The Australian reported:
THE debate on climate change is over. As far as the Howard Government is concerned, Australians must accept that humans contribute to global warming and adapt their behaviour to save the planet.
Emerging from a bush walk through the Tarkine forest in northwest Tasmania, Environment Minister Ian Campbell told The Australian that argument about the causes and impact of global warming had effectively ended.
"There is a very small handful of what we call sceptics who, in the face of seeing all of the evidence about carbon increases and all of the evidence about impacts on the climate, would still say that it's only natural variability that is causing it," Senator Campbell said.
"On global warming, I have spent an enormous amount of my time getting to understand the problem and getting to understand the solutions, and I think the Australian Government owes it to the public to tell it like it is - it is a very serious threat to Australia."
Senator Campbell said he agreed broadly with the contention promoted recently in environmental scientist Tim Flannery's book The Weather Makers that Australia and other industrialised nations need to take urgent action to avert environmental disaster.
The next day they had on opinion piece from Bob Carter who claimed we've been cooling since 1998 which
marks the apparent peak of our most recent, and seemingly entirely normal, warming cycle.
and anyway the warming we've seen is entirely natural:
Humans certainly have an effect on local climate. For instance, the surrounds of Melbourne are now about 1C warmer than they were before European settlement. This, the urban heat island effect, is because modern metropolises comprise extensive areas of concrete, macadam, steel, bricks and glass, all of which act to trap more solar energy than did the preceding virgin landscape.
You might think that this effect, aggregated all over the world and added to by other landscape changes associated with modern agricultural practices, would produce the human-caused global warming signature that the minister seems to be worrying about. You might think so. But truth to tell, and IPCC views notwithstanding, no global human temperature-change signal has yet been detected that stands out from the natural background vagaries of the climate system.
Carter's claim that observed warming trends are caused by the Urban Heat Island effect is rubbish because satellites, boreholes, rural stations and marine measurements all show warming, but it also contradicts his claim in the same article that the warming is natural and we are now seeing cooling. Is Carter contending that the UHI effect stopped operating in 1998? And also, when it suits him he argues that 1998 should not count because it was exceptional.
Tim - if Carter really believes in a cooling trend, he seems an obvious candidate for teasing with the betting stuff. How do we contact him?
Bob Carter's email is on his [home page](http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/).
Thanks. I mailed him. Not holding my breath...
The debate about the reality of Global Warming may be effectively over but the one about what to do about it definitely isn't. Will our governments respond by supporting lots of R&D and Deployment in non GHG based energy supply or will we see efforts to maximise the revenue potential of coal and oil while we still can because this would be more economically beneficial and rational in the short to medium term? Without the numbers at hand I suspect we'll see more spent on oil exploration and highway upgrades than on solar energy and battery R&D.
Global warming is real. The cause of it, the jury is still out on that one.
Is there any wonder why I am a skeptic when the director of Norway's most profiled climatology center went on TV several times after the Katrina hurricane and claimed that global warming is causing more frequent and intense hurricanes?
More frequent - there are no climatologists who claim there are more hurricanes now because of global warming. Kerry Emanuel says as much in his latest.
More intense - again, this is only a theory that has not been proven or even accepted as a fact, and is hampered by the fact that our observations of hurricanes through technology has only been reliable since 1960, and has only gotten better since then.
Yet Norway's leading climatology center has their director on TV basically lying, and the media often use him to back up claims that global warming is causing this and that, and that global warming is proven to be caused by humans.
This man is not even a climatologist, he is a biologist. A meteorologist came out in Norway's 3rd largest newspaper recently bemoaning his obvious falsifications. During a TV debate on Norway's 2nd largest TV channel (of 2), the moderator asked this director why no climatologists would agree to come on the show. He also asked why some of them said it was due to job security that they did not want to join the panel. He also asked why some of them said that if they appeared on the show, they would have their funding cut.
The director obviously had no answers for this. The moderator might also have asked just what in the hell a biologist is doing on TV acting as if he knows a damn thing about climatology instead of putting actual climatologists from the center he directs on the program instead...
Just some of the reasons why I remain a skeptic.
Sexion, you need to better understand how the media works before calling people liars, and also realise that intense pressure of being on camera under real-time pressures means that the message needs to be simplified. A typical 30 second grab is extracted from a 30-60 minute interview, and the grabs used are often presented out of context. My interview last night on TT had one sentence attributed to me that this year was the warmest ever... of course I never said that (after all the earths surface was once molten!).
BTW before you get on your high horses about cyclone intensity, go away and read the recent papers by Emanuel, Webster, Holland and Knutson (to name a few). I'm happy to email these to you if you wish. The pervasiveness of observed changes, and their match with prior theoretical predictions is compelling. These papers devote considerable attention to data issues, but in the expert views of the authors these changes cannot account for the observed changes. Many of the changes have occur ed over the past 20 years, during which time the networks/data have hardly changed.
In the scheme of things, hurricanes and scientific views on this are small fry in comparison to the bigger picture of a extremely rapidly warming globe. Science will always provide a diversity of views, and to overturn a science based on one perspective is like turning your back on modern medicine because one doctor has a controversial view on the cause of cancer...
Regards,
David
Seixon, it's entirely possible that this Norwegian research institute you're talking about is run by some egomaniac who likes to shoot his mouth off in public on an issue where he has no expertise and who terrorizes his subordinates if they openly disagree with him. This isn't much of a reason for being skeptical of human-induced climate change--it's a good reason for ignoring this one man.
Seixon-
If you think global warming is just a natural cycle, just bet me over it:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005/10/believers-in-natural-global…
If you think hurricanes have not become more intense because of warming, bet me on that:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005/10/doing-my-part-to-focus-on-w…
Are you just not sure about human-caused warming? (But certain that we shouldn't lift a finger to fight it.) I give 3:1 odds that temperatures will rise in 20 years - that should be pretty attractive to anyone thinking we may just be repeating the "natural" cycle of the early 20th Century. If you're not willing to bet, then your wallet is pretty sure that human-caused warming is happening:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005/10/how-betting-can-clarify-wis…
Looking forward to hearing from you.
david,
Trust me, this is not a case of this guy being taken out of context. He was invited to talk on the evening news on August 29, the day that Katrina struck Louisiana. I'm guessing he spoke to the news anchor about this topic for around 3-5 minutes. The exchange seemed entirely scripted. There he claimed that global warming causes more frequent and more intense hurricanes. He wasn't cut off, taken out of context, or anything. This was on NRK, Norway's state channel.
On TV2, Norway's second of three main channels, he was quoted as saying something to the same effect as above on a news item.
On TV2, he also took part in a debate about "extreme weather" which lasted at least 30 minutes if not more, where he had ample time to express himself.
The man is a liar, plain and simple, and even a meteorologist had to come out and draft an article in a newspaper that he was misleading the public, although I think that article was only drafted online.
This is the director of Norway's leading climatology center. Norway is a small country, and I cannot even think of any other climatology center that I have heard of in this country. When there is a news item that can be related to global warming, he always shows up. Debates on the subject, he shows up. He is always there when global warming is being discussed. Coincidence? Nope. The media know that he will parrot the headline-pushing agenda, so he is always used.
As far as the intensity of hurricanes increasing, I have read Emanuel's paper on the subject. I do not recall him claiming it was due to global warming, but that hurricane intensity had gone up the last 30-40 years or so. With that said, he gave many possible errors for the methods of his theory, which is why I said that it is not a very solid theory. The math he used for calculating his figures seemed just like the whole CO2 debate: creating simplistic models by slashing the complexity of nature down to a few variables.
He started out with the intensity of a hurricane being all kinds of things multiplied together, the complex version. Then, due to the impossibility of defining each of those variables, he stripped away most of them and was left with a very mediocre-looking formula.
And as I think he made clear, there's only enough data the last 40 years to use in his calculations, thus we cannot know from his theory what the hurricane intensities were like even 100 years ago. The fact that our coverage of the globe with technology like satellites and the like to pick up storms has increased much over the last 40 years can explain a vast amount of any such trends. This is something that is a general problem with the climate debate. The farther back in time we go, the more unreliable our data is. So basically the conclusions are, yea, hurricanes have become more intense over the last 30 years. So? Does that mean that they are more intense than ever? That they are going to get more and more intense? Most of the climatologists I have heard in the media, including meteorologists, do not subscribe to that view, but rather that the hurricanes are going through a natural cycle.
Donald,
Yes, just by some odd chance, Norway's leading climatology center has been overrun by a zealot... I'm sure him always appearing on the news, on debates, and every time the media wants to use someone to say "global warming is coming, watch out, we're all going to die" is just a "coincidence".
These other climatologists that didn't want to appear on the debate, they were not necessarily from HIS climatology center. Yet none of them wanted to partake in the debate because of varying reasons that were all similar in that they would either lose their job, funding, or something like that.
Brian S,
First, I don't bet with random people on the Internet, especially without some structure support behind it. I was tempted to bet on TradeSports on the Plame affair and indictments, but I decided not to do so in the end because of initial start up fees etc.
Second, I have no reason to believe that it will not be warmer 20 years from now. It just might very well be. Or not. I'm not psychic, and I don't claim to know exactly what the Earth is going to be doing x years from now, you know, unlike the IPCC, and all global warming advocates who seem to know the exact temperatures the Earth will exhibit 100 years from now by seemingly divine omniscience.
I swear, the weather services can't even pin-point what the temperature will be tomorrow, but you'd have me believe that they'll know what the temperature will be like in 2075? Tell me once again why I shouldn't be skeptical...
I do not know if hurricanes have become more intense because of warming temperatures. Hell, neither do most of the scientists I have heard talk about it, aside from the lying liar I was talking about earlier. The scientists, the honest ones, say that hurricane patterns are too complex and they just don't really know enough to be able to ascertain what makes hurricanes do this or that. Apparently some scientists have figured out that the atmosphere is a complex system that is made up of hundreds or thousands of random and chaotic variables. Gee, who would have thought that the atmosphere was complex. You almost had me thinking it was like algebra.
It was warmer around a 1,000 years ago than it is now. I never get an explanation how that fits with the whole anthropogenic global warming theory.
I also don't get an explanation for why there was a cooling period in the 1960s and 1970s, even though our CO2 emissions were going straight up, and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were steadily increasing.
I also don't get how in the world the Kyoto protocol is supposed to help anything at all. In fact, it won't. Letting China and India just go nuts, while everyone else buckles down seems preposterous to me. Even with the IPCC's findings, if we did everything they say, it would still only change the temperature tenths of a degree over the next x amount of years anyways. Well, according to the models that is. We know how reliable those are. You know, the ones that strip nature of its complexity and determine conclusions from a few variables, compared to all the variables that complex nature has.
How much CO2 does a human being emit in one year anyways?
[Judith Curry interview on her paper in Science](http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/oct/policy/pt_curr…):
>Okay. What we looked at was the global data set that is available from 1970 through 2004, and it's a satellite-based data set, so we're able to look at every single tropical storm and hurricane. And what we looked at was the frequency, intensity, and number of hurricane days for each ocean basin where they have hurricanes.
>We looked concurrently at the sea surface temperature over that same period for each ocean basin. What we find--again, the increase of tropical sea surface temperature in these regions is well known--is that there was an increase in the frequency, almost a doubling, of the most intense hurricanes--the category 4s and 5s. And a similar increase in the number of hurricane days.
Oh we fully understand the impact and need no further discussion? Well I'm glad that's settled. Talk about leaving himself open for a flank attack.
Brian S.
You are taking the sucker's side on the hurricane bet. Perhaps you should look for info on hurricane cycles and perhaps see why the first half of the 20th century had more numbers of and more intense hurricanes than the last half. But since we are entering into the more intense side of the cycle I'm sure it will be spun as pure global warming by those fervent green Believers.
Lambert,
Isn't that exactly what I said? The data they have shows an increase in the intensity over the past 30 some years, because we only have reliable data from that far back. So now apparently the trend for the last 30 years means that the trend extends backwards and forwards at the same rate indefinitely?
It's the same with the idea of global warming. Sure, it has gotten warmer the last 25-30 years. So? Does that mean it will keep warming indefinitely?
That's what is so BS with all of this stuff. We only have reliable data for the last 30 years, with some of that showing a certain trend, and even that is disputed because the atmosphere is simply too complex to understand how it affects how hurricanes develop.
So what this gal in Science is saying is that the frequency of hurricanes hasn't changed, but there has been increasingly more cat. 4 and 5 over... what time span? The last decade?
I really hate it when people act as if history began like 50 years ago and that nothing ever happened before that, or that everything before that is basically just null compared to today. It's just like those anti-war people who actually believe that the Democrats didn't want to take out Saddam Hussein when Clinton was in the chair. Collective amnesia to pin up the propaganda, is what it is.
Are we Kyoto protocol advocates around here or not?
Curry said that there was an increase in the frequency of the most intense hurricanes. So the guy Seixon claimed was lying and Seixon was, as usual, wrong.
Seixon: If you wish to discuss global warming, there are many who would be willing to do so, but beware: here there be elephants.
>unlike the IPCC, and all global warming advocates who seem to know the exact temperatures the Earth will exhibit 100 years from now by seemingly divine omniscience.
In fact, the IPCC is not exact, it has predicted a warming of between about 1.5 and 6 C, based on gaps in our knowledge and possible changes to emissions. .
>I swear, the weather services can't even pin-point what the temperature will be tomorrow, but you'd have me believe that they'll know what the temperature will be like in 2075? Tell me once again why I shouldn't be skeptical
Possible because you appear to have made the classic error of mixing up weather and climate.
>It was warmer around a 1,000 years ago than it is now. I never get an explanation how that fits with the whole anthropogenic global warming theory.
Do you have a reference for this?
>I also don't get an explanation for why there was a cooling period in the 1960s and 1970s, even though our CO2 emissions were going straight up, and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were steadily increasing.
Perhaps because you never looked for one. There are plenty of analysis of this period of level temperatures available.
>Letting China and India just go nuts, while everyone else buckles down seems preposterous to me.
Its funny you should talk about China, I just came across [this report](http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=27229)
To quote from it:
>'Overall, the Chinese fuel economy standards would be **slightly more stringent than the current CAFE system in the United States.** Specifically, an increase in the average fuel economy of the U.S. vehicle fleet of 5 percent for Phase I (and 10 percent for Phase II) would be necessary to meet the new Chinese standards. '
So they appear to be pretty proactive.
>Even with the IPCC's findings, if we did everything they say, it would still only change the temperature tenths of a degree over the next x amount of years anyways.
I believe you are misquoting your skeptics. What you are thinking of is that if we implement Kyoto, it will change things by a fraction of a degree. If you wish to discuss this let me know.
>Well, according to the models that is. We know how reliable those are. You know, the ones that strip nature of its complexity and determine conclusions from a few variables, compared to all the variables that complex nature has.
I have done a fair amount of work in the field of fluid mechanics and the Navier-Stokes equations are a rather complex set of equations to work with. Not very many plumbers are knowledgeable about them but the water still seems to flow in the pipes. If you are smart, simple models can give usable answers.
>How much CO2 does a human being emit in one year anyways?
Good question and I am not sure. [This site]( http://www.mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html) seems to indicate about 300 grams per day but other parts of the site look pretty questionable to me. But the key thing is that this CO2 is recycled CO2, not CO2 that was part of a long term reservoir.
John
Table 1332, US Statistical abstracts 2004, 6 tons CO2 per person per year in France, 21 in the US, 17 in Australia.
>Are we Kyoto protocol advocates around here or not?
And that, of course, is the only question that really matters to Seixon.
Seixon supports the invasion of Iraq, so the Lancet study must be wrong.
Seixon has accepted the standard far-right nonsense about Kyoto and therefore will manufacture any number of absurd arguments to reject the AGW hypothesis.
If reality has the bad judgment to disagree with Seixon's prejudices that's reality's problem.
Lambert,
Curry has something that shows that category 4 and 5 storms are more frequent now in a trend since 1970. Once again, I will ask you, how can you extend that trend indefinitely retroactively? *[Deleted]* and showing a trend of increase over the last 30-40 years proves nothing as far as HISTORY goes. In other words, how does a finding of a trend over the last 30-40 years prove unprecedented and unnatural developments?
*[Deleted]* The guy on Norwegian TV said that global warming causes more hurricanes (false, no climatologists are saying this), more intense ones (again, climatologists across the board say that this is a natural cycle), longer lasting ones (false, again by any climatologist's take).
So you bring up some study showing an increase over the last 30 years, and then tie that into global warming? How does that work? Did Curry say global warming caused it? How could they when they only have the last 30-40 years to go on?
Tsk, tsk.
Cross,
I'd say 1.5-6 degrees over the next 100 years is being pretty exact. We're talking about 100 years from now, after all.
Weather vs. climate, as if climate is less complex than weather...
Reference for temperatures 1,000 years ago? Have you read a history book? Grapes in England? Any book about vikings? I mean, come on.
In regards to the Chinese fuel regulations, you sure made that misleading. I read the link, and it is quite clear that the fuel regulations are to cut down on the need for oil, not because they want to cut down on emissions. That is why, I'm guessing, it is called a "fuel regulation" and not an "emission regulation". Eh?
In other words, the Chinese government wants cars to get at least 40mpg so that China's oil demands won't explode over the next years. Emissions? Who cares about that, it's all about getting more mpg to cut down on the demand for gas. Don't fool yourself.
And yes, what I meant was that if the Kyoto is implemented, it will not alleviate any of the problems that were the entire basis of Kyoto being created.
Simple models may be useful for simple problems, or usable, but are simple models good enough to prove what will happen 100 years from now?
Ian,
Yes, I do not like legislation that is a farce on its face. What is the point of passing Kyoto if it doesn't even solve the problem that is supposedly the reason for its creation?
No, no, no, instead of dealing with that, you just put me back in the mould you need me to be in so you can feel good about yourself.
*[Deleted]*
As far as the "far-right nonsense" on the Kyoto: I have heard that from elements from both sides of the political spectrum. There are actually those who are true believers in AGW, but who know and recognize that Kyoto is full of it.
If the Oil-For-Food scandal is any indication, let's not be surprised if the Kyoto blitz has some skeleton's in its closet as well...
Eli,
OK. I'm not sure that those numbers are purely from human emissions, as in breathing and what not. I'd tend to think those are consumption numbers. It might be alleged that human CO2 emissions have gone up 10-fold since 1900. Not sure that they are enough to make a difference though, since it would only be around 60 billion tons per year, and as far as I remember, the numbers for the atmosphere's CO2 content is in the Gigatons.
*[May I remind you that you are a guest here and my comment policy forbids personal attacks on other commenters? I've deleted them, but do it again and I will delete your entire comment. Tim]*
Okay, Seixon, the global warming theory is all a big conspiracy along the lines of the Michael Crichton novel. Scientists in this one field are afraid of dissenting openly from the official line because their funding will be cut off and they can't possibly expect to get funding for their dissident notions from, say, the car manufacturers or the energy companies, none of whom have even thought of trying to support the honest dissidents who would take their side on this question.
Whatever.
Seixon: Thanks for the reply, but I tend to disagree with what you have said.
>I'd say 1.5-6 degrees over the next 100 years is being pretty exact. We're talking about 100 years from now, after all.
I disagree since a range of 4.5 degrees is much larger than that experienced on the earth over the last several thousand years. However the important point is that even the low end represents a significant increase.
>Weather vs. climate, as if climate is less complex than weather
Not less complex but driven by different functions. You are correct that you can't predict weather much in advance, but I can show you a site where in May I predicted the global average temperature for 2005 and I expect to be within 0.05 degrees.
>Reference for temperatures 1,000 years ago? Have you read a history book? Grapes in England? Any book about vikings? I mean, come on.
Are you aware of grapes in England today? You may wish to [take a look here.](http://www.english-wine.com/) To quote a bit
> Maybe it's too soon to be sure that global warming is really turning Sussex into Champagne or Devon into Tuscany but three in a row might well make one begin to think that way - after all some English wines are already matching or beating the best in the world.
In regards to the Chinese you said:
>Emissions? Who cares about that, it's all about getting more mpg to cut down on the demand for gas. Don't fool yourself.
Well, China just implemented Euro II emission standards and are moving to Euro III in a few years. In this respect they are a few years behind the western world but they are catching up quickly so I think it is pretty obvious they do care about emissions.
>And yes, what I meant was that if the Kyoto is implemented, it will not alleviate any of the problems that were the entire basis of Kyoto being created.
Here I can agree with you since Kyoto is to expire in 7 years. **At this time if countries go back to their current emission standards then there would indeed be little effect.** However it was always the expectation that Kyoto would be followed by other similar protocols.
>Simple models may be useful for simple problems, or usable, but are simple models good enough to prove what will happen 100 years from now?
I am not sure how you can prove the future but I will assure you that there are no elephants in the models.
Regards,
John
Seixon-
You don't bet random people on the Internet without some "support structure"? Okay, bet me here:
http://www.longbets.org/196
It works so long as you're willing to give money to charity. If you're the type of person who gives any money at all to charity, this structure should work.
As for not knowing what the future holds for temperatures, every bet I've offered should be attractive to anyone who thinks we don't know what will happen.
As for the rest of your reasoning, I don't care to debate it. I'm just trying to figure out if you'll put your money where your mouth is.
Jet-
I don't think I've got the sucker's side of the hurricane bet, for the reasons I posted at the link. If someone disagrees with me, they should consider getting in touch.
Donald,
Clearly you don't think a scientist being funded by Exxon is going to be taken seriously? It's called a conflict of interest. Why would Exxon spend money on funding scientists, when the conclusions of those scientists will always be smeared as pro-Exxon propaganda? Not only that, but I'm not so sure that these scientists want to risk their job security that much and move themselves out of the established academic circles they have "grown" up in, for starters.
It is not about any kind of "conspiracy". Is it a conspiracy that the majority of journalists in the USA vote for Democrats? No, it isn't, and thus it is not a conspiracy that the media in the USA tilts heavily pro-Democrat. The TV channel that tried in vain to get climatologists onto their debate program is hardly a fan of George Bush and features the named director of Cicero to back up their headlines of gloom and doom associated with global warming very often. Is that part of a conspiracy too? I don't get it.
Cross,
You're right, a range of 4.5 degrees isn't particularly precise. I'll meet you there in 100 years and we will see where we stand.
I predicted the global average temperature for 2005 and I expect to be within 0.05 degrees
Well, since the global mean annual temp has been within the range of +/- 0.05 since 2001, I'm not so sure that is such a huge feat. 0.422 in 2001, 0.475 in 2002, 0.475 in 2003, 0.455 in 2004, 0.496 in 2005 through July... With the next few months to be cooler than that, I too must say that it is quite likely that the figure for 2005 will be in the range 0.475-0.525. So what?
One fact that might not seem "relevant" is that our coverage of the globe for temps is around 80%. Back in the 1900s it was around 40%. Do tell me what sort of effects this might have.
Are you aware of grapes in England today?
No, I was not. Although you seemingly don't get what you just showed by saying that. There was an abundance of grapevines back when the Romans were stomping around England, and over the last decade, grapes have made a comeback in England. Grapes need warm weather to do well. 2+2 =...?
In this respect they are a few years behind the western world but they are catching up quickly so I think it is pretty obvious they do care about emissions.
Euro II is 7-9 years old. Call me unimpressed. Your use of sources last time is what I took an issue with, as that source was pretty clear in stating that the Chinese were raising fuel standards to alleviate dependence on oil. Much the same can be said of adopting these emission standards as I don't think it is a secret that low-emission vehicles naturally use less fuel.
Brian S,
Sorry, but I see no reason to bet against you on that particular bet. 0.15 degree increase within the next 20 years? Does that mean if the 2025 temperature is at least 0.15 degrees higher than in 2005, you win? Even if the temp goes up and down between then? What a farce of a bet.
As I just summarized, the temperature has changed within 0.05 degrees every year since 2001. The temperature changed from 0.58 to 0.291 in 2 years (1998-2000), that's 0.289 degrees. If the temperature can go down 0.289 degrees over the span of two years, I see no reason to believe that it cannot go up 0.15 degrees within 20 years.
I cannot either see, from the temps I have in my Excel document on global temps, that an increase of 0.15 over a span of 20 years would prove anything unnatural.
If you come up with a different bet, then I might be tempted to put my money where my mouth is, although the site you provided didn't look typically secure to me. An increase of 0.15 degrees over 20 years is historically insignificant. I wouldn't bet on the opposite (a decrease of 0.15) either.
I wasted $15 playing blackjack on a cruise over the weekend, and that was a stretch for me. That was mostly for the atmosphere and excitement (not to mention the lovely lady dealing the cards), and I don't really see betting money and waiting for 20 years as especially invigorating. Especially on such a lame bet.
Lambert,
Personal attacks?
Maybe if you spend equally as much time responding to my comments as you do censoring them, I might not be tempted to call you the "L" word. Or "I.D.". Or that you have made "F" statements.
You can go over on my blog and call me a "F" "R" "A.H" and I won't really care, nor will I censor you. I don't see that I have used any explicit or abusive language here, though, that prompted your Orwellian purges. Deleting all references to what I said, and then calling them "personal attacks" afterwards is pretty brilliant. Even mincing other people's comments who quoted me. It's brilliant because no one will ever know what I said, yet you get the privilege to claim they were personal attacks. Truly Orwellian, if I may say so myself. Or will that get me some censoring? Gag me gently, please.
Seixon, if you don't want to abide by my [comment policy](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/comment/), then don't post here.
"In regards to the Chinese fuel regulations, you sure made that misleading. I read the link, and it is quite clear that the fuel regulations are to cut down on the need for oil, not because they want to cut down on emissions. That is why, I'm guessing, it is called a 'fuel regulation' and not an 'emission regulation'. Eh?
In other words, the Chinese government wants cars to get at least 40mpg so that China's oil demands won't explode over the next years. Emissions? Who cares about that, it's all about getting more mpg to cut down on the demand for gas. Don't fool yourself."
And here I always thought that burning carbon based fuel had a linear relationship to CO2 created.
But don't fool yourself; this is China we're talking about. The Chinese government would have no difficulty with politics or conscience in just ordering one day that every car over 5 years old or whenever the standards were implemented will no longer be permitted within urban areas. And, with the 2008 summer Olympics coming up as China's big showcase for the rest of the world, if things are in an internal combustion stink, you can bet they will.
"Why would Exxon spend money on funding scientists, when the conclusions of those scientists will always be smeared as pro-Exxon propaganda?"
Well, if they read this blog, they will presumably cease to do so.
z,
Right, China will do whatever it's gotta do. They need to cut down on oil usage or else they are going to be in trouble. If they can at the same time claim they are doing it to lower emissions, fine, but don't make me believe that's why they are doing it. Posing for the 2008 Olympics will most naturally involve a lot of theatrics on many fronts. Forgive me if I don't have much left over for a country that goes around censoring the Internet for its citizens.
Lambert,
Man, I don't even have a comment policy on my blog. I even let someone post about me performing certain sexual functions on president Bush.
I have done no such thing here, and instead of actually responding to my statements, which are not just "attacks" but which also have evidence to support them, you just censor and ignore.
If you can't even answer for yourself when I say that you are not leveling with us when claiming that a trend over the last 30 years somehow means something historically, then I can't say that makes you look that great.
Your statement:
Curry said that there was an increase in the frequency of the most intense hurricanes. So the guy Seixon claimed was lying and Seixon was, as usual, wrong.
Is false. Curry and the Norwegian biologist were not saying the same thing, for starters. Instead of owning up to this, you just go around carving up my comments to avoid having to answer for your obvious... oh wait, can't use that word... um... personal attacks? Well, that's what you call them, anyways.
>The Chinese government would have no difficulty with politics or conscience in just ordering one day that every car over 5 years old or whenever the standards were implemented will no longer be permitted within urban areas.
ah the omnicompetent arbiter of statistics, climate science, military affairs, Iraqi politics directs the same psychic abilities he used to deduce George Bush Sr.'s REAL reason for not invading Iraq (which apparently George himself didn;t know) to China and Chinese politics.
Seixon, my University degree was double major in economics and Asian studies. After graduating I spent a decade working as an environmental economist specialising in macro-economic modelling.
Your posts in this thread contains an extraordinarily large number of errors even for you.
Some of these errors have been made by other anti-AGW posters in previous threads and I have addressed a number of them.
Quite frankly given your history of arrogant, abusive and just plain pig-headed
statements here in the past I don;t propose to waste time trying to explain your errors to you.
Except for one minor illustration of the immense seas of your ignorance:
China does have to worry about politics. Politics in China in this case take the form of spontaneous riots, strikes and demonstrations. There are thousands of them across china every year (that the Chinese government admits to) and the related death-toll is regularly in the hundreds.
One of the main thrusts of Hu Jintao's entire policy has been to try and alleviate rural discontent - because its reached a level where it threatens the regimes entire hold on power.
This relates quite directly and specifically to the car pollution laws in question.
The most common form of car in China are what are known as China rural Vehicles (or CRVs). CRVs are crude kerosene-powered three-wheel vehicles which are grossly polluting and extremely unsafe.
They're also the only vehicles most Chinese can afford.
Cities across China have banned CRVs fro safety and pollution reasons and also because they're slow and promote congestion.
Applying Euro-II standards uniformly across China (if that's the proposal) will mean shutting down the production of CRVs and the firms which make them - many of which are owned by local governments and/or senior Party cadres.
Don't bother responding to this post. I suggest you're time is better spent looking for the elephants hiding in your living room, guarding against the hitmen from the Left-wing Journalists' conspiracy and deciding whether you should collect the Nash Prize (for your work on statistics); before or after your Economics Nobel (for you work on the Iraqi economy) or the Physics Nobel (either for your disproof of global warming "It isn't happening here so it can;t be global" or for demonstrating the existence of ESP with your amazing ability to read people's minds).
From Seixon:
"I cannot either see, from the temps I have in my Excel document on global temps, that an increase of 0.15 over a span of 20 years would prove anything unnatural."
Hmm, how about an increase of 0.74 degrees C from 1976 to 1998. Does that seem entirely natural to you?
Ian,
First of all, you quoted someone else, and not me. Second of all, you have just shown what I was saying to be more correct: that China is in fact not that interested in curbing emissions. Why? Well as you say, domestic political reasons. Next time, you might want to check that it is actually me making a comment before launching a tirade.
I never claimed to know Bush Sr.'s real reasons for doing something, I merely suggested what they might be by introducing some facts that some people apparently can't see. You know, like the fact that Iraq was up to its eyes in WMDs back in 1991, whereas in 2003, they were not. You'd think that MIGHT change the equation a little bit for Bush Jr. Ah, but I am just a pig-headed moron. (Lambert's censoring machine has apparently gone warm since Ian made countless personal attacks on me just here...)
Ian, save your hyperbole for something else. It isn't a conspiracy that the majority of journalists in the USA vote Democrat, mk?
Oh, and it sure doesn't take ESP to recognize that the Iraq situation was different in 1991 than it was in 2003. Bush Sr.'s opinions about the situation in 1991 are therefore generally moot in 2003. Either that or we should go back into the archives and ask the British generals their opinions on how best to transition Iraq out of the Ottoman Empire...
Chris,
My spreadsheet gives a 0.78 increase from 1976 to 1998. There was an increase of 0.663 from 1907 to 1944. There was an increase of 0.47 from 1862 to 1878. So judging from the past 150 years, no, I don't that as particularly unnatural. I wonder what a reliable history of temperatures the last 300-1000 years would tell us about it.
For Sexion.
Seixon,
Tim doesn't need to censor you really, you are doing a good job of that all by yourself with some of the most lame, unscientific clap-trap I have ever read. I am a research scientist (in population ecology) and I don't know where to begin unravelling all of the embarrassing gaffes you've churned out in this thread alone.
Lag effects: global mean temperatures leveled off or declined marginally between 1940 and 1970. It is now widely accepted that this was due to the influence of aerosols that dampened or overcompensated for the level of GHG in the atmosphere during this period. Moreover, and this is apparent in any large scale system, changes or perturbations do not manifest themselves instantaneously. The effects of changing variable x on parameter y can take decades in largely deterministic systems. This is the problem with extrapolating extinction rates from habitat loss. Species and populations can persist for decades, even centuries after the loss of a specific area of given habitat (known as the 'extinction debt', from Tilman et al., 1994). Local effects are much more stochastic. When systems are reduced in size, populations 'relax' t a new equilibrium in time, or else gradually decline and fall below a sustainable threshold. Its difficult to know which of these two scenarios will occur
Your claimed that temperatures were warmer 1,000 years ago. This has already been debunked time and time again on cites like Real Climate. There may have been regional fluctuations where temperatures approached those of today, but there is no doubt at all that global temperatures since 1990 are warmer than any time in at least 2,000 years. This is fact. Moreover, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are higher now than in at least 60,000 years. Moreover, current changes are exhibiting decidedly non-linear trends: higher latitudes are warming much faster than lower latitudes, and there are even profound seasonal effects that are severe and are now known to be having severe ecological consequences, such as de-synchronizing food webs, altering predator-prey cycles in communities and causing local extinctions e.g. of migratory song bird populations. There is no doubt that the current level of warming - both annually and seasonally - is so great in some areas that there well be significant consequences for ecosystems and the species in them.
Tim, please forgive the minor digression.
Ian Gould,
Did you earn a master's before going on that 10 year journeyman-ship? When you graduated what type of entity did you work for? Did you travel to Asia often? Are you glad you did it? Sorry for all the questions but it just sounds like you followed one incredible career path.
Jeff,
You'd think Lambert wouldn't need to censor me, but he does.
As far as aerosols, I'll have to look into that. It sounds like a convenient excuse for the one part of the theory that doesn't seem to hold up.
I continue to be amazed at how certain people are about the temperatures and CO2 levels thousands of years ago. Hell, even just hundreds of years ago. Why? We have only been able to reliably measure these things the last 30-100 years.
I also know that the contention about temperatures rests just about singularly on the Mann et al graphs. What if those turn out to be wrong? What then? Is the entire climate debate as we know it today null and void?
You know, just thinking logically with my brain...
100 years ago, the Earth was much less inhabited than it is now. Thus, we were less able to observe most of it back then, as opposed to being able to measure most of it now. Wouldn't that have effects on the global mean temperature?
If the entire temperature debate relies solely on one study done by a group of scientists, I'd say that is pretty foolhardy. The IPCC has used their graphs to substantiate their findings, I'm not aware that they have used anything else.
I don't know if the criticisms of the Mann et al graph are valid or not, but it sure seems like they don't like getting their work checked.
What Jeff Harvey said.
I would add only that Seixon thinks that just because he asks a question it throws whatever he questions into doubt. Would that the world revolved around us as it did when we were three years old...
D
Seixon:
> I continue to be amazed at how certain people are about the temperatures and CO2 levels thousands of years ago.
Such as the person in #9 who made the following comment, perhaps?
> It was warmer around a 1,000 years ago than it is now.
"One of the world's largest insurers warned today of the economic costs of global warming.
"Climate change will significantly affect the health of humans and ecosystems and these impacts will have economic consequences," concludes a new study cosponsored by Swiss Re, a global re-insurance company."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20051102/sc_space/insurancecompanywarnsof…
Another predictably leftist huge Swiss insurance company lie, part of their diabolical plot to destroy the economies of the Western World.
>With the next few months to be cooler than that, I too must say that it is quite likely that the figure for 2005 will be in the range 0.475-0.525. So what?
So that is the difference between weather and climate.
>One fact that might not seem 'relevant' is that our coverage of the globe for temps is around 80%. Back in the 1900s it was around 40%. Do tell me what sort of effects this might have.
I suspect not much but if you can direct me to some peer-reviewed papers that discuss it I will be happy to read them. My argument that the effect would not be much is based on the fact that there is very little difference between the ground stations that cover 80% and the satellite that cover 100%.
>There was an abundance of grapevines back when the Romans were stomping around England, and over the last decade, grapes have made a comeback in England. Grapes need warm weather to do well. 2+2 =?
Well, in fact I was raising the point that grapes and wine are not really very good proxies of temperature. You said that over the last decade grapes have made a comeback in England, however if we [research a bit more](http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#growth) we see that in fact wine has been made in England for the last 1,000 years except for a brief time between the first and second World Wars. From this I take it that grapes (or Greenland farms for that matter) aren't particularly good at telling us about the climate 1000 years ago. Thus we should stick to what [the scientists have to say.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)
In regards to China, you present an interesting argument. Your initial comment was that 'Letting China and India just go nuts, while everyone else buckles down seems preposterous to me.' I responded and showed that China has adopted better fuel efficiency standards than the US. Your reply was 'Emissions? Who cares about that, all about getting more mpg to cut down on the demand for gas.' I then pointed out that they are adopting emission standards and are implementing them quite aggressively. Your reply was 'I don't think it is a secret that low-emission vehicles naturally use less fuel.' So let me ask you, is there anything reasonable that China could have done to change your mind that they want to 'just go nuts'?
Seixon, I think that you are arguing without knowing the facts or theories about global warming. Take it from me, there are no elephants hiding under radiative forcing functions and climate sensitivities.
Regards,
John
Brian,
You took what I said out of context. I explained that comment in as much as saying that historical documentation tells us that, at least in many places, the temperatures were warmer than they are now back about 1,000 years ago. I think there's a reason that Leif Ericsson called Newfoundland for "Vinland" and noted frost-free winters. But what do I know, I haven't been reading those nifty graphs that scientists are coming up with.
z,
So a Swiss company acknowledging that the climate has gotten warmer the last 100 years, and that it might well continue is an attest to the validity of AGW?
Oh, and I guess I am the only one who sees the irony in an INSURANCE company warning about impending doom...........
"Your house will probably flood from rains caused by global warming. Pick up a new insurance policy today!"
I'm being cynical, but... no?
Cross,
I suspect not much but if you can direct me to some peer-reviewed papers that discuss it I will be happy to read them.
So you don't think there would be any effect from say... not having any stations in many parts of Africa... or Asia... or Siberia... or other places 100 years ago, but having them now? That wouldn't affect the global mean temperatures? I'm asking you to logically deduce this on your own, you don't always have to go running for a "peer-reviewed" paper.
As for the grapes, the history seems a bit fuzzy, I will admit. To me it seems like the vineyards were thriving more back in the old times, and met harder times for a while until roaring back in the last half of the 20th century. For grapes to have a good harvest, they have to have warmer weather. Sure, there has always been grape growing, but how successful has it been at each time in history? That's the real question. Of course, with the advent of greenhouses, I'm not so sure that it is a good indicator as of late.
You got my China thing all wrong. China's fuel and emission standards may be better than the USA (link?), but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the requirements of the Kyoto protocol. If the USA were to implement it, they would have to seriously upgrade their emissions standards, while China could still just stay at the same level, effectively "going nuts" in comparison.
With the Chinese economy growing faster than ever, its usage of oil going up, if there is anyone who should be held to some standards along with the USA, it should be China. Some of the domestic problems you cited with China about fuel and emission standards also apply to the USA. How many poor people in California do you think can afford the ULEVs or whatever they are?
I think there is scant evidence of China being "proactive" on emissions, though I will agree not to claim the opposite.
Increasing fuel standards goes very much hand in hand with lowered emissions. Are the Chinese doing it to lower dependence on oil, or because of emissions? Based on the available evidence, I would think the former, but I will let that be an unresolved dispute.
I do know the theories about global warming, I have read a lot on the subject. I am not impressed with people like z not being able to see that an insurance company might have an interest in promoting doom and gloom. I don't like Lambert pulling a bait and switch. I don't like the director of Norway's leading climatology center misleading and lying to the Norwegian public about the climate and especially hurricanes (Lambert, if you want to take issue with this, I'd be glad to put you in touch with a meteorologist).
There just seems like too much dishonesty, corruption and back-scratching going on to remove my skepticism that something just doesn't smell right.
William - The MSU data here http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 shows cooling since Jan 1998. It would seem that Carter has a leg to stand on.
If I may, John, this requires a Dano answer, then I'll go away:
Let me guess Dano, this Karl, concluded that having different stations over the years had absolutely no effect. I am shocked, shocked I tell you. :)
Nanny:
Do you want me to go through my R2 calculations for the cooling trend again?
Yelling.
"Do you want me to go through my R2 calculations for the cooling trend again?"
Since when do any GW alarmists care about R2 statistics?
I'll gladly accept your R2 calculations if you can also run them for the controversial MBH98/99 15th century step and report your findings here.
Let me guess...Karl...concluded that having different stations over the years had absolutely no effect. I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
You haven't read this or subsequent papers? Why do you think you can speak to the issue or guess as to the conclusions then?
Do you think that asking ignorant questions is a valid way to cast doubt on the science?
Best,
D
Dano,
I am asking you the question for a reason. I have to come up with my own answers to questions when you fail to answer them. You might want to link me up to this report if you were actually interested in a resourceful debate. Or hell, just summarize the conclusion instead of beating around the bush.
Dano, the fact that Seixon hadn't been aware of the much-discussed aerosol cooling effect is proof that he hasn't done his homework on climate science issues. (FYI, Seixon, the aerosol issue is *really basic stuff*. Who knows what else you've missed, but it must be lots.)
Nanny, speaking of homework, I believe you've been around Real Climate long enough to know a) not to trust anything put out by the discredited UAH team and b) that only the most facile reading of the temp data shows a cooling since 1998 (in the sense that one can take the interval between any two record warm years and demonstrate a "cooling"; by this amazing logic I suppose one can show that since within every warming trend the number of record warm years will be outnumbered by cool years (relative to the immediate prior record warm year), then warming trends are in fact cooling trends until such time as the number of record warm years becomes a majority. Why do you bother saying stuff like this unless you just want to cement your reputation as a standard-issue libertarian troll?
Seixon, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196 is probably the best place to start on the temp issue. Go direct to the source (the NASA GISS page, which is linked in the article) for much more detail, including further links to many of the recent relevant papers. BTW, RC is also the best place to go if you also want to learn something about aerosols.
Seixon:
Well, since Dano picked up the slack on the area effects (and I bow to his knowledge on this topic) it doesn't look like we disagree on much.
If you have other thoughts and comments I would be pleased to discuss them.
You might want to link me up to this report if you were actually interested in a resourceful debate.
Why would I be interested in a debate with someone who has so aptly demonstrated their lack of knowledge on a topic? Do I come across as someone who suffers fools?
And it's not a report, it's a study.
And nanny, no one "hid" the R2 value. That's just a constructed narrative.
Best,
D
"Nanny, speaking of homework, I believe you've been around Real Climate long enough to know a) not to trust anything put out by the discredited UAH team "
Discredited in what way?
"and b) that only the most facile reading of the temp data shows a cooling since 1998 "
Chart it for yourself. Don't take my word for it. I provided the link to the data earlier. Use Excel and add an 8-year trend line, as I did. You'll see what I saw.
"And nanny, no one 'hid' the R2 value. "
I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
Why would you want Yelling to calc the r2 value, if not to show how low it is and then ask why that wasn't trumpeted by somebody, therefore there's a vast conspiracy yadayada or whatever the new constructed narrative is today?
Best,
D
Dano,
So basically debating for you is an exercise in pummeling people who "don't know" instead of helping other people see your point of view?
You don't say...
Dano,
I wasn't talking about the Heat Island effect, I was talking about aerosols...
"Why would you want Yelling to calc the r2 value, if not to show how low it is and then ask why that wasn't trumpeted by somebody, therefore there's a vast conspiracy yadayada or whatever the new constructed narrative is today?"
Well, what would you call it?
If you can claim "constructed narrative" (whatever that means) regarding the MBH98/99 R2 statistic, then I'll do the same when people criticize the R2 on my 8 year cooling trend claim.
I wasn't talking about the Heat Island effect, I was talking about aerosols
And I was talking about how global mean temps are calculated, which was the exercise in the Karl paper.
So basically debating for you is an exercise in pummeling people who 'don't know' instead of helping other people see your point of view?
I appreciate the fact that some must resort to misstating what others say. I see it is SOP on the Lancet threads. In this instance, I'll just chalk it up to being confused or ignorance (using the above point I made as evidence) and leave it at that.
And nanny_:
Well, what would you call it?
I'd call it: "The number that was calculated and drafted in the original paper."
Thanks!
Best,
D
"I'd call it: 'The number that was calculated and drafted in the original paper.' "
Can you please point out the R2 statistic value for the controversial 15th century step in MBH98? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I see it for the calibration period, but not for the 15th century step. You say that it exists, so could you help by pointing it out? Thanks.
Ah, my bad nanny_. 'Step', not period. I've asked my editor to be more rigorous. The so-called by one person 'controversial' step is not in the paper.
What the current convention is: one draftes, usu. due to space constraints, the major stuff. When there are questions about specifics like 'controversial 15th century steps', you ring up the PI and ask for more. The paper lists the PI to contact for further correspondence.
So, if someone wants further information when they read a paper, you contact the PI to get it.
Best,
D
Try the supplementary materials.
I'm not sure I follow you Dano. Are you saying that since no one has actually called the "PI" (I assume you mean Mann here) to ask him about the near 0 R2 statistic on the controversial 15th century step, therefore it's OK to continue to make claims that (paraphrased) the 20th century is the warmest of the past millennium?
His source code (finally) has been revealed and the R2 calculation for the step in question is in there so we know what the result is, and if Mann was paying attention to his results, he knows what the result is too.
What difference does it make if someone has phoned him or not?
He either ignored a crucial piece of the output of his model, was oblivious to "spurious significance", or knowingly drafted bad results for the step in question. All are examples of bad science.
The supplementary materials, Eli, don't contain the 'controversial 15th century step', but rather the verification r2 [fig 3]. Unless there's some confusion, as in below:
Are you saying that since no one has actually called the 'PI' (I assume you mean Mann here) to ask him about the near 0 R2 statistic...yada
Well, first, the purty ol' r2 is done there for everyone to see. But that's a verification r2. If'n you mean something else, you should say what it is. If'n you mean the verification r2, everyone knows about it.
Plus, I have said nothing about whether or how many times someone has called the PI, nor what that means wrt claims, so I'm not sure why you'd want to try to claim/imply/aver/whatever that I did.
Anyway, ss I figgered you wanted to say, the .02 r2 was what you wanted to get at.
It is done in th' figger three in my linky above. Figure 3. Fig 3. It was drafted, and you can call it 'controversial' if you want, but the argumentation you are using is my 'constructed narrative' point. It was there for all to see. Ding-dang ever'one and it t'weren't hid from no one.
HTH,
D
Figure 3 covers the AD1820 step, not the AD1400 step which is the one I've been talking about.
Figure 3 covers the AD1820 step, not the AD1400 step which is the one I've been talking about.
Ooohhhh! You're talking about what MBH mentioned on pg 782. All that 'step' stuff gets me all confused-like:
You're right, nanny_. That's not in fig 3.
Remind me, is it your implication that somethin' was hidden and somethin' shouldacoulda been trumpeted? There's some sort of calcalatin' that didn't go on or somethin' and somebody durn hid it?
Or if I'm missing something, feel free to fill in the blank.
Best,
D
"All that 'step' stuff gets me all confused-like:
The multiproxy network of 22 indicators available back to 1400 resolves only the first eigenvector, associated with 40-50% of resolved variance in NH in calibration and verification. There is no useful resolution of spatial patterns of variability this far back."
And this translates to what? I don't see R2 specifically mentioned.
"You're right, nanny_. That's not in fig 3."
OK
"Remind me, is it your implication that somethin' was hidden and somethin' shouldacoulda been trumpeted? There's some sort of calcalatin' that didn't go on or somethin' and somebody durn hid it?"
No, that was simply your strawman. I claimed that:
He either ignored a crucial piece of the output of his model, was oblivious to 'spurious significance', or knowingly drafted bad results for the step in question. All are examples of bad science.
But perhaps you are pointing out that Mann knew of and drafted his R2 for the AD1400 step later. I don't see it explicitly stated above, but why don't I take your word for it for the sake of argument? In that case how can Mann continue to claim that the 20th century was the warmest of the millennium when his results for the MWP have no significance?
re Seixon post #21:
Multi-year averaging would take care of the annual variability he's complaining about, and I'd prefer it anyway.
The betting issue is getting off-topic, so I'll contact Seixon through his website to see if he's serious about arranging a bet.
Re #49: See, Nanny, you've got to be subtle about trolling or people will just start ignoring you.
Regarding the UAH business, there are recent posts on RealClimate. Since you're obviously a Tech Central Station sort, Roy Spencer's post-trauma soft-shoe there is kind of amusing to read. While you're there, have a look at his defense of intelligent design, since I know how much pleasure libertarians take from being in bed with the more troglodyte elements of the Christian right.
Regarding your temp trend claptrap, by the time I turned 30 I had ceased to find this sort of tongue in cheek intellectual fraud stuff even faintly amusing. Repeating it after the fraud has been exposed is just plain juvenile. Grow up. Oh, and lose the infantile Internet handle while you're at it.
Dano,
Yes, misstating what other people say is a common theme around here, yet not by me...
The thing you linked to was about the Heat Island effect. I'm not sure how that relates to anything I was saying.
Brian,
I already explained to you that I see no point making the bet you proposed, because I think it is quite likely that the temperature 20 years from now could be 0.15 degrees more than this year. I also think it quite likely that it could be 0.15 degrees less than what it is today. Thus, there's no reason for me to bet against you. Along with the other reasons I already gave. If you felt like reading them. ;)
Sorry Steve, I really don't know much about what you are referring to. Never been to Tech central whatever. The 8 year cooling trend is easy to plot. Obviously I'm not being ignored as the responses keep coming.
nanny,
Cooling trend? Sorry, but even I have to laugh at that. You could potentially claim a stasis in temperatures over the last 8 years, but a cooling? Give me a break.
When you have me and these guys agreeing on something, you're done.
Don't take my word for it. Here's the data: http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
Plot it for yourself and add a trend line.
Make that... http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 for the link to the data.
Nanny,
There has not been an 8-year cooling trend. Not in the lower atmosphere or anywhere else. The data you link (UAH Ver. 5.2 TLT) shows a "cooling" only because you and Carter have picked the beginning of your trend dead on top of one of the largest el-nino events of the last two decades. 1998 was an outlier in the larger 27 year lower troposphere trend measured by MSU lower troposphere products (of which UAH Ver. 5.2 is only one).
To get a clearer picture you need to look at UAH and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) products over a longer period. The latter is taken directly from MSU Channel 2 and covers the lower to middle, or "free" troposphere, and yields a lower troposphere trend after correction by the Fu et al method (Fu et al., 2004). A succinct comparison of both long-term LT trends with the surface record is at the Wikipedia Satellite Temperatures page. Here it can be seen that the 1997-98 el-nino is a clear outlier that masks both the long-term overall trend and the shorter term warming of the last few years. The global average surface record shown here (in blue) has roughly the same pattern though in varying degrees (Jones & Moberg, 2003). The natural variability stands out quite clearly (e.g. the 1997-98 el-nino, Pinatubo in the early 90's, and El Chicon in the early 80's for instance). Yet the larger pattern is quite clear. Contrary to popular belief, the scientific consensus on warming trends has been reached after natural variability like this has been taken into account.
The devil is in the details.
REFERENCES
Fu, Q., Johanson, C. M., Warren, S. G. & Seidel, D. J. (2004). Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Nature 429: 55-58.
Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A. (2003). Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001. Journal of Climate 16: 206-223. Data available at www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/.
Seixon:
The thing you linked to was about the Heat Island effect. I'm not sure how that relates to anything I was saying.
It calculates the effect of the UHI by calculating temps from stations distributed unequally, & relates directly back to your having a problem with temps in space and time.
lil' nanny_:
He either ignored a crucial piece of the output of his model, was oblivious to 'spurious significance', or knowingly drafted bad results for the step in question. All are examples of bad science.
They did none of these, and you haven't shown where any of these happened.
But perhaps you are pointing out that Mann knew of and drafted his R2 for the AD1400 step later. I don't see it explicitly stated above,
Yes. Apparently you never clicked on the fig 3 I linked. That's why I provided the linky: it's right there for all to see.
in that case how can Mann continue to claim that the 20th century was the warmest of the millennium when his results for the MWP have no significance?
It's a first paper. It's been passed by and no one uses it as their sole source of argument.
If you come across anyone who focuses on this as a reason for something, it is a sign their argument is to be rejected.
But anyway, to directly answer your question, they can continue to claim that as numerous other papers since then have found the same thing.
Haven't you heard?
D
71 - Scott, in post 1 William refers to the "betting" relating to whether or not we'll see cooling or warming in the next 10 years or so and how much. A number of scientists have stepped in and made their bets. I simply point out that there have already been 8 years of cooling if you go by the data linked below. I'd include the RSS data for the same period if it were available in a similar easy-to-use format that a layman like me could deal with.
Your criticism of using the El Nino year of 98 is well taken. I'm you're aware that the same year was included in alarmist claims that the 90's were the warmest of the last century, and that my 8-year period also includes a strong La Nina cooling event near the beginning.
The link in the second paragraph appears to be broken.
With regards to natural variability and long-term trends, I wonder why few have picked up on how well solar Irradiance matches up with global temperatures in the absence of major ENSO/volcanic events. In particular, look at what happens with TSI after 2001 and compare to global temps:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html
Dan0-
"But perhaps you are pointing out that Mann knew of and drafted his R2 for the AD1400 step later. I don't see it explicitly stated above,
Yes. Apparently you never clicked on the fig 3 I linked. That's why I provided the linky: it's right there for all to see."
As mentioned earlier, figure 3 covers the AD1820 step, not the AD1400 step which is the one I've been talking about.
"in that case how can Mann continue to claim that the 20th century was the warmest of the millennium when his results for the MWP have no significance?
It's a first paper. It's been passed by and no one uses it as their sole source of argument."
I think the IPCC TAR would beg to differ.
"If you come across anyone who focuses on this as a reason for something, it is a sign their argument is to be rejected."
So are you calling for a rejection of the IPCC TAR and the Kyoto Protocol which used the TAR as a justification?
"But anyway, to directly answer your question, they can continue to claim that as numerous other papers since then have found the same thing.
Haven't you heard? "
I'm sure you're well aware that these other papers are far from independent and even use some of the same questionable proxies that were used in MBH98.
I think the IPCC TAR would beg to differ.
I think you find compelling the arguments of people who told you the TAR only looked at one study.
I'm sure you're well aware that these other papers are far from independent and even use some of the same questionable proxies that were used in MBH98.
Yawn.
Oh, and your I wonder why few have picked up on how well solar irradiance matches up with global temperatures in the absence of major ENSO/volcanic events.
Solanki. And searching ISI at a good library will further address your wonderosity.
Best,
D
"So are you calling for a rejection of the IPCC TAR and the Kyoto Protocol which used the TAR as a justification"
Not this again. The TAR was released in 2001. Kyoto was agreed to in 1997. How exactly did a publication in 2001 influence a policy agreed to in 1997???
Dano,
Your "yawn" link has nothing to do with the content of my post. In a previous post, you had again confused the AD1400 step with the AD1820 step. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you're "all there".
Bob, the IPCC TAR was a major influence in Kyoto ratification.
"the IPCC TAR was a major influence in Kyoto ratification."
As the goalposts continue to move...
Your 'yawn' link has nothing to do with the content of my post.
It has everything to do with it if the content of your post is placed in context with the point I was making about constructed narratives.
Constructed narratives that divert away from the real point, which was the info contained in the 'yawn' linky.
In a previous post, you had again confused the AD1400 step with the AD1820 step. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you're 'all there'.
You're right. I should have either just referred back to the other point I made, or gone on to more fruitful things. Sorry. Just not working very hard here, as reading the same ol' pre-chewed arguments are really beginning to bore me.
See, I've started half-assing my replies to you because they're not worth full thought expenditure. After scanning this thread today, your sadly underinformed #102 over at RC, and seeing even Seixon shaking his head at you, can you blame me?
But, Bob astutely found something fun that I missed which is more interesting to watch, and I'll enjoy the end of that show.
Best,
D
Nanny,
"The link in the second paragraph appears to be broken."
Ooops! I though I could link the image directly... Try this link instead and click on the graphic on the right. Sorry 'bout that! The RSS data and trends are in that figure as well (green) along with UAH and the Jones & Moberg surface record.
Dano - "It has everything to do with it if the content of your post is placed in context with the point I was making about constructed narratives."
You've lost me (again) here. It seems to me that you may be diverting from the point of my post rather than contributing to anything.
I was talking about the studies post MBH98 that you mentioned and why I believe they are suspect just as MBH98 is. Your post had no content related to these studies or MBH98, so it seems you're off on a tangent.
Care to continue on-point? If so, I'm all ears.
"Constructed narratives that divert away from the real point, which was the info contained in the 'yawn' linky."
The "real point" as I see it is good science.
What is the "real point" as you see it? How animals adapt? That isn't what I've been talking about at any point in this thread.
Scott, thanks for the chart. On minor criticism is that I have to say I'm not really a fan of the charts that mush everything together so closely that you can't really see the differences between the individual elements.
Now, I know there's more recent data that shows near flat trend for the rest of 2005. What do you think could be causing a near flat trend for 2002 to late 2005 - almost 4 years - in the presence of increasing CO2 concentrations?
Nanny,
I haven't looked closely at the data from the last 6 to 9 months yet, but an examination of the figure I linked below and these ones showing RSS-UAH trends (the RSS ones corrected accordingly) for the last 2 to 4 years is consistent with some "flattening". But there are a few caveats.
First, bear in mind that from the standpoint of global change 2 to 4 years is pretty meaningless. It can be seen in these time series' that there is far more variability over this period than the "trend" we're trying to measure. The same is of course true for the last 8 years. While it is true that picking a starting point in 1998--at the top of the spike--would yield a "cooling trend" with respect to the present, a moment's examination of this figure shows why no one serious about seeking a meaningful global trend would start there... and no one did. In fact, 25 years is only just entering the realm where we can meaningfully discuss discernable global trends (a problem that has plagued the MSU/AMSU record until the last few years).
Second, it's important to note that these are global trends that mask a considerable amount of regional variability. The southern hemisphere has shown very little warming in the last 20 to 40 years so the comparatively small global trend masks a large warming in the northern hemisphere. Incidentally, this hemispherical skew is exactly what's predicted by the anthropogenic component of model runs. Apart from actual temperature variability, this regional and temporal fingerprint is unique to anthropogenic inputs--yet another reason why natural variability can't explain what we see (see chaps. 2 and 8 of the IPCC Year 2001 report).
To sum up, a global "flattening" of trends in the last 2 to 4 years tells us little. That said, there are a number of things that might contribute to it regardless of what greenhouse gases alone are doing--aerosol effects, changes in ozone level, surface latent heat transport mechanisms in the tropics and extra-tropics (see for instance, Trenberth and Stepaniak, 2003), and more. It's important to remember that the climate change affects the earth-ocean-atmosphere system, and a system response is driven by many components. In terms of climate forcings, greenhouse gases are relatively "soft"--that is, they take a long time to be felt compared to shorter term "hit and run" forcings like aerosols, volcanic eruptions, el-ninos, and more. This is kind of like using a slinky to pull a wagon of bowling balls (in this case, the bowling balls would be the world's oceans). You can jerk all you like over a few second period and you won't move the wagon, but pull increasingly and steadily for awhile... and after you've walked a dozen yards the wagon will start to move. So we have to be very careful about drawing one-to-one correlations between short-term trends and greenhouse gas concentrations alone. All the best.
nanny - #38 - the point is prediction. That's science... I predict warming. Carter predicts... cooling? Or what? He sounds very fierce, but when it comes to prediction he's very weak. As Brian has been saying, if your prediction is "don't know" (or better still, cooling) then we have a different opinion of the odds of future change and hence the ingredients for a bet.
But when it comes to it, oddly enough, no one disagrees with the IPCC projections enough to bet, and all the skeptics suddenly become mainstream when its their own money on the line.
Carter wouldn't bet either, BTW.
It seems to me that you may be diverting from the point of my post rather than contributing to anything...I was talking about the studies post MBH98 that you mentioned and why I believe they are suspect just as MBH98 is. Your post had no content related to these studies or MBH98, so it seems you're off on a tangent. [emphasis added]
Well, it's great that you believe something, but I really don't care what you believe in the privacy of your home. You haven't SHOWN evidence for the reason for your belief. You've just cut-pasted phrases from a website.
The Beeb link was the larger context for the denialism argument.
That is: you quibble about a statistical methodology to deny what is already happening on the ground.
And, no, you don't understand the context of the phrases you cut/paste for your argumentation.
The papers you deny are only suspect in the minds of denialists and anti/contrascientists.
If you have something to show other than a phrasie-phrase lifted from a website [as opposed to a robust journal paper], bring it. You haven't so far, but I'll wait patiently.
The 'real point' as I see it is good science.
Yes. And you haven't shown, anywhere, in any way, that the conclusions you deny are not good science.
Being able to copy a phrase from a website
doesn't make for a good piece of evidence for what you say is true.
It shows nothing.
I can see you ain't got nothin', lad. check with John A and see if they've developed some new phrases for you to use.
Best,
D
"Well, it's great that you believe something, but I really don't care what you believe in the privacy of your home. You haven't SHOWN evidence for the reason for your belief. You've just cut-pasted phrases from a website."
Didn't you yourself claim that Mann did not hide his near 0 R2 for the AD1400 step? Didn't you cut and paste something supposedly "proving" this? I'm simply commenting on what you have cut and pasted. Here it is again:
If Mann's R2 for the AD1400 step in his "hockey stick" study was near 0, how can he continue to claim that 20th century temperatures were the warmest of the past millennium?
But I don't really expect an answer since this is 3rd or 4th time I've posed this question to you. I'm sure you'll just provide more distractions.
"The Beeb link was the larger context for the denialism argument.
That is: you quibble about a statistical methodology to deny what is already happening on the ground."
What am I supposedly "denying"? Can you be more specific with your tangential strawman argument?
""The 'real point' as I see it is good science."
Yes. And you haven't shown, anywhere, in any way, that the conclusions you deny are not good science."
It's not good science to make claims based on results that have a near 0 R2.
"That said, there are a number of things that might contribute to it [a flat trend for ~4 years] regardless of what greenhouse gases alone are doing,aerosol effects, changes in ozone level, surface latent heat transport mechanisms in the tropics and extra-tropics (see for instance, Trenberth and Stepaniak, 2003), and more. "
Scott, you seem like a smart guy, so why no mention of what the sun might be doing? Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has trailed off in the last few years and become more variable. Same as global temperatures. See http://www.acrim.com. Now, I'm not saying that correlation = causation, but given these 2 coincidental similarities doesn't it seem that TSI would seem to be a good place to start looking for a primary climate driver?
Didn't you yourself claim that Mann did not hide his near 0 R2 for the AD1400 step?
Step.
Anyway, he did not and you can't show that he did.
It's not good science to make claims based on results that have a near 0 R2.
What claims are these? Can you quote from the paper about these claims?
Best,
D
Dano, seriously - I'm concerned that you're not "all there". This is your last chance to prove me wrong:
"Didn't you yourself claim that Mann did not hide his near 0 R2 for the AD1400 step?
Step."
"Step" what? What do you mean?
"Anyway, he did not and you can't show that he did."
Your strawman. I never claimed anything about anyone hiding something.
"What claims are these? Can you quote from the paper about these claims?"
Read from the MBH98 abstract: "Northern
Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least)
AD 1400."
R2 of AD1400 step was near 0, so this claim is unsupported.
Nanny,
"...why no mention of what the sun might be doing? Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has trailed off in the last few years and become more variable. Same as global temperatures. See www.acrim.com. Now, I'm not saying that correlation = causation, but given these 2 coincidental similarities doesn't it seem that TSI would seem to be a good place to start looking for a primary climate driver?"
My comment wasn't intended to be an exhaustive listing of every potential short-term impact--only to make the general point that radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases has a longer time constant associated with it than other short-term forcings, and global average temperature response may or may not track with it.
Regarding solar forcings, the ACRIM data you link is reproduced through 2000 in IPCC 2001 Chap. 6.11. Figure 6.4 shows essentially the same data from the same satellite based products (through 2000 only). Figure 6.5 shows longer-term trends from other products. Figure 6.6 summarizes the net annual radiative forcings from solar and other sources (including greenhouse gases) along with uncertainties. A larger discussion of solar forcings relative to these other contributions is beyond the scope of this post, but note that the total contribution of solar forcing is quite small compared with that of greenhouse gases and several types of aerosols (though uncertainties in some of the latter are larger). The IPCC also reports that for 1986-1996 these records imply a total solar forcing of around 0.09 W/m^2 as compared to 0.4 W/m^2 for greenhouse gases. Figure 6.8 shows how this compares to other short-term forcings. There is can be seen that while solar impacts may well contribute to a short-term flattening, they are neither as rapid or as large as various aerosol forcings. For 2002-2005 the variations in the ACRIM data you linked appear to be about 1/4 to 1/2 that of the 1986-1996 period (to my failing eyes anyway...). This may well be a contributor to flattening over this shorter period, but it's not likely to be a major player in the larger picture.
In recent years many have tried to explain (or, explain away) climate change as fallout from solar variations. While this was likely a larger piece of the puzzle in the middle 20th century, it's only a small contributor now.
All the best.
Scott, regarding the IPCC charts, they are obviously flawed because they don't include water vapor as a forcing, because the regions with high SO2 emissions (like China) are warming instead of cooling as you can see from the RSS data, and because if the CO2 forcing were actually that high, we would see the signature in global average temperatures.
The usual AGW line regarding water vapor is that it's a "feedback" not a "forcing", but we all know that many natural and anthro processes produce water vapor. The second line is that it doesn't "last long" in the atmosphere - it just "rains out". But the same is true of SO2 in the atmosphere and condensation is a warming process anyway. Water vapor concentration have increased in the atmosphere over the last 50 years or so and there are mechanisms that can cause this (see http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL022159.shtml). So the IPCC made a major flaw by not including water vapor as a forcing.
The charts you linked to show the SO2 emissions regional effect. If you look at the RSS data, you'll see those same regions warming. What's the explanation for this? SO2 should cause a cooling effect, should it not?
There is plenty of evidence that the IPCC has overstated the effect of CO2 on climate. See
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
"Laboratory measurements of the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide using an FT-IR spectrometer suggest that the radiative forcing for CO2 doubling must be much less than assumed by climate scientists until now. A reduction factor of 80 is likely."
Nanny - oh dear, even skeptics like Lindzen accept the CO2 forcing. Daly is waaaaaay out on the lunatic fringe (or was, when alive). If he is the best you can do, forget it.
For WV, you want: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
William, where is the CO2 signature in global average temperatures?
Temps have been cooling since 2002 in the absence of major ENSO and volcanic events. CO2 has been on a pretty constant increase for that same period. If CO2 was a significant climate driver, then wouldn't we see increasing temps consistent with CO2 increases?
The common refrain that it takes time for CO2 to have an effect on the climate has never made much sense to me as laboratory experiments where CO2 is added to a chamber show near immediate warming. Will it take years for a CO2 molecule to absorb its first IR wave/packet when released in the atmosphere? I'd be surprised if this were the case.
R2 of AD1400 step was near 0, so this claim is unsupported.
BTW, the paper uses r2, not R2 as Stevie Mac does.
You said earlier you couldn't find the number. Ah, well - now you have it.
You would actually have something if a seven-year-old first paper was the last word - there sure is a lot of noise to inflate the paper to totemic status, including claiming the paper was used in Kyoto negotiations the year before publication.
But anyway, it's not at all clear how a first paper making a premature claim - unsupported but later found to be correct - informs us of:
- the effects of ~33% more CO2 ppmv in the atm,
- the rate of current avg temp increase,
- how the other two handfuls of papers that state the current temps are unprecedented,
- or how spp. response to climate change is stressing ecosystems,
- whether the multiple climate change signals require societal adaptation,
- etc.
So an old paper doesn't answer many important questions that cut across disciplines.
Perhaps when the quibblers who need John Daly to support their worldview get tired, the silence will be filled with ideas for policy response to the current climate change, which the available evidence shows to be unprecedented.
Best,
D
Dano, as mentioned earlier, the more recent studies are far from independent and even use some of the same flawed proxies as MBH98.
...as mentioned earlier, the more recent studies are far from independent and even use some of the same flawed proxies as MBH98. [link added]
I don't know that any of the proxies are flawed. You certainly haven't shown that here.
Plus, I see no robust evidence in the journals that such a statement is true. Only a couplea letters here and there.
So what.
There are no independent studies for the assertion, no papers, no alternative theories explaining the climate change phenomenon, no models, no agreement from anyone in the discipline, no documentaries, no exposes on TV from serious-looking people with laser pointers, not even an 'atta boy' from superannuated professors with no recent publications.
A letter and a poster is hardly enough evidence to trumpet 'flawed'.
Correction: it's not enough unless you read septic websites, in which case it's more than enough to trumpet. In those places, it's enough for an entire brass band, plus Wurlitzer and a mop-top clown with a blue kazoo, to boot.
Best,
D
Nanny,
"Scott, regarding the IPCC charts, they are obviously flawed because they don't include water vapor as a forcing, because the regions with high SO2 emissions (like China) are warming instead of cooling as you can see from the RSS data, and because if the CO2 forcing were actually that high, we would see the signature in global average temperatures.
The usual AGW line regarding water vapor is that it's a 'feedback' not a 'forcing', but we all know that many natural and anthro processes produce water vapor. The second line is that it doesn't 'last long' in the atmosphere - it just 'rains out'. But the same is true of SO2 in the atmosphere and condensation is a warming process anyway. Water vapor concentration have increased in the atmosphere over the last 50 years or so and there are mechanisms that can cause this (see www.agu.org/pubs/crossref). So the IPCC made a major flaw by not including water vapor as a forcing."
Water vapour impacts on global temperature are in fact a feedback overall. Whether natural and anthro processes produce them or not is irrelevant. The Realclimate article William linked provides a terse yet thorough discussion of the difference.
"The charts you linked to show the SO2 emissions regional effect. If you look at the RSS data, you'll see those same regions warming. What's the explanation for this? SO2 should cause a cooling effect, should it not?"
The RSS regional trend data give the actual response of the atmosphere as a whole for the satellite era (1978+). This is the sum total of a bewildering array of effects--aerosols, solar (I mentioned it this time...), many greenhouse gases (including CO2), land-use changes, surface water and cryosphere albedo changes, cloud cover, etc. etc. SO2 is only one piece of this. You must remember that global climate is a system. You can't pick and choose which forcings to discuss apart from the total as though it were like picking all the red M&M's out of the bowl.
"There is plenty of evidence that the IPCC has overstated the effect of CO2 on climate. See
www.john-daly.com/artifac 'Laboratory measurements of the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide using an FT-IR spectrometer suggest that the radiative forcing for CO2 doubling must be much less than assumed by climate scientists until now. A reduction factor of 80 is likely.'"
The article you link from Daly's site presents Heinz Hug's investigation of CO2 absorption as an argument for very low CO2 forcing in the atmosphere. Hug bases his claims on a laboratory investigation of direct CO2 extinction rates by themselves, without other second-order effects, and only for the 15 micron line. CO2 also absorbs strongly at other bands including at least 3 between 2 and 5 microns, and it's not at all clear that doubling CO2 concentration will double extinction rates and optical depth as he maintains. Furthermore, atmospheric warming will result from CO2 reradiation, backradiation, and the second-order effects CO2 might have on other forcings. Hug has carefully cherry-picked his "research" to produce the conclusion he desires. Not surprisingly, his work has received very little peer-reviewed recognition. I am able to find reference to it only in Far-Right publicity campaigns like the Leipzig Declaration (of which he was a signatory) and publications like the SEPP newsletter. Not being a conspiracy theorist, I find claims of a "liberal plot" by all drafting scientists to suppress a few Galileo's with "the truth" who otherwise seem to have great difficulty getting their ideas drafted to be unconvincing at best. Of course, this does not by itself prove Hug wrong. But I've seen this kind of thing too many times before. It is the rare "Galileo" who can't get any attention outside of extremist circles. More broadly based and complete discussions of well-mixed greenhouse gases and atmospheric absorption profiles can be found in IPCC Chap. 6.3 and in this presentation from the UC Berkeley Physics Dept.
"William, where is the CO2 signature in global average temperatures?
Temps have been cooling since 2002 in the absence of major ENSO and volcanic events. CO2 has been on a pretty constant increase for that same period. If CO2 was a significant climate driver, then wouldn't we see increasing temps consistent with CO2 increases?
The common refrain that it takes time for CO2 to have an effect on the climate has never made much sense to me as laboratory experiments where CO2 is added to a chamber show near immediate warming. Will it take years for a CO2 molecule to absorb its first IR wave/packet when released in the atmosphere? I'd be surprised if this were the case."
We've already been over this. Three years is too short for a meaningful discussion of trends. CO2 gives a longer-term forcing and once again the ENSO and volcanic effects you mention are only two impacts among a suite of forcings. You're picking and choosing what to consider.
At the risk of being repetitive we have to remember that global climate is a system for which we cannot obtain a response from any one thing alone. When considering global change, the immediate warming of CO2 in an isolated laboratory experiment is about as close to irrelevant as you can get. As I mentioned before, you can think of the earth-land-ocean system (rather crudely) as being like a wagon pulled by a slinky. CO2 forcing is the slinky and the world's oceans--a huge heat sink--are a wagon full of bowling balls. The response of the slinky and wagon are interrelated and cannot be determined by considering only the "laboratory response" of the slinky to some input.
It bears repeating that the devil is in the details--all the details, not just the red M&M's in the bowl.
All the best.
Scott Church in da house.
[it reads better with an underline, but Tim hasn't enabled /u].
I absolutely don't want to distract away from Scott's big wooden hammer blow on the nanny_ noggin, but I wanted to respond earlier to nanny_'s statement
The common refrain that it takes time for CO2 to have an effect on the climate has never made much sense to me as laboratory experiments where CO2 is added to a chamber show near immediate warming.
by saying: plants.
Me being a plant guy, someone's gotta speak for 'em.
Best,
D
PS: Scott, if you took that big ol' hammer to the State Fair, you could probably ring the bell and win a prize no problem. Jus' sayin'.
Hi Tim. I think Andrew Bolt deserves another walloping from your esteemed self for his latest tirade on anthropogenic climate change, "Little Green Men" in the Herald Sun on 4/11/2005. Go get him!
Dano, re #92
"BTW, the paper uses r2, not R2 as Stevie Mac does."
r2 [r-squared] and R2 are the same thing. Surely you knew that?
r2 [r-squared] and R2 are the same thing. Surely you knew that?
Yes.
The natural sciences as a general rule use r2.
Best,
D
Scott, thanks for your considered response.
The RealClimate article on water vapor states ".. the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days).". But SO2 also has a short residence time in the atmosphere. So why is SO2 a forcing, but H2O vapor is not?
"The RSS regional trend data give the actual response of the atmosphere as a whole for the satellite era (1978+). This is the sum total of a bewildering array of effects-aerosols, solar (I mentioned it this time), many greenhouse gases (including CO2), land-use changes, surface water and cryosphere albedo changes, cloud cover, etc. etc. SO2 is only one piece of this. You must remember that global climate is a system. You can't pick and choose which forcings to discuss apart from the total as though it were like picking all the red M&M's out of the bowl. "
But SO2 is supposed to be the driving cooling mechanism in the face of rising CO2 concentrations as far as I understand AGW line. Since SO2 has only a regional effect, then obviously those regions should show lots of cooling if they are going to be the primary cause of global cooling over the last few years. But we DON'T see that in the RSS data. Something is obviously amiss.
If the primary driver for the last 4 years of cooling is something else, then what do you think it is?
Hug article stuff -> Thanks for your comments. I'll have to look into it more.
"'William, where is the CO2 signature in global average temperatures?"
We've already been over this."
I was talking to William.
"Three years is too short for a meaningful discussion of trends. CO2 gives a longer-term forcing and once again the ENSO and volcanic effects you mention are only two impacts among a suite of forcings. You're picking and choosing what to consider."
Again, what do YOU think is driving the recent 4 years of cooling?
"At the risk of being repetitive we have to remember that global climate is a system for which we cannot obtain a response from any one thing alone."
That's not what I've heard about the cooling period from 1940-1975 that was supposedly driven primarily by sulfate aerosols.
Obviously there can be one "forcing" that outweighs the others for a given time period. But the "usual suspects" are drying up when we look at recent cooling. CO2 is on the rise, sulfates are decreasing in the US and overseas the evidence for their cooling effect is nil. So what's left? Do you think the climate driver is one of your other suspects? Which one?
"When considering global change, the immediate warming of CO2 in an isolated laboratory experiment is about as close to irrelevant as you can get. As I mentioned before, you can think of the earth-land-ocean system (rather crudely) as being like a wagon pulled by a slinky. CO2 forcing is the slinky and the world's oceans-a huge heat sink" are a wagon full of bowling balls. The response of the slinky and wagon are interrelated and cannot be determined by considering only the 'laboratory response' of the slinky to some input."
So are you saying that because the ocean hasn't warmed up yet, it is driving recent cooling? Is this your primary suspect? Is the ocean cooling?
Are you saying that it takes a while for CO2 to warm the ocean? But CO2 is not even warming the atmosphere recently according to RSS/UAH data.
If it takes a while for a CO2 signal in global temps to show up, then how long will it take? Shouldn't we have seen it already?
Nanny,
Many apologies for the delayed response. My personal life is beginning to catch up with me and blogging time is becoming limited (man, having a 3-year-old and strange working hours can get really complicated. :) ). I'll try to address your latest questions in a few posts so as not to clutter up things. Afterwards, if I vanish for a bit please be assured that it's not because I'm ignoring you!
' The RealClimate article on water vapor states '.. the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days).' But SO2 also has a short residence time in the atmosphere. So why is SO2 a forcing, but H2O vapor is not?'
There is one other important distinction. Perturbation. Suppose we begin with a global climate in some equilibrium state, at least over an interdecadal time frame so as to average out seasonal variations. Total radiation in balances total radiation out and some bubbling mass of activity rattles the balance around below in ways that average out over several years. Now, suppose that we inject something new and radiatively active into this that wasn't there before. This will throw the equilibrium out of balance until equilibrium is restored once again at a new temperature. In essence, we throw a big chunk of pot roast and seasoning into a stew, which then re-establishes itself on the stove in some new state. This we designate as a forcing--we're kicking the tires so to speak.
In a feedback something that is already present in the mix reacts to such a forcing in a way that dampens or amplifies it. The stew might already have some spices in it that come alive somehow when we throw in the meat and more spices, making the stew even more (or less) spicy than what the new spices added.
For a forcing to be significant it must hang around for awhile. Dipping the meat into the stew and yanking it back out right away won't affect it much. This is where the residence time bit comes in. But what makes SO2 a forcing is that it's been dumped into the system from outside, either by periodic volcanic eruptions or human activities. H2O on the other hand has always been present in some form--ocean, vapour, snow and ice--and other things that kick the tires cause state changes in it (varying atmospheric moisture content, changes in surface albedos due to shrinking or growing snow and ice packs, etc.). The amount of water that's been thrown into the global climate mix from outside is negligible--everything we see in its behavior is a response of what's already there to something external. Another thing about SO2 is that even though its atmospheric residence times are short on a molecular scale, the overall effects are long-term because we're spewing the stuff out on an ongoing basis. Even though the soot from my campfire might settle out in a few hours, if I keep the fire burning for weeks on end the overall effect will be to keep soot in the air. Anthropogenic aerosols may settle out quickly, but for many decades we've been feeding ample supplies of them into the mix at one place or another around the globe. The type, magnitude, and regional location of these inputs vary, but the overall effect is an ongoing one.
For more on how the concepts of forcing and feedback are used in climate change see IPCC 2001, Appendix 6.1.
More in my next post. Cheers.
Nanny,
' But SO2 is supposed to be the concentrations as far as I understand AGW line. Since SO2 has only a regional effect, then obviously those regions should show lots of cooling if they are going to be the primary cause of global cooling over the last few years. But we DON'T see that in the RSS data. Something is obviously amiss. If the primary driver for the last 4 years of cooling is something else, then what do you think it is?'
I'm not aware of any 'AGW line' but nothing in the current scientific consensus says that SO2 is the primary negative forcing in the face of rising CO2, or that it's driving any 'cooling' (I'll return to this point in a minute). SO2 is one of a whole suite of aerosols with climatically significant effects. Other examples include fossil fuel organic carbon aerosols, black carbon aerosols from the burning of fossil fuels, aerosols from biomass burning (organic carbon and black carbon), and stratospheric aerosols resulting from volcanic eruptions (these being largely SO2 but not exclusively). The latter in particular may remain in the atmosphere for several years. Some of these tend to be positive forcings, some negative.
There is no reason why increased aerosols emissions in any particular region, including SO2, must lead to cooling. Suppose for the moment that they've increased in China recently (I don't know this without checking though). If so, this would introduce a negative forcing that would try to cool the region down. But even bigger changes in land use may have occurred in the same regions driving up surface emissivity by a larger fraction. Increased mountain snow melt might have occurred due to earlier warming. If true, both could lead to positive impacts large enough to offset the aerosol driven negative forcing (of course, without checking I don't know if any of this has actually happened in China in the last few years--I'm just trying to illustrate a general point). In another global region the exact opposite may happen. Likewise, it is known that Greenland has actually cooling for some time now even though most of the Arctic is warming. This is due to changes in North Atlantic ocean currents and changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NOA) that are shifting warming trends toward Northern Europe. These in turn are being driven by other climatic impacts in different global regions and would occur regardless of whether aerosols were rising or falling in Greenland or Northern Europe. Only if the latter were large enough to cancel the other global impacts would we see an aerosol effect. Remember, global climate is a system. We need to consider the whole picture.
I'll address the 'cooling' questions in the next post.
Nanny,
' . That's not what I've heard about the cooling period from 1940-1975 that was supposedly driven primarily by sulfate aerosols. Obviously there can be one 'forcing' that outweighs the others for a given time period. But the 'usual suspects' are drying up when we look at recent cooling. CO2 is on the rise, sulfates are decreasing in the US and overseas the evidence for their cooling effect is nil. So what's left? Do you think the climate driver is one of your other suspects? Which one?'
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the atmosphere has been cooling recently, but it just ain't so and the surface isn't cooling either.
First, consider upper-air trends per the satellite data we've been discussing. Have another look at the UAH/RSS TLT time series comparison I linked earlier (and yes, you're right--unless you're a 22 year old pilot with perfect vision they can be a pain to read closely. I'm half blind myself from reading them, but they're the best thing around for showing how long-term trends relate to short-term fluctuations). Check the TLT time series' between 2002 and the present. Apart from interannual fluctuations there's a spike upward a couple years back followed by one downward, but the overall pattern is basically flat. The TMT record (middle troposphere) shows the same pattern. Notice also that RSS Channel TTS (combined troposphere and lower stratosphere also shows a similar pattern. Global lower stratosphere trends are strongly impacted by ozone depletion, which often fluctuates in exactly this manner on an interannual basis due to large fluctuations in the Antarctic ozone hole. It's likely that this is playing a role in this recent behavior. If you compare this stretch with other 4-year slices of the record you'll see that similar periods are not uncommon. You'll also see that all of them are riding an underlying trend upward. Don't forget that the only reason you saw a 'cooling' before is that you started your trend period in the middle of a record el-Nino.
Remember also that these are global trends--though generally upward they may hide regional fluctuations for short periods. The RSS web site also has monthly TLT regional brightness temperatures in a Java driven interactive format. The interface presents a global map of brightness temperature for any month and year you select. This is a really fun tool and playing around with it for awhile is revealing. Choose a month (October, say) and jump through the years 2001-2005 and watch the unfolding pattern (scrolling through consecutive months will of course, only show seasonal variations and aren't very useful). Then, pick several months, preferably at least one for each of the four seasons, and repeat this. Some things will be as you expect (the tropics are always warmer than the poles for instance). But if you look close, particularly in the extra-tropics and mid-latitudes, you'll see some warm regions shifting around. Some areas cool, others warm. Run through this drill enough times and you'll get a feel for how complex short-term climate change really is, regionally and globally. The reasons for each of these regional fluctuations are legion (see my last post for a few actual and hypothetical examples). But it's not hard to see how the global average of it all might look flat, or even downward for short periods. Once again, it can't be emphasized enough--the real story is in the long-term picture. We need to put away the magnifying glass and look at the entire 1978-2005 trend in the UAH and RSS time series'.
Turning to the surface record, recent warming is even more clear. The National Climatic Data Center's September 2005 Summary gives highlights of that month compared to historical trends. Based on preliminary data, the average land/ocean global temperature anomaly for that month based was 1.13°F (0.63°C) above the 1880-2004 long-term mean--the warmest September since 1880 when reliable instrumental records began. The second warmest September was in 2003 with an anomaly of 1.02°F (0.57°C) above the mean. Land surface temperatures were highest on record for September with temperatures more than 5°F (2.8°C) above the same mean across large parts of Asia and North America. All of this occurred despite a relatively neutral el-Nino year. That page links figures which show how these monthly anomalies compare with the larger record--once again, an eye-twister (sorry!) but still the best way to view the larger picture. You'll see there that trends in the southern hemisphere were flatter than in the northern, as expected, and despite some fluctuation here and there the overall picture is upward.
None of this supports the notion of 'recent cooling'.
Regarding forcings, I don't believe any of the ones I referred to is the driver of recent trend fluctuations. All are contributing--some regionally, some globally. If trends over the last couple years were a little flatter than in previous years any or all of them might be involved, but none are 'drying up' in any sense relevant to the larger picture (which we must keep returning to). IPCC 2001 Chap. 2.2.2 shows global land/ocean surface temperature trends from 1860 to 2000 and Chap. 6.15 shows the time evolution of the most important global mean radiative forcings for this period. Included in the latter are SO2, organic and black carbon from fossil fuel use, soot from burning, tropospheric and stratospheric ozone, volcanic activity (also an aerosol source), and solar. Note that aerosols comprise much more than just SO2. By 1970 fossil fuel generated black carbon alone was creating a positive forcing only 0.10 W/M^2 smaller than SO2.
Lay each of these forcings collectively over the global surface trends in the first graph (scale corrected) and the larger pattern is fairly clear. After 1860 temperatures follow solar forcing variations fairly closely while CO2 emissions, roughly a century old at this point, continue to build underneath. The latter are not yet driving the observed variability as much as the former (the slinky has yet to catch up). By 1940 a multi-decadal upward trend is obvious, and coincides nicely with both solar and greenhouse gas forcings. Depending on which solar forcing estimates are used (there are several) by 1940 it's contributing roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the overall trend forcing--not the predominate one over CO2, but more than sizeable enough to dent the tire with a big fluctuation. Between 1940 and 1970 SO2 and other fossil fuel and burning related aerosols grow rapidly but in opposite directions canceling each other out to some extent (remembering of course that the effects are regional while we're looking at a global average in the figure). SO2 generated negative forcing during this period grows from about -0.15 to -0.30 W/M^2 while fossil fuel black carbon grows by at least 2/3 this much in the opposite direction. But during the same period, solar forcing goes from -0.25 to -0.40 W/M^2--at least 50 percent larger a forcing if not more. And guess what--global average surface temperature responds accordingly. Note also that volcanic activity--another source of aerosols, particularly SO2--is relatively neutral during this period. After the late 60's solar sees one more brief spike upward to roughly the late 80's CO2 forcing level, but then remains pretty flat to the present apart from interannual fluctuations. CO2 emissions however are going ballistic at this point. By the 90's they've outrun solar and are now 3 to 4 times larger than all negative forcings combined except for brief volcanic spikes such as Pinatubo and El-Chicon which have short-lived effects and a long-term average of less than 1/4 the CO2 forcing. Once again, apart from a few interannual variations of 1 to 3 years, global surface temperature follows suit with all of this.
The overall pattern here is actually quite clear, and nothing anywhere in it suggests that SO2 is the primary driver of climate outside CO2.
One more post and I'll wrap up. Thanks for your patience.
Nanny,
' So are you saying that because the ocean hasn't warmed up yet, it is driving recent cooling? Is this your primary suspect? Is the ocean cooling? Are you saying that it takes a while for CO2 to warm the ocean? But CO2 is not even warming the atmosphere recently according to RSS/UAH data. If it takes a while for a CO2 signal in global temps to show up, then how long will it take? Shouldn't we have seen it already?'
Download the time series' linked above for global surface temperature anomalies and forcings, load them into Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro and adjust them to the same time scale (if they aren't already). Then digitally superpose them, or print them to viewfoils and overlay them (I'm betraying my age here!...). Actually, this has already been done for us in this article from Realclimate.
Now look at the end result and tell me that global temperature is not following these combined forcings. It takes quite a leap of faith to maintain such a position.
And few in the scientific community have done so. The trend has been dominated by some combination of CO2 and solar since the middle of the 19th century, and by the 70's solar was contributing less than 1/7 of the overall forcing and SO2 less than 1/5. It's little wonder that last September was the warmest one in the historical instrument record. Note also that these are combined land/surface temperatures so they reflect the warming of the oceans. The oceans are not "cooling" the atmosphere so to speak--at least not in the usual sense of the term. It's more to the point to say that they're a huge heat sink that moderates the redistribution of the total energy balance. In fact, the oceans have warmed up considerably, and this is part of the balance. The Realclimate article linked above has a good overview of oceanic thermal energy content increases and their impact on global change, including links to some of the more recent peer-reviewed research.
Well, my private life has now overtaken me and is in the passing lane (I love my job and family life, but ah to have a single man's schedule once again!). Thanks for a stimulating discussion. As noted earlier, if I disappear for a bit please don't think that it's because I'm ignoring you! These days life gives me the opportunities it does and I take them as I can. All the best.
"But what makes SO2 a forcing is that it's been dumped into the system from outside, either by periodic volcanic eruptions or human activities."
And both of those activities dump water vapor into the atmosphere from outside as well. So water vapor still looks like a "forcing" to me.
"I'm not aware of any 'AGW line' but nothing in the current scientific consensus says that SO2 is the primary negative forcing in the face of rising CO2, or that it's driving any 'cooling' [snip] There is no reason why increased aerosols emissions in any particular region, including SO2, must lead to cooling. "
Well, that might shoot a hole in the reasons I've heard for the cooling trend from 1940-1975 in the face of rising CO2 concentrations. Do you have an explanation for this cooling trend?
"First, consider upper-air trends per the satellite data we've been discussing. Have another look at the UAH/RSS TLT time series comparison I linked earlier (and yes, you're right-unless you're a 22 year old pilot with perfect vision they can be a pain to read closely. I'm half blind myself from reading them, but they're the best thing around for showing how long-term trends relate to short-term fluctuations). Check the TLT time series' between 2002 and the present. Apart from interannual fluctuations there's a spike upward a couple years back followed by one downward, but the overall pattern is basically flat."
I'm sorry, but I don't see that at all from the combined RSS UAH graphs you linked to. ONLY if you look at the RSS graph alone for the lower troposphere will you possibly see something close to a flat trend since 2002. This in itself, in the face of increasing CO2 concentrations, should cause AGW proponents to re-examine their underlying assumptions. All the other graphs, RSS and UAH for lower and middle troposphere show clear cooling trends.
Nanny,
I've only got time for a few quick comments, so my apologies in advance for not being more thorough or addressing more of your comments. Once again, please forgive me if I seem sporadic. I'll get in whatever I can here and there. :)
"And both of those activities dump water vapor into the atmosphere from outside as well. So water vapor still looks like a 'forcing' to me."
Water vapour of volcanic origin is leached out of the atmosphere rapidly, just like that from other sources. But volcanic aerosols injected into the stratosphere may remain there for several years (e.g. Pinatubo). Furthermore, volcanic eruptions are infrequent, but industries spew tons of black carbon, SO2, and other aerosols on a daily, ongoing basis. The fact is, we know how much H20 is injected into the climate system from external sources on a long-term basis, and it's negligible. Aerosol emissions are not.
"I'm sorry, but I don't see that at all from the combined RSS UAH graphs you linked to. ONLY if you look at the RSS graph alone for the lower troposphere will you possibly see something close to a flat trend since 2002."
Differences in the UAH and RSS trends are mostly due to methodological differences in how each conducts merge calculations from different POES satellite records. UAH has chosen a method that minimizes trend while RSS has chosen one that minimizes RMS spread in the residuals. This is method, not climate. For more see my paper on the subject. Beyond that, you're still hung up on the difference between short-term trends and long-term ones. Even if you're right, a four year cooling is meaningless in discussions of anthropogenic greenhouse warming. This is apparent in any time series of several decades or more. I would refer you again to the IPCC surface records I linked above, and I would encourage you to examine the entire UAH and RSS records, not just the last few atoms in each.
All the best.
Scott,
"Water vapour of volcanic origin is leached out of the atmosphere rapidly, just like that from other sources. But volcanic aerosols injected into the stratosphere may remain there for several years "
Same with water vapor apparently. Stratospheric water vapor concentrations are increasing of late. See: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2001/200104254688…
"(e.g. Pinatubo). Furthermore, volcanic eruptions are infrequent, but industries spew tons of black carbon, SO2, and other aerosols on a daily, ongoing basis. "
Again, these same processes produce H2O vapor as well.
"The fact is, we know how much H20 is injected into the climate system from external sources on a long-term basis, and it's negligible."
That's not what I understand from the study linked above.
"UAH has chosen a method that minimizes trend while RSS has chosen one that minimizes RMS spread in the residuals."
Are you saying one stitching method is more valid than the other?
That's beside the point of recent cooling. The mid-troposphere shows recent cooling even using the RSS stitching method. Lower troposphere shows near-flat trend which should be a sup rise to AGW proponents considering increasing CO2 concentrations.
"Even if you're right, a four year cooling is meaningless in discussions of anthropogenic greenhouse warming."
Not if we think we understand all the forcings. If we think we understand all the forcings and we predict warming but then cooling occurs, prudence would require a re-assessment of our underlying assumptions.
"This is apparent in any time series of several decades or more. I would refer you again to the IPCC surface records I linked above, and I would encourage you to examine the entire UAH and RSS records, not just the last few atoms in each. "
But the last few atoms are crucial as the supposed aerosol forcings are dwindling (in the USA at least), and no cooling is shown in regions where aerosols dominate outside the USA. So the supposed cooling mechanisms are drying up, but we're still seeing cooling and people are still blaming CO2 for warming.
It doesn't make any sense, Scott.
The IPCC surface records are based on Jones, et. al., as far as I understand it, right? These are the CRU gridcell data of which no one other than Jones has seen the raw supporting data, right? There are many UHI questions outstanding that could be answered/dismissed if Jones would just release his raw data. Do you know him? Can you encourage him to release his data?
And this is the surface data that shows more warming than the troposphere, right? That flies in the face of the GW CO2 theory which claims warming should occur in the troposphere first and transfer the heat to the surface, doesn't it?
Nanny, why should anyone engage seriously with you when you link to a four year old study and don't bother looking for anything more up to date? Why should others do your research for you? Then you make yet other assertions that you know to be wrong. Why should anyone want to debate someone who uses these sorts of trolling techniques?
Steve,
either these are serious questions about the validity of the AGW "theory" that call into question the legitimacy of scientists - SERIOUS questions, mind you, or they are just ignernt questions from someone likely cut/pasting furiously to spam the comments.
Best,
D
I note that "nanny_govt_sucks" also plays the pissant role at RealClimate (see
www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=217#comments)
Note William Connolly's reply to Nanny- "If you are serious in believing that there is a long-term cooling trend, then I suggest you head over to Back Seat Driving [website] where you can bet on the issue"
If you wish to see Nanny in action, I would encourage a look at the Yahoo BBs. Here is one to get started.
You will see the argument style is the same. A clever use of words with no understanding of the subject matter.
re: 116
"You will see the argument style is the same. A clever use of words with no understanding of the subject matter."
Although "no understanding" is a bit extreme, for a moment I thought you were talking about the author of 114; then I noticed your post included the word "clever." Never mind.
Steve Bloom,
"Then you make yet other assertions that you know to be wrong."
Which assertions have I made that I "know to be wrong"?
Steve Munn,
"I note that 'nannygovtsucks' also plays the pissant role at RealClimate (see www.realclimate.org/index)"
YES! I'm ecstatic that they finally let my posts through at that site. Why do you think they've been so eager with their censorship in the past? All my posts have been on topic.
"Note William Connolly's reply to Nanny- 'If you are serious in believing that there is a long-term cooling trend, then I suggest you head over to Back Seat Driving [website] where you can bet on the issue'"
A great way to stop a conversation, in my opinion. Also, I never said anything about a "long-term cooling trend". Connolly seems to have missed my point completely.
Yelling in the fog,
No comment on the content of my post here? Will I be seeing your posts on boards at ClimateAudit? There's lots of good MBH98/99 discussion there.
nanny_govt_sucks (the only type of government in Australia BTW) says:
"Again, what do YOU think is driving the recent 4 years of cooling?
What 4 year cooling trend is this? If you put a regression through the temperatures of 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 then the average rate of change is a warming of 0.01 degrees C per year. If you choose any more recent period of 4 years or more then the average warming rate is higher. So what exactly is this "4 years of cooling"?
Nanny, I don't intend to repeat my discussions with you and take up Tim's bandwidth. However just as an example I explained why your cooling trend was not statistically significant and instead of addressing the point you went off on a tangent about MBH and R2 statistics (which in the past you have shown that you really don't understand). However I will happily continue to discuss these things with you over on the Yahoo boards.
In regards to posting on ClimateAudit, I don;t see why I should. When I make comments about MBH or M&M you either answer with snips from the CA website or change the topic to one in which you can answer with snips from the CA website. Thus I sometimes feel that I am arguing on the CA website (but with the bonus that you don't understand what you post and thus some of your replies are quite amusing).
See you around Yahoo.
Nice cheap shot, John Mc. Is that the best you can do? Why don't you try that when I'm around and reading the weak arguments you parrot?
D
Chris, look at the RSS and UAH global atmospheric temps for the last 4 years. You'll see a near-flat/slight cooling trend.
Yelling in the fog, you seem to have a lot of ability to defend MBH98/99 and I'm simply inviting you to join in the conversation at ClimateAudit. If you truly believe that I "don't understand what I post", then why not talk with people that do? I would be interested to see your points laid side by side with those of Steve McIntyre and others. You can see that I'm more than willing to post on RealClimate (when they allow it), and here at Tim's site. I hope to see the same ability from you to face your opposition.
re: cooling trends - We're talking about a cooling trend 2002->present. Not from 1998.
Nanny,
Once again I have time only for a few brief comments so here they are, and forgive me if they're not as complete as you'd hoped.
"....Same with water vapor apparently. Stratospheric water vapor concentrations are increasing of late."
"....Again, these same processes produce H2O vapor as well."
"....That's not what I understand from the study linked above."
You're confusing tropospheric water vapour levels with stratospheric ones--a completely different animal. The article you linked discusses a year 2001 paper on water vapour increases in the upper troposphere and stratosphere. It specifically states that the observed increases are likely to be fallout from anthropogenic methane increases, and variations in the tropical tropopause--themselves sensitive to anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming (see Santer et al., 2003, J. Geophys. Res., 108, D1). In other words, a feedback--not an injection of water vapour to the climate system. And volcanic emissions do little to alter this over the long haul, particularly near the surface where it matters most.
Water vapour emitted by industry and volcanoes is negligible compared to what enters and leaves the lower and middle troposphere due to other effects secondary to direct injections. Furthermore, wherever it is being spewed out by industries the actual level observed will be driven by local temperatures and the resulting atmospheric moisture carrying ability there (the Clausius-Clapyron equation). None of this is true for aerosols. The fact remains--changes in water vapour level due to anthropogenic inputs to the climate system are negligible. The corresponding aerosol injections are not. Yet again, I direct you to read IPCC 2001 Chap. 7.2.
BTW, your linked article interviewed Philip Mote of the University of Washington who was one of the lead authors of that upper-air water vapour study. As it turns out, Phil happens to be a friend of mine (we're both based in Seattle). I showed him your comments over the weekend, and he confirmed what I already knew--you've completely misunderstood his team's work.
All the best.
Nanny, why is encouraging you to come to my website and bet me over global warming "a great way to stop a conversation"? Am I really that unpleasant to be around? Seems like you're the one unwilling to talk about why you won't bet.
As Connolley and I mention on RealClimate, if you think a cooling cycle should last at least 10 years, then you should want to bet. If you don't, then don't bet. So far, you're not betting.
Scott,
What am I misunderstanding from Philip's paper?
I said stratospheric water vapor is increasing of late and the paper says the same thing.
You said 'The fact is, we know how much H20 is injected into the climate system from external sources on a long-term basis, and it's negligible.'
I disagreed and Philip's paper seems to agree in this quote from the link above:
"Modelling studies by the University of Reading in England show that since 1980 the stratospheric water vapor increase has produced a surface temperature rise about half of that attributable to increased carbon dioxide alone. "
Such a surface temperature rise does not seem "negligible" to me.
What am I misunderstanding here?
More later...
Nanny,
Here are some more quick comments in a few posts.
"I said stratospheric water vapor is increasing of late and the paper says the same thing. You said 'The fact is, we know how much H20 is injected into the climate system from external sources on a long-term basis, and it's negligible.' I disagreed and Philip's paper seems to agree.... What am I misunderstanding here?"
You're misunderstanding the difference between water vapour increases that are directly injected into the climate system from outside, and those that are a consequence of state changes in the existing H2O due to other factors (e.g. increased evaporation due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases). You also appear to be misunderstanding that water vapour injected into the atmosphere from, say an industrial emission, doesn't necessarily stay in a vapour state. It will do so only if the local conditions at any given time and place will support additional moisture load, which they won't necessarily always do. In these cases, the emissions cannot be considered as added water vapour. In summary, water vapour increases that are secondary to other effects, like the anthropogenic methane increases and tropopause height variations discussed in Phil's paper, are feedbacks, not forcings.
Nanny,
"Are you saying one stitching method is more valid than the other? That's beside the point of recent cooling. The mid-troposphere shows recent cooling even using the RSS stitching method. Lower troposphere shows near-flat trend which should be a surprise to AGW proponents considering increasing CO2 concentrations."
You're missing the point. The very fact that two different, and valid, merge methods yield differing results is prima-facie proof that to this degree the data itself is ambiguous and does not discriminate adequately between cooling and warming over so short a period. Furthermore, the UAH and RSS merge calculations are not simply "stitching" methods. They also include corrections for diurnal drift (the two teams do this quite differently), evaluation of hot target calibration drift, and data smoothing methods (again, different for both teams). The latter in particular may contribute to short-term differences in record. Once again, these differences are method, not climate. As to which is "more valid", each has strengths and weaknesses and you can't just decide that one is better than the other without reviewing each of them. Again, I would point you to my paper on the subject for an overview.
Nanny,
"Not if we think we understand all the forcings. If we think we understand all the forcings and we predict warming but then cooling occurs, prudence would require a re-assessment of our underlying assumptions."
"But the last few atoms are crucial as the supposed aerosol forcings are dwindling (in the USA at least), and no cooling is shown in regions where aerosols dominate outside the USA. So the supposed cooling mechanisms are drying up, but we're still seeing cooling and people are still blaming CO2 for warming.... It doesn't make any sense, Scott."
It makes complete sense. With all due respect Nanny, these statements are just plain wrong. Our understanding of forcings and feedbacks was not gained by examining this 3 or 4 year variation here, or that one there and trying to tie any of them to this or that individual cause--it was gained by studying all such variations over the last century and how each of them interacts with the others, and in turn with regional and global climate. You're obsessed with the atmospheric record of the last 4 years as though that period alone tells us something that over a century of surface, oceanic, and atmospheric data do not. Even more problematic is your desire to somehow tie any one, or all of these variations to one single factor and then relate them to CO2 buildup even though you've been shown that well-mixed global CO2 forcing does not make itself felt over interannual timeframes. There is also little evidence any of these "supposed cooling mechanisms" are "drying up" and I truly don't understand where you're getting that idea from. You cannot keep cherry-picking this data.
Nanny, you've brought up some good questions and the resulting discussion has been very helpful (thank you!). But you're just not understanding this material, and much as I've found our discussions to be stimulating, right now I simply do not have time to keep reiterating the same basic points. With many apologies I need to drop out now. My personal life will not permit further time expenditures over basic points that have already been addressed. I'll leave you with what I've already offered. Virtually every statement you've made so far has been addressed in that material. Beyond that, I encourage you to read the full IPCC 2001 Report. It's still the best overview of these issues there is. Thanks for a stimulating discussion and all the best.
"You're obsessed with the atmospheric record of the last 4 years as though that period alone tells us something that over a century of surface, oceanic, and atmospheric data do not."
I'm also obsessed with the period 1940-1975 when global temperatures cooled while CO2 concentrations were increasing in the atmosphere (and the effect of increasing CO2 - because of it's lower concentration - was stronger back then than today.
I still haven't heard a good reason for that cooling period. And it was 35 years, not 4.
More later...
"The very fact that two different, and valid, merge methods yield differing results is prima-facie proof that to this degree the data itself is ambiguous and does not discriminate adequately between cooling and warming over so short a period."
That may be, but I never said anything about warming during this period (2002->present). Each of the RSS and UAH plots for the lower and mid troposphere show near-flat or slight cooling trends. Just taking a dummy's average would indicate that NO WARMING is occurring in the atmosphere over this period. Even taking the extreme example - the RSS lower troposphere graph - shows a near-flat trend. So while the data may be ambiguous, it still seems that the range of ambiguity is flat trend to slight cooling for the period.
"You're misunderstanding the difference between water vapour increases that are directly injected into the climate system from outside, and those that are a consequence of state changes in the existing H2O due to other factors (e.g. increased evaporation due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases)."
It seems to me that water vapor from car exhaust, airline exhaust, volcanoes, and perhaps certain industries is water vapor from "outside" the system.
State changes in H2O can occur for other reasons besides AGHG emissions. Ex.: Solar warming can evaporate water.
In the link above, Philip is quoted as saying that half of the increase in stratospheric water vapor is a mystery. So I don't see how you can say that that half is either due to water vapor from within the system or due to GHG feedback.
"You also appear to be misunderstanding that water vapour injected into the atmosphere from, say an industrial emission, doesn't necessarily stay in a vapour state. It will do so only if the local conditions at any given time and place will support additional moisture load, which they won't necessarily always do."
I don't see how that's a misunderstanding on my part. Industrial emissions are a source of water vapor. Maybe not 100% of the time, but that's beside the point. They are still a source.
"In summary, water vapour increases that are secondary to other effects, like the anthropogenic methane increases and tropopause height variations discussed in Phil's paper, are feedbacks, not forcings."
So then water vapor increases that are primary like emissions from cars, industry (when the weather is right), airlines and volcanoes are forcings, not feedbacks, right?
I don't really think you pointed out anything that I didn't understand, Scott. Are you understanding my points about water vapor sources from "outside" the system?
nanny_govt_sucks suggests:
"look at the RSS and UAH global atmospheric temps for the last 4 years. You'll see a near-flat/slight cooling trend."
I checked the monthly anomalies at vortex.nsstc.uah.edu and a 4 year regression to October 2005 gives an average rate of cooling of 0.001 degrees C per month with a 95% confidence interval (assuming the temperature is a random variable, which of course it isn't - it's chaotic) of -0.0034 to 0.0013 degrees C per month. So the average rate of warming over those 4 years is a lot less than over the last 30.
Well, so what? This is not much different from saying we're in a cooling trend because this year is cooler than last year. Just looking at a graph of the UAH figures since 1978 I can pick out 5 distinct 4 year periods (before the current one) with an average cooling over each period of 4 years. This is in spite of an overall average warming of just over 0.001 degrees C per month. 4 year cooling periods come and go like the weather.