YESTERDAY atmospheric scientist, Professor Marvin Geller, explained to Leigh Dayton, science writer at The Australian newspaper, that the sun could not be driving “recent global warming as climate change sceptics claim” because solar radiation has not changed very much since 1978.
But climate change sceptics do not claim there has been recent global warming. They claim there has been a levelling off, or fall in temperatures, over the last 10 years since the 1998 El Nino-driven peak. [Click on the chart for a larger view of global temperature trends.]
As regards the El Nino event of 1998, according to Professor Geller, El Ninos cause a temporary increase in global temperatures, not the steady and consistent upward trend typical of warming from greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
But there has been no “consistent upward trend”.
Indeed, Professor Geller misrepresents the position of global warming sceptics and the available global temperature data.
It is apparent from the satellite data that there has been no consistent recent warming trend and the 1998 El Nino effect does not appear to have been temporary. Indeed since 1998 there has been a one-step warming shift of about 0.2 degrees. [Click on the chart for a larger view.]
Interestingly the same day ‘The Australian’ quoted Professor as dismissive of the role of the sun, the journal ‘Geographical Research’ published a paper suggesting a correlation between solar magnetic phases and the state of the El Nino- Southern Oscillation Index (SOI).
The paper by Robert Baker emphasis the influence of the sun’s magnetic field through the rate of ionisation – the rate of ionisation being affected by solar cosmic ray showers whose incidence follows the inverse of the sunspot cycle – not solar radiation as suggested by Professor Geller. Dr Baker claims his discovery has important implications for future drought predictions in Australia recognising the relationship between the SOI and rainfall in Australia and the periodicity of the strength of the sun’s magnetic field.
************
Notes
Professor Sheds Light for Climate Change Sceptics by Leigh Dayton, The Australian, December 4, 2008, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24748258-11949,00.html
The chart of satellite temperatures is from Roy Spencer’s website, http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
Robert G. V. Baker, 2008, ‘Exploratory Analysis of Similarities in Solar Cycle Magnetic Phases with Southern Oscillation Index Fluctuations in Eastern Australia’ in Geographical Research (Vol 46, pp380-398)
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen, same old, same old graph, no labelling of recent La Nina dragging it down. Is that same old same old Baker whose paper had stats too ‘seriously flawed’ to get published in the Met Magazine.
Bazza, new paper published in established journal, updated graph. what’s your point? that i am consistent in my message when it comes to global temps? and how do you read the graph?
Bakers paper is about sunspots and SOI in eastern Australia.? But any relationship is independent of location. More seriously flawed?
“It is apparent from the satellite data that there has been no consistent recent warming trend and the 1998 El Nino effect does not appear to have been temporary. Indeed since 1998 there has been a one-step warming shift of about 0.2 degrees. [Click on the chart for a larger view.]”
How to contradict yourself in one paragraph.
Claim there is no warming trend, but then claim if there is one, it’s due to the El Nino.
It’s clear there is no trend, but I can’t quite see where this ‘step’ happens, nor any evidence a ‘step’ is due to El Nino.
Jen, ‘How do I read the graph’. For starters anybody who fits a fourth degree polynomial to data has lost the plot – unless of course they had a hypothesis ( or obsession) as to the why the causal mechanisms would be so manifest. I rest my case.
Will; 1998 step; FIG 5;
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/08/did-9798-el-nino-cause-step-change-in.html
Beware the ides of cycles …..
Cohenite will get off on the solar paper. Latest fad.
BTW Jen – try a linear regression.
Bazza stop showing off – you know we’re all not good at stats. Next you’ll be asking for cross validations. Down boy !
I would have done a 10 degree polynomial myself…..
And of course UAH doesn’t pick up the Arctic action either …. hmmmmm
Meanwhile back on the serious AGW theme, scientists recently publishing GRL vis a vis GR have come up with jaw drops such as …
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L22503, doi:10.1029/2008GL035556, 2008
Mass loss on Himalayan glacier endangers water resources
Ice cores drilled from glaciers around the world generally contain horizons with elevated levels of beta radioactivity including 36Cl and 3H associated with atmospheric thermonuclear bomb testing in the 1950s and 1960s. Ice cores collected in 2006 from Naimona’nyi Glacier in the Himalaya (Tibet) lack these distinctive marker horizons suggesting no net accumulation of mass (ice) since at least 1950. Naimona’nyi is the highest glacier (6050 masl) documented to be losing mass annually suggesting the possibility of similar mass loss on other high-elevation glaciers in low and mid-latitudes under a warmer Earth scenario. If climatic conditions dominating the mass balance of Naimona’nyi extend to other glaciers in the region, the implications for water resources could be serious as these glaciers feed the headwaters of the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers that sustain one of the world’s most populous regions.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L22701, doi:10.1029/2008GL035607, 2008
Recent radical shifts of atmospheric circulations and rapid changes in Arctic climate system
Arctic climate system change has accelerated tremendously since the beginning of this century, and a strikingly extreme sea-ice loss occurred in summer 2007. However, the greenhouse-gas-emissions forcing has only increased gradually and the driving role in Arctic climate change of the positively-polarized Arctic/North Atlantic Oscillation (AO/NAO) trend has substantially weakened. Although various contributing factors have been examined, the fundamental physical process, which orchestrates these contributors to drive the acceleration and the latest extreme event, remains unknown. We report on drastic, systematic spatial changes in atmospheric circulations, showing a sudden jump from the conventional tri-polar AO/NAO to an unprecedented dipolar leading pattern, following accelerated northeastward shifts of the AO/NAO centers of action. These shifts provide an accelerating impetus for the recent rapid Arctic climate system changes, perhaps shedding light on recent arguments about a tipping point of global-warming-forced climate change in the Arctic. The radical spatial shift is a precursor to the observed extreme change event, demonstrating skilful information for future prediction.
SHIFTING CLIMATE ZONES FOR AUSTRALIA’S TROPICAL MARINE
ECOSYSTEMS
J.M. Lough
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Abstract
Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are significantly warming along the northwest (NW)
and northeast (NE) coasts of Australia – regions containing well-protected and
internationally significant tropical marine ecosystems. The magnitude and spatial
distribution of observed warming of annual, maximum and minimum SSTs is
examined, 1950-2007. Observed warming is comparable along the NE and NW
coasts although greater along the NE coast south ~15oS, greater at higher than lower
latitudes, and greater for annual minimum than annual maximum SSTs. Average
climate zones have also shifted >200 km south along the NE coast and about half that
distance along the NW coast. If current trends continue, annual average SSTs in
northern parts could be ~0.5oC warmer and those of more southern parts ~2.0oC
warmer within the next 100 years. These rapid changes in oceanic climate are already
causing responses in Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems and these responses, if
present rates of warming continue, can only intensify.
Gee is dat right? Seems like some heavy AGW stuff is going down ….
Better tell Jensen quick. Has it been tabled?
Predictable stuff from the resident climate alarmists.
Baker’s paper gets a write-up by PYSORG.com here:
http://www.physorg.com/news147456732.html
“The sun’s magnetic field may have a significant impact on weather and climatic parameters in Australia and other countries in the northern and southern hemispheres.”
But climate change sceptics do not claim there has been recent global warming. They claim there has been a levelling off, or fall in temperatures, over the last 10 years since the 1998 El Nino-driven peak.
That’s what all climate change sceptics think, is it? It’s rather easy to prove them wrong with a simple linear fit to temperatures since 1998, in whichever dataset you prefer.
Paul – Australian rainfall (aka El Nino) and sunspots forecasting theory has been around forever.
It’s the basis of Inigo Jones legend. And for all those who have looked at solar correlations have usually perished on the rock of hard statistics.
If Baker hasn’t done the statistical hard yards as Bazza suggests – well it’s case unproven. And actually nothing to do with AGW !
Has Jen read the paper? Have you?
No consistant upward trend? It’s almost like there’s some natural variation in there. Who would have thunk it.
Steps? El Ninos being naughty and not allowing temperature to return to where the free marketeers want it?
That’s it – I’m calling for a recreation of the Nuremberg trials, with those who have committed heinous crimes against basic statistics in the dock. Anyone found guilty (and they will be – this is a show trial, remember) will be made to repeat each and every school year so that they may one day contribute something decent to society.
j.m. lough seems to delight that the oceans are warming. however that does not prove CO2 is causing it. we are still well below temperature peaks of the past. just what caused CO2 to peak in interglacial periods hundreds of thousands of years ago. it wasn’t evil humans. it was due other factors, including the sun, which are still at work today. when these factors caused warming CO2 was released from the warmer waters. if you can tell me j.m. lough how humans caused CO2 to spike before we were here i will buy a diesel car that spits out black poison and buy a new efficient bulb full of mercury (as recommended by bob brown and the greens).
““Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/03/rethinking-observed-warming/
Baker’s paper is fatally flawed. Actually it is rubbish. For example, on page 381, bottom left column, he refers to “cosmic ray clouds”. There are no such things. The interstellar flux of cosmic rays is constant. It is modulated by the solar wind.
On page 381, upper right column, beginning of second paragraph, variation of UV have been 3.9 times greater than in Solar Cycle 21? This doesn’t make sense. 21 was a big cycle, and he is saying that it has been up to 3.9 times higher than in 21 over the last 300 years? How could UV have been measured prior to 1950 say?
Page 381, bottom right column, the explanation of sunspots is wrong. Sunspots are caused by magnetic flux tubes, not lines of force. Same paragraph, here is a real clanger – saying that sunspots in the Sun’s southern hemisphere are mirrored in the northern hemisphere. Each sunspot is a discrete event. The two solar hemispheres can have greatly different activity.
All this is to say that this bloke is operating way out of his depth. I couldn’t wade through the discussion of SOI knowing the lead in was nonsense.
The superficiality is shown by the Schatten reference on page 398, in which he has called Schatten’s paper “Solar activity and solar cycle”. Schatten wouldn’t have left out the “the” in front of the second word solar.
So where did Baker get the title from? From this page on the Lund website: http://www.lund.irf.se/rwc/cycle24/ He didn’t actually read the paper he was citing.
This also means that the paper’s two reviewers had no knowledge of the subject matter either.
Ah, luke and the replicant; what a can of worms; the replicant, let’s call him Batty, wants to put on trial those who commit crimes against basic statistics; maybe we can interrogate them with a Voight-Kampff device; crimes against statistics, eh; gee, would that include Mann? Excuse me luke for using your trademark; RAFLAO!
Didn’t you pair of deuces read what Archibald had to say about the Baker paper; the sceptics don’t hide behind floss; now give me an equivalent from the pro-AGW camp where obvious dreck is repudiated; say Amman and Wahl? Luke I’ll refer to your ‘papers’ in a sec. First, and thanks to janama for the reference to the Compo and Sardeshmukh paper; Compo states; “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases(GHGs) over land.” Now here’s what White, Cayon, Dettinger and Aud say in their paper, “Sources of global warming in upper ocean temperature during El Nino”; “About 90% of the global warming during El Nino occurs in the tropical global ocean from 20oS to 20oN, half because of large SST anomalies in the tropical Pacifiic associated with El Nino and the other half because of warm SST anomalies occurring over ~80% of the tropical global ocean.”
Come on down Great Pacific Climate Shift; poor old Bob Tisdale has been thrashing this for yonks; there isn’t a hot-spot with AGW supporters, more like a blindspot.
Luke; your papers which I always find edifying albeit not as painful as eli’s little lessons; the Himalayan paper is very timely and will enable Gore to replace the Kilimanjaro image as, along with the hockeystick, the pictorial centrepiece of AGW; the paper on Arctic circulation changes features in one paragraph all the apocalyptic language of AGW; tipping points, “extreme change event and drastic change; if it wasn’t for this disclaimer; “the fundamental physical process, which orchestrates these contributors to drive the acceleration and the latest extreme event, remains unknown” (what extreme event?); I’d say the piece was penned by Glikson. And the Lough piece dovetails nicely with the White and Cayon and Compo papers.
Sigh … cognitive dissonance and they’re out of their depth
The solar connection is a little more than just some radiation – how about the flux-tube-events NASA has now identified, connecting the Earth to the Sun. It implies an electrical connection and when electric currents decrease, as in an electric fire, the heat goes down.
Strange how the most powerful phenomenon in nature, electricity, has no part to play.
“““Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.””
They are waaayyyyy ahead of you on that one, too. It was already predicted that the Southern Hemisphere would be cooler than the NH becaues the oceans would take longer to warm since they are bigger in the South. The SH will catch up, but the effects of the oceans are integral to the GCMs.
Luke, further to your reference/ guess as to my stats ‘knowledge’ I checked my Excel and it only does up to 6th degree polynomials. So one theory is the author of the graph with his humble 4th degree had an even older version. But I like the idea of a 21 st degree – it would be very satisfying to zap a curve through all the points. That is half the fun of being empirical – you can always find a model that fits your data particularly if you get rid of those pesky outliers by deleting them or amending your model.
“The SH will catch up, but the effects of the oceans are integral to the GCMs.”
obviously you didn’t read the paper.
bazza “I rest my case”.
You don’t have a case to rest. If you look at the graph on this page, it’s from the UAH satellites…real data, not curve fitting of theoretical plot points. The lack of a warming trend over 10 years has come from direct measurement of microwave transmission from oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. The satellite sensors cover 95% of the Earths atmosphere, from just above the surface to the stratosphere.
What was your case anyway?
Gordon dear, UAH takes satellite measurements of microwave emissions and through a complicated model converts them into temperatures. Of course calibrating measurements across multiple satellites has proved exceptionally irksome and difficult, so much so that there are up to now about 10 “corrections”, and that 5% where the satellites don’t measure is the bottom of the atmosphere where we live. Oh well.
“You don’t have a case to rest. If you look at the graph on this page, it’s from the UAH satellites…real data, not curve fitting of theoretical plot points.”
It’s no more ‘real’ than the surface temperature record. As for curve fitting, try a straight linear trend on it and see what it looks like.
RW “That’s what all climate change sceptics think, is it? It’s rather easy to prove them wrong with a simple linear fit to temperatures since 1998, in whichever dataset you prefer”.
I prefer to deal with professionals and experts like John Christy and Roy Spencer. The figure they gave for the past decade was a +0.04 C trend, an insignificant warming. Mind you, since then it has cooled more, so maybe the trend is 0 C or below.
It’s pretty obvious that the 1998 El Nino increased the global average as much in one year as the total warming of the past century. If it had been CO2 responsible for that, according to AGW theory, there would have to have been a massive injection of that gas. It increased the short term trend about 2/10ths C and that held for a couple of years. It now seems to be dropping off to it’s pre 1995 levels.
The 2008 study by Tsonis et al has found a mathematical correlation between global temperatures and all the oceanic oscillations like ENSO. The other major 2008 paper from Keenlyside et al has acknowledged the stoppage in warming and blames it on the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation). They told us not to expect any warming till 2016. That’s hardly the MO of CO2-based warming, but it certainly fits the Tsonis theory that the oceanic oscillations couple and decouple to control global warming.
“But climate change sceptics do not claim there has been recent global warming. They claim there has been a levelling off, or fall in temperatures, over the last 10 years since the 1998 El Nino-driven peak.”
The graph shows an obvious and almost persistent positive temperature anomaly from 2000 to 2008, not apparent in the ealier data. Yes it’s dropping back now, but for how long? Furthermore, what a satellite sees doesn’t necessarily tell us about what is happening on the surface. In my neck of the woods it ain’t getting cooler. See here http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmax®ion=seaus&season=0112 . I suspect (and hope) this year will turn out to be one of the coolest for some years, but it will still be warmer than the 1961-90 reference.
“but it certainly fits the Tsonis theory that the oceanic oscillations couple and decouple to control global warming.”
You have it completely wrong. I wrote to Tsonis and asked him what his papers were about. The reply was they are not about global warming. He is researching the cyles and interactions of the climate. It can be warming independently of what he is reseaching.
Eli Rabett “Of course calibrating measurements across multiple satellites has proved exceptionally irksome and difficult, so much so that there are up to now about 10 “corrections…”
Eli, old boy, or old girl, I know you’re from the church of RC so I regard your input with a feigned humour. I’ll send you the price of a phone call so you can call someone who cares about your so-called corrections. I sure don’t, nor does anyone who knows the facts about the corrections.
As Lindzen said in his November 2008 paper, which I posted in another thread, there are special interest groups out there trying to discredit any data that reveals AGW theory for the sham it is. Those corrections began just before TAR, when it was noticed that satellite data was making a liar of the models. They were a little too late for TAR, because NAS had already noted that the satellites were in disagreement with model theory, so they focused on AR4. They came up with nothing…nada…zilch. Trenberth tried, Fu tried, every kind of smoke and mirrors trick was tried. All they got was a couple of tenths of a degree in the tropics, and the corrections have been corroborated by RSS. The truth is the average temperarture in the troposphere is a few tenths of a degree, about a third of the surface temperature.
There were no major increases in atmospheric temperature after all the so-called corrections had been applied. The atmosphere has not warmed anywhere near the level it would have to warm in order for AGW hotspots to be viable. There’s no such thing as a colder atmosphere warming a hotter surface that warmed it in the first place. Go take a course in thermodynamics.
As for satellite data being modeled, call it what you want. The GCM’s use a differential equation that is seeded with theoretical data along with real data from the satellites. A GCM is essentially an aggregation of laboratory science applied to a far more complicated phenomenon. They are called models because they are systems trying to recreate the real atmosphere hence they are artificial. There is nothing artificial about an MSU unit that measures microwave radiation from oxygen molecules agitated by heat from the atmosphere. That’s exactly the same thing as hanging a thermometer on a wall or using a heat sensor in a car engine to measure water temperature.
Having to adjust the satellite data to allow for orbital variations and depth is not the same as creating a model from scratch and adjusting it when it’s projections are wrong. You can compare the satellite adjusted data to that from radiosondes whereas you have no corroboration for model projections other than the ego of the programmer. Of course, the vested interests went after the sonde data as well. Unfortunately for them, the chances of the sonde and satellite data being in agreement, which they are, and each being in error, is very remote. A reasonable scientist would have to conclude the obvious, that the satellite data and the sonde data are accurate.
You either don’t have the ability to understand that or you don’t want to because you’re the type who needs a religion. Where I live, we have radio programs run by right-wing bigots who find fault with anything going. The people who tune in to them are often loners who have no other life than listening to a Hitler wannabee rant. That’s how I pick you up, as a person in need of a support group like RC and other malcontents who just want to rant. Rant on, old boy, it’s falling on deaf ears over hear. When you have something sincere to say, and intelligent, I’ll be all ears.
SJT “I wrote to Tsonis and asked him what his papers were about. The reply was they are not about global warming”.
Tsonis is a mathematician who aggregated data, just as Beck is a biologists who did the same for CO2 studies. It was Lindzen, a real atmospheric scientists, with over 40 years experience, who claimed that the Tsonis paper seems to explain global warming by itself. Real physicists like Lindzen get to teach at MIT, the most prestigious engineering school in the world. What finer source would you want? Please don’t quote the wannabees at RC.
“As Lindzen said in his November 2008 paper, which I posted in another thread, there are special interest groups out there trying to discredit any data that reveals AGW theory for the sham it is.”
Rubbish. The satellites are an excellent source of data, no one has said otherwise. It’s the ‘pristine’ quality of the data that is arguable. All sources of data have their problems, satellites are not some infallible source of temperature data.
bazza trills, much to luke’s feckless delight, about 6th degree polynomials; speaking of teasing a trend out of anything, perhaps bazza could use his gee whiz excel to verify what Willis Eschenbach and Joe Id have found with Mann’s use of cps in Mann2; namely you can produce a hockeystick using Mann’s version of cps with any data; but isn’t this what AGW is about; cutting edge philiosophunctionalism? the links are;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4428#comments
http://consensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/will-the-real-hockey-stick-please-stand-up/
Will, your comment at 12.56pm achieves a new high in your already exceptional use of non-sequitur.
The Joe Id link;
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/will-the-real-hockey-stick-please-stand-up/
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/aussieworld_2.gif
The oceans really count in this debate. We know the climate of the NE states of the US, Tasmania and Spain – the only variable is the oceans.
cf: Janana : “the only variable is the oceans.”
Which are Watts Free.
Cohenite: I’m not that old, please. Also, often times persons who will remain nameless ask, “Well, where does ENSO get its heat from?” Next time tell them that much of the heat from one El Nino comes from the previous El Nino. It recycles much of it. As an El Nino event subsides, the North Equatorial Current in the Pacific transports much of the heat from East to West about the time that the subsequent La Nina sets in. It warms the Western Pacific and replenishes the PWP during the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. And around it goes.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/recharging-pacific-warm-pool.html
“Will, your comment at 12.56pm achieves a new high in your already exceptional use of non-sequitur.”
I’m still waiting for you to tell me what happens to the radiation that is absorbed by the CO2 within, IIRC, about 650cm of the earth.
cf: Bob Tisdale – “Well, where does ENSO get its heat from?”
So ?
SJT:”I’m still waiting for you to tell me what happens to the radiation that is absorbed by the CO2 within, IIRC, about 650cm of the earth.”
About 650 cm of the earth?
Now THAT is a,…,
SJT said (December 5th above) “I’m still waiting for [Will] to tell me what happens to the radiation that is absorbed by the CO2 within, IIRC, about 650cm of the earth”.
SJT: I am still waiting , ever hopeful as a seeker after enlightenment, for your responses to my qeuries put to you on November 25th, 2008 at 9:06 pm:
“What is your opinion on what would be the optimal level of [CO2]? Do you agree with Hansen (350 ppm)? or those who consider zero emissions best, leading to long term decreasing [CO2] for so long as uptakes continue at the present nearly 6 GtC p.a. which would reduce us to the 1750 level perhaps as early as 2070 if not before? If uptakes drop in line with reducing emissions, what then for CO2 fertilisation? Will wheat etc yields remain as they are, or fall? Was 1750’s 280 ppm ideal? Would it feed 6.5+ billion? You rely on reductio ad absurdem. Can your rise above that for once? Willie Soon is very forbearing to tolerate your insults. If you are so smart, what is your own affiliation, or was his Harvard not good enough for you?”
I can’t sleep until I get your erudite replies. Please save me. When you have perhaps Will will oblige you.
Poor Cohenite – done like a dinner on the old solar cycles forecast game. Hehehehehe…
Young players. Brutish bazza.
Here ya go Cohenite – some great history – even Louis will like it http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A090511b.htm
I liked Bob’s description of how El Nino works – just wondering how the neutral years fit in though.
Bob Tisdale; not so old; a term of respect, as opposed to say luke or Will being a young whippersnapper; speaking of which; Will, what happens to that radiation absorbed within 650cm of the surface; let’s not gloat Will, eli has picked up my error about the height at which CO2 absorption completes and I won’t ‘wing’ it like him less I become a theory in need of verification; but what happens to that radiation? Miskolczi will tell you, as will Chilingar; now tell me why they are wrong.
Oh, and BTW Bob, your El Nino video is brilliant.
Luke, what are talking about? I’ve been bashed up by eli on a point of height (and I think I squared the ledger on aerosols), but where was I done like a dinner over the solar cycles?
““What is your opinion on what would be the optimal level of [CO2]? Do you agree with Hansen (350 ppm)? ”
Many apologies, I did not realise I was so important.
It’s not a matter of what is optimal, it’s a matter of what are we (in the collective sense) adapted to. Big changes in the past have been associated with mass extinctions.
“Will, what happens to that radiation absorbed within 650cm of the surface; let’s not gloat Will, eli has picked up my error about the height at which CO2 absorption completes and I won’t ‘wing’ it like him less I become a theory in need of verification; but what happens to that radiation? Miskolczi will tell you, as will Chilingar; now tell me why they are wrong.”
No, you tell me why they are right. What happens to that radiation?
Josh do AGW proponents calibrate satellite data to the surface record before, or after, Hansen carries Indian Summer over into October?
Being off by 5% from GISSTEMP is a feature, not a bug. Until Noaa and Nasa recognise that fact we are all at the mercy of climate change fanatics.
James Mayeau: Continuing off topic…I just posted the following as part of a comment at WattsUpWithThat.
Did you ever wonder why GISS uses Hadley Centre SST data when the NCDC has the Extended Reconstructed SST data? Over the period used in GISTEMP, January 1880 to November 1981:
The HADSST2 data had a linear trend of 0.038 Deg C/Decade, and
The ERSST.v2 data had a linear trend of 0.026 Deg C/Decade.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2uy3q6v.jpg
I covered that here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-does-giss-use-hadsst2-data-from.html
Regards
Much to the point. Look at the graph at the top. That is TLT which samples a relatively low level of the troposphere, now if Here came the SUN, Here came the SUN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUS49XSN6Zs&feature=related
and especially if it is the UV of the SUN we should see much more of an effect in the stratosphere which is sampled by the TLS and to a lesser extent the TTS channels, and, guess what bunnies, it straight lines downward
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_time_series
It ain’t the SUN, it ain’t the SUN.
For why the stratospheric temperatures decrease while the tropospheric ones increase see
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/stratospheric-cooling-rears-its-ugly.html
and links therein.
“According to Professor Geller, sceptics are incorrect when they claim CO2 cannot cause warming as it comprises only a small, though increasing, fraction of the atmosphere.”
Well let’s keep a sense of proportion. Currently 99.96% of the atmosphere is made up of the non-carbon dioxide components …. and will plunging this down to 99.95% with a small addition of a highly beneficial gas have alarmist implications? lol
Geller only sees solar radiation variation in an 11-year solar cycle but ignores the full picture including the earth’s magnetic field, which acts as a shielding. Cripes for alarmist half-wits like Geller it seems he cannot have increasing cloud formation stuff up or cloud his dogma.
“Well let’s keep a sense of proportion. Currently 99.96% of the atmosphere is made up of the non-carbon dioxide components …. and will plunging this down to 99.95% with a small addition of a highly beneficial gas have alarmist implications? lol”
Fallacy of Appealing to Emotion. I can give you numerous examples of substances that are small in concentration having powerful effects.
Looks like this post is in the letter section of the Weekend Australian today.
Under it is a letter by someone claiming to be Professor Michael Ashley, Astrophysics, University of NSW who asks how William Kininmonth can explain how we can have many centuries of observations linking cosmic rays to climate when cosmic rays were discovered in 1912.
!!!???
Either the Professor is a complete dill or someone else is using his name.
Over to you Bill, take your time, the target is defenceless.
Anyway Cohenite – still waiting for how 400 years of PDO correlates with temperature. And BUILDS heat.
do-dee-do tee-do tra-la tee-do …… kicks ground – shrugs shoulders – walks away
Poor Eli – surrounded by wuffians, wagabounds and wapscallions …. and James the ninny
SJT: So you agree with Hansen (350 ppm). What about my other questions? Are zero emissions best, leading to long term decreasing [CO2] for so long as uptakes continue at the present nearly 6 GtC p.a. which would reduce us to the 1750 level perhaps as early as 2070 if not before? But if uptakes drop in line with reducing emissions, what then for CO2 fertilisation? Will wheat etc yields remain as they are, or fall? Was 1750’s 280 ppm ideal? Would it feed 6.5+ billion?
Just filing this here:
Global temperatures have levelled since El Nino peak
The Australian, December 6, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/5h3cms
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/global_temperatures_have_levelled_since_el_nino_peak/
How can the University of NSW have any cred when it conveys honorary science degrees to spivs? lol
Well, this joker Professor Michael Ashley has binned himself with his offering having only demonstrated his misunderstanding of cosmic ray theory. Cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays is very easily observed at low altitudes and most likely more so in low latitudes.
i.e. low cloud cover correlates with cosmic-ray variations and Svensmark and his team give the science in their SKY experiment.
ps
Solar climate may be a challenge for many but cosmic climate is at the cutting edge of discovery. i.e. our evolution and survival was a close run event.
“SJT: So you agree with Hansen (350 ppm). What about my other questions? Are zero emissions best, leading to long term decreasing [CO2] for so long as uptakes continue at the present nearly 6 GtC p.a. which would reduce us to the 1750 level perhaps as early as 2070 if not before? But if uptakes drop in line with reducing emissions, what then for CO2 fertilisation? Will wheat etc yields remain as they are, or fall? Was 1750’s 280 ppm ideal? Would it feed 6.5+ billion?”
You completely miss the point. Read my post again. There is not an optimum level of CO2, there is a level to which our biological world is adapted to, in terms of climate. Change that drastically, and you change life drastically.
“PROFESSOR Marvin Geller says the sun could not be driving recent global warming as climate change sceptics claim because solar radiation has not changed very much since 1978 (“Professor sheds light for climate change sceptics”, 4/12).
But climate change sceptics do not claim there has been recent global warming. They claim there has been a levelling off, or fall in temperatures, over the past 10 years since the 1998 El Nino-driven temperature peak. ”
That’s the good thing about being a denier. You can believe anything you want, depending on what time of day it is and the last person who denied AGW said. TGGWS said it was the sun, quite explicitly, and repeatedly.
A skeptic uses evidence. Evidence is not something that changes from day to day, or hour to hour.
I think you are the one who is in error, Eyrie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#History
SJT: “You completely miss the point. Read my post again. There is not an optimum level of CO2, there is a level to which our biological world is adapted to, in terms of climate. Change that drastically, and you change life drastically.”
Show evidence for this statement.
Funny Josh. The way I see it the stratosphere temp is pretty much flatlined from 1995 straight on through to now. Little spikes of UV then back to normal. (not to be confused with the two great big vulcano spikes in 83 and 93)
I mean sure if you want to draw a trend line from back in the day of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing you can kid yourself that you’re measuring something “natural”, but if you do I’m going to have to call you cherrypicker.
Josh the cherrypicking rabett.
Has a ring to it.
Say how did you derive your baseline for “normal” TLS? You got a history for that?
Past mass extinctions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Eyrie there are proxys for cosmic rays and solar activity which can be used to )roughly( figure out what happened. 10 Be is one of them I think but you can google. Part of the argument is that cosmic ray flux in the atmosphere is inversely related to solar activity. YMMV.
Jen re your just filing here:
your letter in The Australian reminded me of some important trends emerging in journalism but not in science writing. As media rely on an increasing proportion of their readers and revenue from search engines, articles that have lots of the right key words and are well cross linked will win the day. So being market driven (not to mention seekers of truth), the media is even more the message and the trick is to slip in as many key words as possible to expand the readership. Traditionally the media did this in all sorts of routine ways, for example if a story was too localised it got broadened and vice versa. If a story looked non-controversial that could be balanced too. If it had big words like marmalade it could be dumbed down to a much bigger demographic. So now stories are search engine driven and the search engines are story driven and what happened to truth?.
Meanwhile scientists went on writing evidence-based papers on experiments that were highly dependent on stated assumptions and there was not much scope to speculate on more general conclusions. Besides a big chunk of research is unreplicatable it would seem storms in teacups. The implication for bloggers would appear to be to either find the key words and get some more readers or get some evidence.
Jen re your just filing here:
your letter in The Australian reminded me of some important trends emerging in journalism but not in science writing. As media rely on an increasing proportion of their readers and revenue from search engines, articles that have lots of the right key words and are well cross linked will win the day. So being market driven (not to mention seekers of truth), the media is even more the message and the trick is to slip in as many key words as possible to expand the readership. Traditionally the media did this in all sorts of routine ways, for example if a story was too localised it got broadened and vice versa. If a story looked non-controversial that could be balanced too. If it had big words like marmalade it could be dumbed down to a much bigger demographic. So now stories are search engine driven and the search engines are story driven and what happened to truth?.
Meanwhile scientists went on writing evidence-based papers on experiments that were highly dependent on stated assumptions and there was not much scope to speculate on more general conclusions. Besides a big chunk of research is unreplicatable it would seem storms in teacups. The implication for bloggers would appear to be to either find the key words and get some more readers or get some evidence.
apologies for the multiple. It is hot and humid and my mouse is slugg-like.
SJT
Past mass extinctions were due to CO2?
Since cosmic rays were discovered during 1912,…………………..
I know it’s like getting blood out of a stone (or bonehead?). SJT’s only answer to my questions “Are zero emissions best, leading to long term decreasing [CO2] for so long as uptakes continue at the present nearly 6 GtC p.a. which would reduce us to the 1750 level perhaps as early as 2070 if not before? But if uptakes drop in line with reducing emissions, what then for CO2 fertilisation? Will wheat etc yields remain as they are, or fall? Was 1750’s 280 ppm ideal? Would it feed 6.5+ billion?” is to say “There is not an optimum level of CO2, there is a level to which our biological world is adapted to, in terms of climate. Change that drastically, and you change life drastically”. Well I guess that’s progress – SJT seems to agree that changing [CO2] to levels below that to which we have clearly become accustomed, i.e. 380+ppm, as proposed by James Belsen aka Hansen, will change life drastically, and not for the better. Welcome aboard, SJT!
“Past mass extinctions were due to CO2?”
That wasn’t the question I was answering.
“Well I guess that’s progress – SJT seems to agree that changing [CO2] to levels below that to which we have clearly become accustomed, i.e. 380+ppm, as proposed by James Belsen aka Hansen, will change life drastically, and not for the better. Welcome aboard, SJT!”
No, I was referring to the climate we live in. The CO2 is a forcing on climate at the moment. Anything that radically changes the climate we live in is going to cause serious problems for the life that biological systems that depend on that climate.
SJT, trying to be helpful, please note that the paper by James Hansen et al. (2008, “Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim?”) which you evidently endorse could never have been accepted for publication but for Hansen/Belsen’s high priest status in all fields, especially those where he has no qualifications, e.g. economics. Thus Belsen claims that it would cost only $US20 trillion to remove 50 parts per million of atmospheric CO2 ([CO2] at a price of $US200 per tonne of carbon. The Garnaut Supplementary Report (Targets & Trajectories, p.350) estimated the actual cost at $US250 per tonne of CO2, which equates to $US917 per tonne of carbon, so removing 50ppm of [CO2] would actually cost $US97 trillion, nearly FIVE times the Hansen figure. But when you are the boss of NASA/GISS you have no need to check your numbers, and you can rely on your myriad co-authors and the nearly as many peer-reviewers to accept your verbal diarrehia without checking your arithmetic here or anywhere else in your paper with its equally fictitious figuring. After all, it was the same Hansen/Belsen who gaily put September temperatures for Russia into his GISS “global” temperature series for October 2008, retracting only when this was spotted by Steve McIntyre et al.
Thus it is no surprise to read that Belsen considers “today’s [CO2], about 385 ppm, is already too high to maintain the climate to which humanity, wildlife, and the rest of the biosphere are adapted.” Perhaps SJT, after hopefully at last answering ALL the questions I put to you on 25th November 2008, you could now provide the data that verify the Belsen claim, that is, unless you have not already expired because you are not adapted to 385 ppm. SJT, please confirm you are still with us by answering the above.
“j.m. lough seems to delight that the oceans are warming. however that does not prove CO2 is causing it. ” The oceans are not warming George. Thats just you lying and being an idiot. I went through the first 3 pages. And none of you skeptics has a point. What about the other pages? Did somebody come up with something? Or is it just a continuation of the same evidence-filibuster from you guys?
“No, I was referring to the climate we live in. The CO2 is a forcing on climate at the moment. ”
You are lying. Lets have the evidence for that then? Notice how this dumb dishonest jerk just simply assumes his preferred answer. He doesn’t need evidence. Its already a forcing, so it already warms, so thats the end of the story in his view. Where is the evidence SJT you filthy leftist dog?
Eli,
Yeah, the proxies for past cosmic ray intensity were what I was referring to. For Prof Ashley to be ignorant of this while claiming to be an astrophysicist and going into print in a major daily newspaper is little short of astounding.
Which means of course, when exactly humankind became aware of the existence of cosmic rays has nothing to do with anything. Does that spell it out for you in simple words SJT?
SJT, how do you get “Fallacy of Appealing to Emotion” from what i posted? i.e. How can seeing the bigger picture or the connected whole be in any way emotional? The only conclusion i can develop with your mindset is one of alarmist DISCONNECTION …. i.e. rote learning little bit of isolated information because there is next to no understanding of what this really means.
CO2 is a highly beneficial gas that has been in a down trend over 100 million years …. so what’s the cause of this down cycle and the eventual effect if it continues? Go to and see at …..
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/budyko1977.gif
“Thus it is no surprise to read that Belsen considers “today’s [CO2], about 385 ppm, is already too high to maintain the climate to which humanity, wildlife, and the rest of the biosphere are adapted.” Perhaps SJT, after hopefully at last answering ALL the questions I put to you on 25th November 2008, you could now provide the data that verify the Belsen claim, that is, unless you have not already expired because you are not adapted to 385 ppm. SJT, please confirm you are still with us by answering the above.”
You have set a little homework for me here, crossing threads and jumping back in time.
It is amazing how much handwaving is happening due to my observation on Soon’s paper, that his appeal to emotion was unprofessional and factually wrong.
CO2, like any other substance, can be a pollutant. Too little is not good, too much is not good.
Can you just agree with me on this point? It’s not too difficult a concept to understand, and I know I am correct.
Then we can move on to you next points.
SJT,
You don’t understand what you are posting here – you assert that increased atmospheric CO2 will upset the balance, causing mass species extinctions – there is no other interpretation of your statement – hence increased CO2 causes mass species extinction.
This might occur in your computer modeling but those models are by no means representative of physical reality.
“SJT, how do you get “Fallacy of Appealing to Emotion” from what i posted? i.e. How can seeing the bigger picture or the connected whole be in any way emotional? The only conclusion i can develop with your mindset is one of alarmist DISCONNECTION …. i.e. rote learning little bit of isolated information because there is next to no understanding of what this really means.
CO2 is a highly beneficial gas that has been in a down trend over 100 million years …. so what’s the cause of this down cycle and the eventual effect if it continues? Go to and see at ”
Because it was an appeal to emotion, and an argument from ignorance. “How could it be so bad when it’s only a trace element’?
It can be what it is because of it’s physical properties. That is what this is all based on, the laws of physics. Once you get that sorted out, we can move on to the real debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
keiran0, That graph is worrying. Looks like we have about 20 million years left for life on Earth. Give or take. Also indicates slightly higher CO2 is nothing to worry about and we are at geological lows for CO2 concentration. Forget sequestration of CO2 from coal burning, there’s lots of sequestration going on without our help.
I note SJT has made a couple of posts without admitting his stupidity regarding my post on Prof Ashley’s cosmic ray blunder.
You have still not stated what that ‘blunder’ was. Ashely said cosmic rays were only discovered in the early 1900’s, and that was correct.
“You don’t understand what you are posting here – you assert that increased atmospheric CO2 will upset the balance, causing mass species extinctions – there is no other interpretation of your statement – hence increased CO2 causes mass species extinction.”
It’s like trying to teach a child to use a spoon.
Rapid climate change leads to mass extinctions. We know that.
If we assume that rapid changes in CO2 levels causes rapid climate change, then it logically follows mass extinctions will also follow. You may disagree with the changing CO2 levels causing climate change, but there is nothing wrong with my logic.
You idiot SJT. If you think that rapid climate change will kill all these species, and you think that CO2 will have some sort of warming effect, ITS OBVIOUS THAT YOU OUGHT TO SUPPORT HYDROCARBON INDUSTRY EXPANSION.
Or are you too stupid to understand that?
You are a moron SJT. Wake up to your own dimness.
SJT: Thanks, you said: “CO2, like any other substance, can be a pollutant. Too little is not good, too much is not good.Can you just agree with me on this point? It’s not too difficult a concept to understand, and I know I am correct.” So how much is too much, how little is too little.? that is what I have been asking you since Nov. 25th. My answers are (1) that 5000 ppm would be too much but up to 2000 ppm would be entirely acceptable, given that the warming potential of extra [CO2] has already been very largely exhausted, and (2) that Hansen’s 350 ppm or less is not enough to sustain world food production at its present level, let alone feed a world population that is expected to be over 9 billion by 2050. What is your take? Hansen’s real agenda is of course starvation as at Belsen, since (1) he thinks the world is already over populated himself excepted, and (2) he totally ignores the connection between [CO2] and food production that would expose his target as being exterminatory.
Hang, you do agree with me that Soon is wrong in his description of CO2? Yes or no?
If the diagram was consistent, there would be a label indicating when we had the recent La Nina, since the previous El Nino was clearly marked.
SJT: I do not agree with you and I do agree with Willie Soon, a very brilliant scientist, that CO2 is only beneficial over a very large range; for humans 5,000 ppm in a closed room would not be good, but as it has taken 250 years to get from 280 to 385, I doubt 5,000 is in range. What will it take for you to give straight answers to the simple questions I have put to you? One more try: will world food production be higher or lower at 350 ppm than now, cet. par.?
“Hansen’s real agenda is of course starvation as at Belsen,”
Mate that sort of comment tells me you’re a fruit loop. But along with Birdy – keep it up by all means – it’s a great expose of the denialist mind at work. I like to refer people to this site who think sceptics are balanced sensible people. Can we have some more bilge pls?
?? Am I debating a machine here? Could you please stick to the point. Soon may well be a good scientist, brillian even, maybe even very brilliant, but that has nothing to do with his error. We are talking about wether or not CO2 can be a pollutant. The definition is quite simple, any substance, natural or man made, can be a pollutant in excess. It can be a pollutant even if it is not directly harmful to us, but indirectly harmful. In this case I am saying that CO2 changing the climate, and therefore disrupting the climate, which is harmful to us. You may disagree that CO2 is changing the climate, but at least me logic is sound, is it not?
Until we get this sorted out, there is no point going onto the consequences of this reasoning.
I have to agree with Graeme Bird about SJT.
What Prof Ashley said was, and I quote exactly from The Australian, “Can William Kininmonth (Letters, 5/12) explain how we can have “many centuries of observations” linking cosmic rays to climate when cosmic rays were discovered 1912″.
Pretty obviously (at least to those with more than half a brain) William Kininmonth was referring to the cosmic ray proxies alluded to by Eli and the climate observations and proxies used in past climatological studies, so the answer is yes.
Ashley is either ignorant, lazy(he could fix the ignorance in a few minutes with a search engine) or being deliberately obtuse in order to mislead the readers of the Australian and to try to denigrate Bill Kininmonth’s previous letter. In any case it isn’t a good look for a Prof of astrophysics and he need s to be publicly called on it.
“Pretty obviously (at least to those with more than half a brain) William Kininmonth was referring to the cosmic ray proxies alluded to by Eli and the climate observations and proxies used in past climatological studies, so the answer is yes.”
I would have thought an observation was an observation. A proxy is not an observation, by definition.
SJT again said: “It can be a pollutant even if it is not directly harmful to us, but indirectly harmful”. So also water, sometimes known as H2O, “is not directly harmful to us, but indirectly harmful” as when we drink too much of it or drown in it. BTW, water is always emitted along with CO2 when fossil fuels are burnt. Water vapour becomes precipitation within 10 days or so of the emissions; stopping emissions from fossil fuel burning will reduce rain. Is that good or bad? Of course floods can be damaging, so also droughts. What do you propose to stop both?
But, dear SJT, you are evading the main issue, which is the serial dishonesty of Hansen, Stern, Garnaut, Gore, and ALL 2,500 IPCC scientists in failing to give a straight answer as to the impact of reducing emissions to 10-20% of the 2000 level on food production. Your silence on this point despite my repeating it on a daily basis for some time now speaks volumes. Let me restate the facts (Canadell et al 2007 Table 1; IPCC WG1 Table 7.1). Average annual total emissions 2000-2006 9.1 GtC, average annual biospheric absorption 5 GtC (highest ever recorded), average annual retention in the atmosphere, 4.0 GtC. Reduce emissions by 80-90% to at or even below 1 GtC, what becomes of the absorption? What happens to world food production with emissions of 1 GtC p.a. or less when absorption averaged 5 GtC from 2000-2006? Your silence and that of Luke on this is deafening. Be warned, one day there will be a new Nuremburg Tribunal, like that proposed by Hansen for CEOs of oil companies, but Lord Jim himself will be the first to stand trial for systemic supressio veri (as in his latest paper). I hope you SJT and Luke will do the decent thing and offer to join him in the dock.
“SJT again said: “It can be a pollutant even if it is not directly harmful to us, but indirectly harmful”. So also water, sometimes known as H2O, “is not directly harmful to us, but indirectly harmful” as when we drink too much of it or drown in it. BTW, water is always emitted along with CO2 when fossil fuels are burnt. Water vapour becomes precipitation within 10 days or so of the emissions; stopping emissions from fossil fuel burning will reduce rain. Is that good or bad? Of course floods can be damaging, so also droughts. What do you propose to stop both?”
Could you please try to argue rationally. London has already had to deal with it’s “Pea Soopers”, for example. Pollution is something we have to take seriously, and people have taken it seriously and dealt with it many times in the past. It’s a matter of rationally evaluating the problem, and coming up with a rational decision. Making absurd claims about CO2, that it is only beneficial, and causes no harm, is not being rational. Soon was wrong.
SJT is as evasive as ever about me “making absurd claims about CO2, that it is only beneficial, and causes no harm”. Please be specific. If the annual mean temp in Scotland rises from c. 9oC to 11oC, and in Dubai from 27oC to 29oC, those in the former will sing Praised be the Lord, while those in the latter will not even notice as they already run their air con. full tilt all day. Where is the harm? Many studies, going back to Long 1991, have shown how rising [CO2] counteracts rising temps, as at any given level of temp, more [CO2] raises yields. Conversely,lowering [CO2] at any given temp. reduces yields. See Cline 2007, and Crimp et al in Garnaut 2008 (sadly Garnaut is too thick to grasp what his own advisers tell him). Denying this is the nub of the indictable offence you and Belsen are prima facie guilty of.
“SJT is as evasive as ever about me “making absurd claims about CO2, that it is only beneficial, and causes no harm”. Please be specific. If the annual mean temp in Scotland rises from c. 9oC to 11oC, and in Dubai from 27oC to 29oC, those in the former will sing Praised be the Lord, while those in the latter will not even notice as they already run their air con. full tilt all day. Where is the harm?”
I am evading nothing, it is you who are being evasive. I am trying to nail down Soon’s claim that CO2 is only beneficial.
As for ‘where is the harm’, I would suggest you start reading up on the literature that is available. It is not only people that are affected, for a start.
SJT really is the Houdini of our times: ” I am [only!] trying to nail down Soon’s claim that CO2 is only beneficial”. For all practical purposes CO2 like H2O is indeed only beneficial. What will wheat and other cereal yields be at [CO2] of only 350 ppm?
What literature? I have read 10 for every one you care to cite. You and Hansen are indictable climate criminals. Line up your lawyers, mine will invoke FOI or whatever needed to get your particulars.
Are you threatening me?
”
SJT really is the Houdini of our times: ” I am [only!] trying to nail down Soon’s claim that CO2 is only beneficial”. For all practical purposes CO2 like H2O is indeed only beneficial. What will wheat and other cereal yields be at [CO2] of only 350 ppm?”
In many ways, CO2 is harmless or beneficial. There is not doubt of that. However, it is also a greenhouse gas. There is a firm physical basis for making this claim. Greenhouse gases affect the climate. When you change the climate, those biological entities that depend on the climate have to adapt or perish.
CO2 is not a fertiliser. A fertiliser is something that helps a plant grow better. CO2 provides the carbon that is the actual physical component of the plants organic compounds. There is still much debate and research going on into just what difference increased levels of CO2 will make to plants.
SJT: you said – 1.”Greenhouse gases affect the climate. When you change the climate, those biological entities that depend on the climate have to adapt or perish”. The climate has always been changeable. The question is how much change would be dangerous. The idea that an increase of 2oC from today’s c.14.7oC would be dangerous is preposterous. Brisbane has always been at least 2oC hotter than Melbourne night and day and yet attracts migrants from the latter all the time. Darwin is about 15oC hotter night and day than Melbourne and supports a much more vibrant ecology with much greater biodiversity. Likewise Dubai vis a vis Glasgow. Clearly your comment is mere rhetoric without any supporting evidence.
2. You also say: “A fertiliser is something that helps a plant grow better”. That is what elevated CO2 does, as thousands of peer reviewed papers attest, not to mention CSIRO’s Crimp et al in their study commissioned by Garnaut. Even the true believer in the IPCC, William R Cline, projects 15% increase in yield with doubling of [CO2] (2007:25). Preventing that will lead to rising food prices and actual starvation – and in due course a Nuremburg Food Tribunal for prosecution of those responsible for reducing CO2 emissions to below the present biospheric absorption of nearly 6 GtC p.a.
Tim C tells SJT to line up his lawyers. Gird your loins too, and send in the clowns. What next. Lets hope the trial is not in Queensland, arguably the worlds highest per capita emitter in CO2 equivs., and one of the most vulnerable. Maybe some place like Dover would also be hazardous given they are redefining science on the run. What is a good CO2 level should start with what is feasible before having a crack at intellegent design.
“Tim C tells SJT to line up his lawyers. ”
One more bully, lined up alongside Mottsy and Bird. Unbelievable.
SJT: as you are sure you are always right, what have you to fear? My reference was of course to Hansen proposing Nuremburg for the CEOs of Exxon etc. and you are clearly a Hansenite. If the cap fits wear it. But here as ever you seize on any esxcuse to avoid answering my questions. Again, what is the optimal level of [CO2] for world food production? Is Hansen right, 350, when world food production was 50% less than it is now at 385? But if you can’t stand the heat keep out!
Best
Still digging I see, SJT. Dear God but you are breathtakingly stupid. Do you have trouble remembering how to breathe?
In other words, you have nothing. Worked out the difference between an observation and a proxy yet?
Haven’t got a clue, have you?
Wouldn’t a preference for a linear fit also involve assumptions. Specifically, it would fail to pick up any reversal in trends.
I’m not saying the trend is reversing. I’m just saying that a linear fit isn’t always appropriate.
“I’m not saying the trend is reversing. I’m just saying that a linear fit isn’t always appropriate.”
Fair enough. Are you actually trying to have a rational conversation here on the pros and cons of the actual debate? That would be nice for a change. 🙂
“Wouldn’t a preference for a linear fit also involve assumptions. Specifically, it would fail to pick up any reversal in trends.”
John.
There are a number of ways of testing one’s fitting of a LoBF, ranging from a simple eyeballing of the spread of points that all first-years are taught to do, through to monitoring the trend in residuals and to more complex computations of the ‘appropriateness’ of the model’s fit.
In all instances Ockham’s razor applies, and a fourth-order polynomial is hardly this.
Most important to recall is that lines of fit are only applicable to the data used to derive them, and not to portions of the x-axis that lie outside the analysed section. If such inappropriate extrapolations WERE done, linear regressions (where they fit the data) are less fraught with the confoundment of what might be happening in the near neighbourhood outside of the fitted section, compared with high order polynomials that just fall over like drunken sailors.
The higher the number of parameters you need for a fit, the fewer degrees of freedom you have (e.g. the number of data points gives a degree of freedom, if they are autocorrelated there fewer), a fit parameter takes away one degree of freedom. Given that you want to fit with as few parameters as possible consistent with the trend.
Why try to do linear regression to a non-linear system? I agree there’s been no warming over the past 11 years – 2008 certainly will drag it down. There still may be a continuing upward trend. (nothing to do with CO2).
I’m yet to find any data that substantiates the hypothesis that increasing CO2 concentration increases temperature (outside models that haven’t worked). However, it’s hard to ignore the solar/Maunder correlation. Based on solar activity, and long term historical data, I’d predict we’re now coming into a minor cooling period, with a severe cooling trough anytime in the next 1,000 years,
Appreciate you for sharing these wonderful content. In addition, an excellent travel plus medical insurance approach can often eradicate those concerns that come with travelling abroad. A medical crisis can shortly become extremely expensive and that’s likely to quickly put a financial problem on the family finances. Putting in place the perfect travel insurance program prior to leaving is definitely worth the time and effort. Cheers