|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 9, 2011 2:14:39 GMT
Essentially we are supposed to believe that the memory of the sun existed (in the oceans?) for 34 years before influencing the streamflow of the Mississippi.
Now that may be so, but another interpretation is that the two series were simply shifted back and forth till the best fit was found at 34 years, and then the scientist said "Aha!".If Hansen had come up with something similar which supported AGW can you imagine the reaction on sceptic blogs. If Hansen had come up with something similar which supported AGW can you imagine the reaction on sceptic blogs. One consequence of the ocean’s inertia and the resulting planetary energy imbalance is that there is about 1 degree Fahrenheit more global warming ‘in-the-pipeline’ – warming that will occur this century without any further increases of greenhouse gases. - James Hansen You know the "travesty" that it is  It helps to actually read the many things Hansen has said. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 9, 2011 2:20:41 GMT
GFW and Magellan (as this relates to your post as well) Solar variability did play a significant role in the Little Ice Age as far as we can tell, but there was also volcanism, and likely an ocean circulation change that amplified the effect for Europe relative to other places on the globe. The underlined part is the the key comment here. The sun does possiby influence weather patterns around the world. For example, there were reportedly colder winters across europe during the period generally defined by the LIA. This may have been related to the NAO, AO and other oscillatory factors. During December in the UK we had a brief glimpse of the conditions that may have been more common at that time. However, while it was cold in the UK - it was warm in Greenland and elsewhere. Do you not see that this is probably just due to a shift in weather patterns and not due to a change in energy input/balance. Recently on this blog, someone linked to 2 studies on the CO2science web-site. They were trying to show that the MWP and LIA existed. But as is the case with the MWP/LIA studies, the message was mixed. For example, one study on Southern Greenlancd found that there had been warming during the 1550-1750 period. This period includes the maunder minimum - i.e. exactly the time when europe was cooling. One of the great myths on sceptic blogs is that AGW proponents don't accept anything other than CO2 as a cause for climate change. This is not true. The following Abstract is from a paper by Shindell, Schmidt, Mann et al. We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift towards the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiation decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1-2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures This paper was published around 10 years ago. I'm no fan of Michael Mann or Gavin Schmidt, but it's clear they do not dismiss the sun's influence as a factor in climate and it's unfair to claim otherwise. Furthermore what we have seen over the past couple of years is consistent with their model results, i.e. regional changes can be quite large while global changes are much less. We will, therefore, continue to get strong regional shifts - whatever happens on a global level. It's the steady upward trend in global temperature that needs to be explained. One of the great myths on sceptic blogs is that AGW proponents don't accept anything other than CO2 as a cause for climate change. This is not true. The following Abstract is from a paper by Shindell, Schmidt, Mann et al. Ever hear of Andrew Dessler glc? He flat out says CO2 controls earth's climate. How about Andy Lacis and the CO2 "climate thermostat"? Can you name anything that one AGW scientist somewhere at some time hasn't linked to CO2? It can't be nailed down to anything because no matter what happens, there's an alternative hypothesis for CYA. Example? Now "scientists" are linking the snow and cold in recent years to......AGW. That after 20 years of "global warming" dogma. "Scientists" link CO2 to anything and everything. Are you saying they don't or haven't? Australia was said to be in a "permanent drought" just as recently as last Fall; further "proof" of AGW. Now when the floods come....gee, what a surprise, that too supports AGW. Floods, droughts, less snow, more snow, warmer, colder, fewer hurricanes, more hurricanes....it doesn't matter, it all is "consistent with" AGW. When we go back to the original tenets and claims for AGW, they all fail, yet none of you want to own up to the failures. You guys are zombies. Funny though when first joining this forum glc claimed to be a skeptic. Some of us accused him of being a plastic banana phony imitation vanilla drone then, and now it is clear we were right. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 9, 2011 2:28:44 GMT
Can you name anything that one AGW scientist somewhere at some time hasn't linked to CO2? It can't be nailed down to anything because no matter what happens, there's an alternative hypothesis for CYA. Example? Now "scientists" are linking the snow and cold in recent years to......AGW. You guys are zombies. "Scientists" link CO2 to anything and everything. Are you saying they don't or haven't? Australia was said to be in a "permanent drought" just as recently as last Fall. Now when the floods come....gee, what a surprise, that too supports AGW. Floods, droughts, less snow, more snow, warmer, colder....it doesn't matter, it all is "consistent with" AGW. You guys are zombies. CO2 is a common thread. trying to fit the results into the thread is just science. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 9, 2011 2:29:35 GMT
Can you name anything that one AGW scientist somewhere at some time hasn't linked to CO2? It can't be nailed down to anything because no matter what happens, there's an alternative hypothesis for CYA. Example? Now "scientists" are linking the snow and cold in recent years to......AGW. You guys are zombies. "Scientists" link CO2 to anything and everything. Are you saying they don't or haven't? Australia was said to be in a "permanent drought" just as recently as last Fall. Now when the floods come....gee, what a surprise, that too supports AGW. Floods, droughts, less snow, more snow, warmer, colder....it doesn't matter, it all is "consistent with" AGW. You guys are zombies. CO2 is a common thread. trying to fit the results into the thread is just science. Can you ever say anything at least resembling common sense? |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 9, 2011 4:31:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 9, 2011 10:06:24 GMT
It helps to actually read the many things Hansen has said.
While I don't necessaraily agree with Hansen, his 'heat in the pipeline' scenario is, at least, plausible. In fact we know this is what happens to some degree - though probably not to the extent Hansen claims.
Ever hear of Andrew Dessler glc? He flat out says CO2 controls earth's climate. How about Andy Lacis and the CO2 "climate thermostat"?
Again Dessler has a point. CO2 is dominant at the higher, colder layers of the atmosphere. These are the layers at which energy is finally emitted to space. Changes in CO2 concentration at these layers will affect the rates of radiation emission which will, in turn, impact on temperatures throughout the atmosphere down to the surface. This is true irrespective of other climate varying factors.
Neither Dessler nor Lacis is saying that the sun is not the key energy source. They are saying that CO2 controls how warm the surface and atmosphere will become as a result of solar energy input.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 9, 2011 16:20:01 GMT
CO2 is a common thread. trying to fit the results into the thread is just science. Can you ever say anything at least resembling common sense? Given that your definition of common sense is idiocy, I'd say no. |
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Mar 15, 2011 3:47:33 GMT
CO2 controls it all. No other factors. In a complex choatic system for one element to exercise overwhelming influence, is .. lunacy
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 15, 2011 5:51:38 GMT
CO2 is a common thread. trying to fit the results into the thread is just science. You are so incredibly wrong. BUT...you have neatly summed up the exact problem that climate "science" has. They are TRYING LIKE HELL to link everything to CO2. The problem is that the fit is absolutely terrible. Again, the range of temperature fluctuations verses supposed sensitivities reflected in paleoclimate data looks like a scatter plot. NORMALLY any good scientist would look at this and go "I guess it doesn't do very much at all...and we're just seeing the degassing in the oceans." But climate "science" digs in and tries to fit the results to their expectations. In REAL science...you fit your hypothesis to the data, not try to fit the data to the hypothesis. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 15, 2011 6:08:12 GMT
CO2 is a common thread. trying to fit the results into the thread is just science. You are so incredibly wrong. BUT...you have neatly summed up the exact problem that climate "science" has. They are TRYING LIKE HELL to link everything to CO2. The problem is that the fit is absolutely terrible. Again, the range of temperature fluctuations verses supposed sensitivities reflected in paleoclimate data looks like a scatter plot. NORMALLY any good scientist would look at this and go "I guess it doesn't do very much at all...and we're just seeing the degassing in the oceans." But climate "science" digs in and tries to fit the results to their expectations. In REAL science...you fit your hypothesis to the data, not try to fit the data to the hypothesis. Yes, and the data fits 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 15, 2011 10:39:35 GMT
In REAL science...you fit your hypothesis to the data, not try to fit the data to the hypothesis. Yes, and the data fits 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. [/quote] Only to a brainwashed moron. The supposed "sensitivities" through geologic time look like a scatter plot. You can't average that sort of thing meaningfully (which is what the incompetent 'scientists' did. Anyway, the most telling indicator of sensitivity would be the INTERGLACIAL SENSITIVITY...and the ice cores show an incredible drop in "sensitivity" (if CO2 can do anything in the first place). Fluctuations went from 5-10C to about 1-2C. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 15, 2011 12:01:34 GMT
|
|
fred
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by fred on Mar 15, 2011 19:21:03 GMT
So if CO2 doubles from 50 to 100 you go up 3 degrees, but don't you go up 3 degrees if it goes up 400 to 800.
Don't see that really
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 16, 2011 1:24:58 GMT
Only the ice cores show a drastic reduction in feedbacks around the time of the interglacial. Its a VERY pronounced drop...again, swings go from about 5-10C ...to about 1-2C. SO...assuming 3C for glacial, that leaves us with about .6C for the interglacial sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. AND...even if we assume that 100% of the current increase is from CO2...the sensitivity is STILL too low to get out of the holocene temperatures (which are well documented as a good temperature range for mankind) So again, there's nothing dangerous on the horizon from CO2. |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Mar 18, 2011 18:10:38 GMT
HAD/CRU data is out for Feb 2011 at 0.267 C.
If my arithmetic is correct, then in order for the 2011 average to be 0.44 C as predicted, the average monthly anomaly for the rest of 2011 needs to be 0.48 C. If the average is to be greater than 0.54 C as seems to have been forecast by Smith et al in Science August 2007, then the average monthly anomaly for the rest of 2011 needs to be 0.60 C.
|
|
