C.right answer out What is required is a model that gives real world emissions in real world temperatures out.not. This would enable us to assess whether or not current assumptions are correct. and some others. This is a case of right emissions in . #105 Dana. Notice my use of the term "real-world". If Scenario C still gives correct predictions then the assumed radiative forcings and/or climate sensitivity would need to be revised downwards. whereas that will not happen in reality.
temperatures out." Actually, 'scenario B' emissions were slightly higher than actual emissions have been... and the temperature divergence is of such short duration (5 years) as to be meaningless. This should be obvious from the fact that there are divergences that great between the scenario B temperature line and actual temperatures in the years BEFORE the paper was published.
119.angusmac at 20:04 PM on 25 September, 2010
CBDunkerson #118 see angusmac #101 in which I concur with, Hansen's (2006) comments on the 1988 models that,"… a 17-year period is too brief for precise assessment of model predictions, but distinction among scenarios [B & C] and comparison with the real world will become clearer within a decade." What Hansen was saying in 2006 is that "within a decade" means 2015 - 1988 = 27 years which is a reasonable time period to compare the scenarios. The start date is from 1988 not 2010 and therefore is significantly longer than the 5 years mentioned in your post.
120.CBDunkerson at 22:30 PM on 25 September, 2010
angusmac #119: "The start date is from 1988 not 2010 and therefore is significantly longer than the 5 years mentioned in your post." Yes, but from 1988 through 2005 actual temperatures were consistent with scenario B. Ergo... 5 years of divergence (2006 2010).
121.archiesteel at 00:57 AM on 26 September, 2010
@angusmac: "The point that I am trying to make and that you, and some others, are ignoring is that the real world is not following Scenario B. This is a case of right emissions in - wrong (too high) temperatures out." We understand your point, it is simply wrong. We perfectly understand that Scenario B is a case of right emmissions in wrong temps out. What the article tries to explain is how wrong (and how right) Hansen 1988 was. The only way to find out the divergence between his predictions and reality is to pick the scenario that uses parameters that are closer to reality. That scenario is scenario B. The fact that scenario C looks closer to reality is that it contains *two* erroneous components that cancel each other out and make it appear similar to real-world outcomes (for a while, at least). It is a curiosity, a coincidence, nothing more. "What is required is a model that gives real world emissions in real world temperatures out. I have not seen one yet, probably because this would mean revising radiative forcings and/or temperature sensitivity downwards from currently accepted
norms." Did you even read the article? The reason Scenario 2 (near realworld emmissions in) gave inaccurate results was because of a wrong climate sensitivity value (4.2C instead of 3.4C). Prev 1 2 3
Post a Comment
Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy... You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here. © Copyright 2010 John Cook Links | Translations | A bout Us | Contact Us
1. 2. 3. 4.
Products & Services Knowledge Center Browse News Releases Contact PR Newswire See more news releases in: Books, Publishing & Information Services, Environmental Products & Services
Global Warming: An Unstoppable 1,500-Year Cycle
New Book Debunks Greenhouse Fears and Points to Natural 1,500-Year Warming Cycles
NEW YORK, Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- A new book that is bound to be controversial in public policy and environmental circles says that the Earth has a moderate, natural warming roughly every 1,500 years caused by a solar- linked cycle. The current Modern Warming may be mostly due to that natural cycle and not human activity, say the book's authors, well-known
climate physicist Fred Singer and Hudson Institute economist Dennis Avery. "Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 276 pages, $24.95) assembles physical and historical evidence of the natural climate cycle that ranges from ancient records in Rome, Egypt, and China; to 12,000 antique paintings in museums; to Vikings' tooth enamel in Greenland cemeteries; and to high-tech analyses of ice cores, seabed sediments, tree rings, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites. "The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century," says Avery, "and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages. Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate that today's warming is not unprecedented." "We have lots of physical evidence for the 1,500-year cycle," says Singer. "Yet we don't have physical evidence that human-emitted CO2 is adding significantly to the natural cycle. The current warming started in 1850, too early to be blamed on industries and autos." Singer notes that humanity learned of the 1,500-year cycle only recently, from the first Greenland ice cores brought up in 1983. The cycle was too long and moderate to be observed by earlier peoples without thermometers and written records. The Greenland ice cores showed the 1,500-year cycle going back 250,000 years. It raises temperatures at the latitude of New York and Paris by 1-2 degrees C for centuries at a time, more at the North and South Poles, with a global average of 0.5 degrees C. In 1987, the first Antarctic ice core showed the cycle extending back through the last 400,000 years and four Ice Ages-and demonstrated the cycle was indeed global. There is also evidence of the 1,500-year cycle in seabed sediments from six oceans, in ancient tree rings from around the Northern Hemisphere, in
000 years. Singer and Avery say that the science of the natural cycle runs counter to what many believe and fear will happen as a result of man-made global warming: * Wild species won't become extinct in our warming because they've been through at least 600 previous warmings.000 years. link the 1.glacier advances and retreats from Greenland to New Zealand. Sunspot observations over the past 400 years. including the Holocene Warming just 5.000 years ago that was much warmer than today. "The deepest seabed sediment cores show the cycle has been going on for at least a million years.650 years. over centuries." says Avery.5 percent. along with modern analysis of carbon and beryllium isotopes. The North American Pollen Database shows nine complete reorganizations of the continent's trees and plants in the past 14. rather than more CO2 producing global warming. say the authors. However. Thus. and warming forces water to release some its gases. because the oceans hold vastly more CO2 than the air. Antarctic ice studies show global temperatures tracking closely with atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 400. more warming has produced more atmospheric CO2. Even a 5 degree C warming would decrease its ice mass by only 1.500-year cycle to variations recently detected by satellites in the sun's irradiance. Singer and Avery note the studies also show that temperature changes preceded the CO2 changes by about 800 years. because 90 percent of the world's remaining ice is in the melt-resistant Antarctic. . and in cave stalagmites from every continent including South Africa. or one every 1. * The seas won't rise to drown New York before the next cooling. This makes sense.
prosperity. and few untimely frosts.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile. and enhances their water use efficiency. scare people to death. Fred Singer http://profnet. visit our website at www.prnewswire. click appropriate link. For more information about Hudson Institute. Available Topic Expert(s): For information on the listed expert(s)." About Hudson Institute Hudson Institute is a non-partisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security. not to study one climate model after another. "We should be using our resources and technology to find the best ways to adapt to the inevitable but moderate warming to come.aspx?ei=52881 Dr.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile." emphasizes Avery.org. 23 • • • • . the greatest problem of all. and freedom.prnewswire.* Warming won't bring famine.aspx?ei=52883 SOURCE Hudson Institute Back to top Featured Video 2010 Renewable Energy Milestone: Janssen Turns On New Jersey's Largest Solar Energy System Sept. Dennis Avery http://profnet. more sunlight. More CO2 also stimulates plants' growth.hudson. because it brings what crops like -longer growing seasons. S. "We hope our book will help calm the rampant hysteria about global warming and the flawed Greenhouse models. and pass crippling 'environmental' legislation that would deny the world the economic growth it needs to overcome poverty.
" Bush added. Nuclear power still produces 20 percent of the total U. But when the curtain rose at the Group of Eight summit on Wednesday. the question of how to safely store radioactive waste and the dangers of plutonium reaching terrorists' hands. "The growing pressure to confront global warming and reduce greenhouse gas emissions has breathed new life into zero-emissions nuclear power like nothing else. he was poised to tout a climate strategy shared by some peers. "It's time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again. "Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy. all "without producing a single pound of air pollution and greenhouse gases." the president said in a televised appearance in June at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Maryland. by a few environmentalists: nuclear power." says Dan . By Miguel LlanosReporter msnbc. a key greenhouse gas that many scientists tie to global warming. Nuclear power's downsides are well known: the potential for meltdowns. has been stressing a positive quality of nuclear power: the fact that it doesn't burn fossil fuel and therefore produces no carbon dioxide emissions. Nightly News video Bush: 'It's time' advertisement | ad info Frederic J. But Bush. but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that 100 new reactors would be needed over 20 years just to maintain that share. electricity. President Bush's refusal to endorse mandatory action means he is largely isolated on the world stage. The country wants to build 27 more reactors by 2020. Some environmentalists say the plan makes sense because it would mean less reliance on coal and fewer emissions tied to global warming. The president has made similar pitches in recent months.1. host of the G8 summit. and the message appears to be getting some traction. and more surprisingly.S. as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair.Getty Images file Neither Three Mile Island nor Chernobyl stopped China from building this nuclear power plant near Hangzhou in the 1980s.com updated 7/7/2005 2:54:13 PM ET • • • • • Share Print Font: When it comes to global warming. Brown / AFP .
he said. "The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power. which relies on coal." Brand said. "But it's really a trade-off against burning coal." he said. A few venture even further.Esty. stirred the pot with his "Environmental Heresies" essay in the May issue of Technology Review magazine. understands that. "You do move ahead with what you've got and not wait. a one-time hippie and founder of the Whole Earth Catalog. even some environmentalists are breaking the ranks that formed after the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. told the House Energy and Resources Subcommittee last April that nuclear power's "benefits far outweigh the risks. Brand told MSNBC. which views Earth as a self-regulating organism. a former Anglican bishop in Britain who was asked to resign his longtime board seat at Friends of the Earth when he published his position last October. James Lovelock. nations can phase out coal. Ex-hippie fuels debate Stewart Brand. Brand's position was partly inspired by other environmentalists who earlier went public in support of nuclear energy. Moore." Mainstream environmentalists "treat nuclear as if it is a trade-off against conservation" — use less energy and nuclear won't be needed. The time to reduce CO2 loading was 10 years ago. he said. and plans to build 27 nuclear reactors by 2020. "The only issue is that it's not really enough. By ramping up nuclear. Brand said." he wrote. which is the dirtiest fossil fuel and causes hundreds of premature deaths each year in the United States alone. Energy conservation and renewable energy are "still key" strategies. director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. and Hugh Montefiore." . advertisement | ad info Now. China. They say that the warming threat is so serious and so widespread that nuclear power should be reconsidered. which commissions an annual survey on Americans' energy attitudes. who left Greenpeace over strategy differences a decade ago.com. They include Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore. creator of the Gaia hypothesis. saying it's time to ramp up nuclear power.
provided we address issues of waste disposal and security. is to meet its ever-increasing demands for energy while reducing the threat of climate change and reliance on overseas oil. president of the World Resources Institute." the group Environmental Defense says on its Web site." But he also sees significant obstacles. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that favors the existing reactor designs. not building dozens of nuclear plants. starting with what he calls a "culture" at the U." he said. then the American nuclear industry must be revitalized and permitted to grow. And he feels the industry is more focused on getting U. The Natural Resources Defense Council has a similar position." New reactors safer Jim MacKenzie. while not embracing nuclear power. . has gone on the record saying: "I don't believe we should a priori exclude any viable alternative" for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. head of the group's nuclear program. "The problem of global warming is so serious that we must thoroughly consider every low-carbon option for producing power.S. and took a public stand in June as the Senate debated bipartisan legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions in part by providing incentives for nuclear and other low-carbon energy sources. The 'no way' activists Still other environmentalists refuse to entertain the nuclear notion at all.S. says that a new design known as the pebble-bed reactor is "substantially safer" than existing reactors and "basically meltdown proof.reactor safety and nuclear waste disposal — "need to be solved before expanding our commitment to nuclear power. And Jonathan Lash. a climate researcher at the institute and a physicist by training. government subsidies than on addressing the nuclear waste and proliferation concerns. "These problems" — safeguarding plutonium. MacKenzie favors fostering a mix of greater efficiency and clean energy resources. told Western governors last year.S."If the U. "including safe nuclear power. advertisement | ad info The 'maybe some day' camp Still other environmentalists. are saying it could some day be a viable option — if safety issues can be resolved and steps are taken to ensure that plutonium produced as a byproduct from the process doesn't end up in the hands of terrorists." Thomas Cochran.
only 35 percent were in favor. we flatly reject the argument that increased investment in nuclear capacity is an acceptable or necessary solution. the senior Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee. The 2005 Gallup survey touched a nerve as well when the question became more personal.. DConn. the Sierra Club and U." advertisement | ad info That didn't happen. said he suspected nuclear advocates were testing whether some environmental groups would accept the financial incentives "as some kind of price to pay for moving global warming legislation forward. the Sierra Club's global warming director. John McCain. PIRG said in a statement." he said. Jeff Bingaman. But he also made clear that it would take guidance from Washington . were New Mexico Sen. and Delaware Sen. with even the maybe-some-day camp saying subsidies don't make sense. championed by Sens. Joining Lieberman. for example. "Instead we can significantly reduce global warming pollution and save consumers money by increasing energy efficiency and shifting to clean renewable sources of energy.S. That skittishness is also reflected among investors like billionaire Warren Buffett. A Washington Post/ABC News poll last June asked a slightly different question — whether to build more nuclear plants — and got a much lower approval rating: just 37 percent somewhat or strongly in favor. the World Resources Institute president who left the nuclear option on the table.. "The price of making a mistake (by not acting) is such that you should err on the side of the planet. David Hamilton. Asked how they'd feel about construction of a nuclear power plant in their area. emphasized that "subsidizing a mature technology like nuclear power makes about as much sense as subsidizing Mr. R-Ariz.“While we are committed to tackling the challenge of global warming. and Joe Lieberman.” That legislation. Trump to build another tower. Lash." Opinion polls and smart money Where do Americans stand on all this? A Gallup survey in March 2005 found 54 percent were strongly or somewhat in favor of nuclear power. and he told the Wall Street Journal last month that he's keeping an "open mind" about investing in new nuclear power plants. His holding company already owns utilities. died for other reasons but it reflected a move by some opposition Democrats to push the nuclear ball forward. That's up from 48 percent in 2001 and down from 57 percent in 1994. Tom Carper." the coalition led by Greenpeace.
" he said. "We're here to participate in the dialogue.globalwarmingcause.net/2010/08/07/do-you-believe-that-humanscaused-global-warming/ .com Reprints Bibliography Do you believe that humans caused global warming?? (n. 2010.d. "but not to set policy." © 2010 msnbc.).for him to commit. Retrieved September 23. from Global Warming Cause: http://www.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.