|
Post by richard on Aug 2, 2011 1:55:14 GMT
I also pointed out that Roy hadn't done any sensitivity studies - ie. changing assumptions to see how it changes results. This guy has done such studies with Roy's simple model and has found out that by tweaking two parameters you can get equally good results from Roy's model with a much higher climate sensitivity: bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/(noting that, additionally, the "thermal diffusion" component of his ocean model is physically unrealistic because heat transfer in the ocean is not governed primarily by diffusion, but rather by ocean currents). Roy is now falling back to the following strawman position: Why don't you try actually reading Roy Spencer's blog instead of using cherry picked snippets? LOL! You are saying that his paper is trash, but his blog proves all? What a load of crap
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 2, 2011 1:56:18 GMT
Richard: Finally.......all the models, with their wide variability show......WE DON'T KNOW.
You are finally getting it my good fellow.
I feel relieved, there is hope to educate yet!
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 2, 2011 2:04:53 GMT
Richard gets a star!!! He can recognize that climate has varied tremendously!!! Good boy, here's a biscuit! Now for the hard part... Repeat after me... "The climate cannot be driven by a trace gas with a saturated absorption spectrum, any and almost all sensitivity must be from another source..." There now, was that hard? Don't you feel better now that mankind is not killing the planet? Not hard, but laughably wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 2, 2011 2:14:46 GMT
Richard: I have not observed anyone here denying that co2 may have a role in climate. Note the word "may".
From everything I have read, co2 may help stabalize climate, but even that may has problems.
When you look at the temperature swings of the early holocene, it is very obvious that anything co2 "could" do is overwhelmed totally by other forces. The proxy data is there. Even the emergence to an interglacial state is bumpy......very. IF co2 was such a strong stabalizing force, that bumpy ride should not exist.
The very evidence of the climatic variability shows that co2 can help, but is certainly not a primary factor of climate stability.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 2, 2011 2:35:57 GMT
Richard: I have not observed anyone here denying that co2 may have a role in climate. Note the word "may". From everything I have read, co2 may help stabalize climate, but even that may has problems. When you look at the temperature swings of the early holocene, it is very obvious that anything co2 "could" do is overwhelmed totally by other forces. The proxy data is there. Even the emergence to an interglacial state is bumpy......very. IF co2 was such a strong stabalizing force, that bumpy ride should not exist. The very evidence of the climatic variability shows that co2 can help, but is certainly not a primary factor of climate stability. I'm sure you believe that, but the results are clear. You are wrong. CO2 has a dominant role to play in climate.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 2, 2011 2:44:32 GMT
Richard: I have not observed anyone here denying that co2 may have a role in climate. Note the word "may". From everything I have read, co2 may help stabalize climate, but even that may has problems. When you look at the temperature swings of the early holocene, it is very obvious that anything co2 "could" do is overwhelmed totally by other forces. The proxy data is there. Even the emergence to an interglacial state is bumpy......very. IF co2 was such a strong stabalizing force, that bumpy ride should not exist. The very evidence of the climatic variability shows that co2 can help, but is certainly not a primary factor of climate stability. Sigurdur, You wrote, among other things, "From everything I have read, co2 may help stabalize climate, but even that may has problems...etc" If that is everything you have read you make it very clear that you are not at all well read on the subject of CO2. That is certainly good for all of us to know. Thank you. We can take this into account in evaluating your posts. Got it. You are poorly read on the subject of CO2.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 2, 2011 2:54:39 GMT
Richard: I have not observed anyone here denying that co2 may have a role in climate. Note the word "may". From everything I have read, co2 may help stabalize climate, but even that may has problems. When you look at the temperature swings of the early holocene, it is very obvious that anything co2 "could" do is overwhelmed totally by other forces. The proxy data is there. Even the emergence to an interglacial state is bumpy......very. IF co2 was such a strong stabalizing force, that bumpy ride should not exist. The very evidence of the climatic variability shows that co2 can help, but is certainly not a primary factor of climate stability. I'm sure you believe that, but the results are clear. You are wrong. CO2 has a dominant role to play in climate. Richard: By the very variability of past temperature records even within the Holocene, it is obvious that co2 is not that important when establishing climate stability.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 2, 2011 2:57:52 GMT
I'm sure you believe that, but the results are clear. You are wrong. CO2 has a dominant role to play in climate. Richard: By the very variability of past temperature records even within the Holocene, it is obvious that co2 is not that important when establishing climate stability. Yeah, other than the fact that it explains all of the past temperature records, it is not important. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 2, 2011 3:03:25 GMT
Richard: By the very variability of past temperature records even within the Holocene, it is obvious that co2 is not that important when establishing climate stability. Richard: It doesn't tho...and that is the problem. I do have a quick question for you. Do you readily admit that the radiation leaveing earth at present is not what most models show should be happening? Yeah, other than the fact that it explains all of the past temperature records, it is not important. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 2, 2011 3:04:43 GMT
Richard: By the very variability of past temperature records even within the Holocene, it is obvious that co2 is not that important when establishing climate stability. Yeah, other than the fact that it explains all of the past temperature records, it is not important. LOL.[/quot Richard: It doesn't tho...and that is the problem. I do have a quick question for you. Do you readily admit that the radiation leaveing earth at present is not what most models show should be happening?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 2, 2011 3:10:28 GMT
I'm sure you believe that, but the results are clear. You are wrong. CO2 has a dominant role to play in climate. Richard: By the very variability of past temperature records even within the Holocene, it is obvious that co2 is not that important when establishing climate stability. Sigurdur, You wrote, "By the very variability of past temperature records even within the Holocene, it is obvious that co2 is not that important when establishing climate stability." Huh? That is not at all what the Holocene records indicate. It is exactly the opposite. Holocene records clearly establish the importance of CO2 in climate change. There are libraries full of literature on this science (which Sigurdur shows here, he is ignorant of. Got it).
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 2, 2011 3:30:33 GMT
Richard: By the very variability of past temperature records even within the Holocene, it is obvious that co2 is not that important when establishing climate stability. Sigurdur, You wrote, "By the very variability of past temperature records even within the Holocene, it is obvious that co2 is not that important when establishing climate stability." Huh? That is not at all what the Holocene records indicate. It is exactly the opposite. Holocene records clearly establish the importance of CO2 in climate change. There are libraries full of literature on this science (which Sigurdur shows here, he is ignorant of. Got it). Thermostat: By your very comment it is obvious that you have not read them. IF you had, you would see that the variability of past temps, even within the holocen, was not a response in any way to co2 as co2 remained relatively constant, at least according to ice core records, yet temp vaired by as much as 3.5C. By the very flucuation of temp with the relative stability of co2 this shows that co2 is a minor force in climate. Care to contradict this? And the only way I will accept contradiction is actual papers showing that co2 varied before the temp rose or fell. One would expect a large rise in co2 to proceed a rise in temp, just as one would expect a large decline in co2 to proceed a decline in the temperature proxy record.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 2, 2011 3:32:21 GMT
Even Bond events, which at one time were thought to be only NH events and now shown through ice core data to be worldwide, overcome co2.
I will readily admit that the causeation of a Bond type event has not become clear.....but the results are well documented.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 2, 2011 3:35:32 GMT
Sigurdur, You wrote, "By the very variability of past temperature records even within the Holocene, it is obvious that co2 is not that important when establishing climate stability." Huh? That is not at all what the Holocene records indicate. It is exactly the opposite. Holocene records clearly establish the importance of CO2 in climate change. There are libraries full of literature on this science (which Sigurdur shows here, he is ignorant of. Got it). Thermostat: By your very comment it is obvious that you have not read them. IF you had, you would see that the variability of past temps, even within the holocen, was not a response in any way to co2 as co2 remained relatively constant, at least according to ice core records, yet temp vaired by as much as 3.5C. By the very flucuation of temp with the relative stability of co2 this shows that co2 is a minor force in climate. Care to contradict this? And the only way I will accept contradiction is actual papers showing that co2 varied before the temp rose or fell. One would expect a large rise in co2 to proceed a rise in temp, just as one would expect a large decline in co2 to proceed a decline in the temperature proxy record. Sigurdur, You are mistaken. But please, feel free to provide scientific references. I would be quite amazed to see substantive science that supports your confused opinions.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 2, 2011 3:41:18 GMT
Thermostat: By your very comment it is obvious that you have not read them. IF you had, you would see that the variability of past temps, even within the holocen, was not a response in any way to co2 as co2 remained relatively constant, at least according to ice core records, yet temp vaired by as much as 3.5C. By the very flucuation of temp with the relative stability of co2 this shows that co2 is a minor force in climate. Care to contradict this? And the only way I will accept contradiction is actual papers showing that co2 varied before the temp rose or fell. One would expect a large rise in co2 to proceed a rise in temp, just as one would expect a large decline in co2 to proceed a decline in the temperature proxy record. Sigurdur, You are mistaken. But please, feel free to provide scientific references. I would be quite amazed to see substantive science that supports your confused opinions. I am sure that you would be amazed if you had actually read the literature as you claim. No....on this one the impitus is on you to prove me wrong. And please, keep us informed of your progess by posting links to the literature.
|
|