As summer grows old
my red hot peppers ripen
I need recipes!
This summer the Chicago area has been a bit hot and amazingly humid. I live in the burbs, and sneak veggies into spots planting hot peppers, tomatoes and basil along the side of the house. All are doing just fine. I always grow jalepenos, which we use to cook “dragon turds” (recipe will be made available on request. This year, I added these dastardly little peppers, based on an impulse buy at the garden center. I don’t remember what they are; maybe thai?
Anyway, they are extremely hot and too small to be used for dragon turds. All 6 starts lived and are covered in peppers. Because of my diet, I’ve been on a cooking / exercise binge. (That’s actually the explanation for less blogging here. Some have noticed I’m posting the more successful experiments at my former knitting blog which is now more of a cooking blog. I don’t post the experiments I consider failures. ) Anyway, if any of you have suggestions for this particular type of pepper, I’d give it a try.
Meanwhile, I do notice that Stephan, who is rooting heavily for ice recovery, is aching for us all to look at the dmi ice cover plots:
This ice plot shows ice cover not only exceeding the 2007 minimum but also 2008 and 2009.
Bear in mind, I don’t use DMI for bets. My thoughts in running bets are that by picking a metric, we reduce the contribution to confirmation bias caused by each of us repeatedly looking at whichever metric is closer doing what we “like” at the current moment. In that regard, we monitoring NH Ice, I happen to look at Jaxa.
JAXA shows ice extent above the 2007 minimum.
Still, this year has had some surprises: We entered the ice melt season with a relatively high ice extent as evidenced by the April high value of the red trace shown in the JAXA image above. We then experienced a rapid June ice-melt I described as devastating. It appeared we might be in serious risk of setting a new all time low for minimum ice. But now the risk seems less likely. But, who knows?
Those of you who have ideas, let us know. Those who have recipes for my peppers, please suggest. Recipes for labor day bashes are particularly welcome. Those who want to talk about other things: yammer away.
Chicago style hot dogs would be appropriate for your locale, but you would have to define your peppers as “sport peppers.”
http://allrecipes.com//Recipe/chicago-style-hot-dog/Detail.aspx
As hot as your peppers are, eating these dogs might be sporty.
On to NH sea ice. On June 1 you posted a contest for the lowest ice extent – 7 day average – and this shows only five entries, with hints that there were more. Could we have a full list? How optimistic/pessimistic were we?
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/sea-ice-weekly-average-summer-minimum-longish-range-forecast/#comments
Blogs sprout by the gate;
Sweet reason hotly pickled.
Page of discontent.
===============
Sea ice extent can be misleading. You need to look at the area too. Cryosphere Today Arctic area is slightly below 2009 right now. If I cherry pick and use 1979-2006 as the standard, then the 2007 minimum ice area was more than 4 standard deviations below the linear trend (-0.0476 Mm2/year) and 2010 will make the sixth year in a row below the trend. The current projected area for 2010 will be close to two standard deviations below the trend. That doesn’t say recovery to me. not even recovery to the previous trend.
Uni-Bremen has Arctic sea ice extent well below 2009 and approximately equal to 2008. The ice concentration graphic at Cryosphere Today shows a lot of low concentration ice that could still melt before the minimum, which should be in about three weeks. Note also the almost complete absence of ice in the Northwest Passage. Both the upper and lower NWP look to be wide open already.
Don B–
Jim’s brother’s challenged him and he ate one of these. He reports they are very hot. Our family likes food on the hot end of the pepper spectrum– so that means these are pretty darn hot!
DonB– That should be the whole list! More people entered the monthly contest and other ones.
DeWitt–
Well … ice extent is ice extent. It’s misleading if you use it to diagnose something else. 🙂
I agree with you that a) recovery should be diagnosed based on merely not setting a new record and b) that there is no evidence of a “recovery”.
However, it looks like we might not set a new record in JAXA extent this year and that’s one of the things we tend to wonder about each spring. Of course, we still may set a record either due to melting or wind pushing ice around.
ohhh! I know what to make! Curtido Cabbage Salvadore
( http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/other/syah/curtido.htm)
I’ll make some and show it off tomorrow. Now, to find a recipe for pupusas. (I doubt I can find a non-fattening one though.)
Had high hopes for
Productive potted pepper plants
Where are they? :/
Andrew
Andrew–
I get a head start by buying starts at a dangerously early date for annual and then planting them in the large flower planters on the patio. At night, if there is even the remotest chance of frost, I cover the pots with black plastic bags. Once all danger of frost is past, I shift the plants to the side of the house, and plant flowers in the pots.
I do the same with tomatoes. The head start for the peppers is dramatic. For tomatoes… not so much. The plants get large, but the tomatoes won’t set until night time temperature are warm enough. So the method gets me more tomatoes, but no much earlier than just planting smaller plants later.
Lucia –
Those look a bit like Thai bird peppers to me. Is coconut off the menu with your diet plan ? I guess if you were up for a light coconut milk, a Tom Kha soup would be a great use for your peppers.
They look like bird’s-eye chillies. Here is a recipe from the adventurous Morfudd Richards:
Chilli, lime and yoghurt sherbert
3 bird’s-eye chillies, seeded and chopped
500 g Greek yoghurt (10% fat)
200 ml stock syrup, cooled
1 lime (juice)
Mix ingredients and infuse for half an hour.
Strain the mix to remove the chillies and churn in your ice-cream machine till firm.
Remove seeds and stems, puree with bloody mary mix
Luica,
Rachel Ray has lots of super recipes that call for hot peppers… usually she specifies dried red pepper flakes, but you could substitute fresh and add some flavor to the dish.
Watching the ice cover is like watching pasta boil. Not so interesting (I think) until it has started recovery and the whole of the melt season can be seen and compared to other years (which is more like eating the pasta than watching it boil).
Lucia,
Surely you could use the hot peppers to melt the ice and thus win your own competition 🙂
I’ll try the soup!
Nothing is absolutely forbidden on my diet plan — especially not on weekends. I mostly replaced truly junky snacks with healthy lower calorie snacks, cut out all alcohol on weekdays, make sure I put fizzy water on the table when wine is served, exercise and serve 2 veggies at dinner instead of a veggie and a starch. Oh, and I bring veggie platters when I visit my brothers-in-law because they always plot chips, bread and cheese in front of me. I do look for lower calorie substitutes of things I eat (being careful that the low calorie foods are replacements not additions.)
As for coconut specifically: Two weeks ago, I made Pina Colada sorbet, cutting 1/2 the coconut in proportion to pineapple and using artificial sweetener and served it to the in laws. So, that used coconut. Everyone loved it and didn’t suspect it was “diet”.
I am avoiding macaroons though. 🙂
Mike C– Vodka is not prohibited on the diet, but alcohol is seriously limited. A 4 oz glass of wine has 140 calories, which is a large fraction of the 500 a day I need to cut.
I’ll suggest the bloody marys to the non-dieting men of the family (who will probably like it!) I’m suspecting you would be a fan our the family lemoncello recipe. 🙂
harold
That sounds great! I make my own yogurt and can easily drain to turn it into Greek yogurt. I’m going to have to give that a try! Is stock syrup a sugar syrup? (I’m going to go for erythritol on this. 🙂 )
Jim’s in Boston simulating terrorist attacks right now. So, I’ll probably wait until he gets home before I make these things. But I definitely have to make that sorbet and take photos of people eating it.
How about pickled peppers? I like to make a pickled relish with carrots, cauliflower, onions and hot peppers.
Or you could make Rum/Sherry peppers. Just fill a jar half full with peppers, then fill the rest of the way with rum or sherry. Let the jar rest for a few weeks, and then use drops of it as a condiment (like Tabasco).
Bring Me the Flesh of a Purple Habanero
(Protagoras, October 1, 2007)
taken from oftwominds.com
Bring me the flesh of a purple habanero
Darker than your skin, bluer, shinier
If I wanted red you could bring me
On your hot tongue a scarlet scotch bonnet
If subtle, the dark roast flesh
Of a red pimiento, wet with oil and tomato
Pungent with garlic and salt with anchovy
If sweet, the split flesh of a halved plum
Open with its stone to suck in the center
And if love, your harsh guttural cries
More tenor than contralto. But for now
Its the heat of your hot lips that I need
Then the quench of your cool thighs. This time
It will be me that is surprised by pleasure.
Bring me the flesh of a purple habanero
Bring Me the Flesh of a Purple Habanero (Protagoras, October 1, 2007), from oftwominds
Bring me the flesh of a purple habanero
Darker than your skin, bluer, shinier
If I wanted red you could bring me
On your hot tongue a scarlet scotch bonnet
If subtle, the dark roast flesh
Of a red pimiento, wet with oil and tomato
Pungent with garlic and salt with anchovy
If sweet, the split flesh of a halved plum
Open with its stone to suck in the center
And if love, your harsh guttural cries
More tenor than contralto. But for now
Its the heat of your hot lips that I need
Then the quench of your cool thighs. This time
It will be me that is surprised by pleasure.
Bring me the flesh of a purple habanero
Looks like a pequin. These are my favorite peppers. Sweet with bright and very hot high notes. They are very expensive by the pound so do not mix them into something that masks them. Seed and chop fine or puree with garlic, onion, black pepper, and lemon. Keep it cold and then add to taste at the table to chicken or steak.
The trend is down.
“I get a head start by buying starts at a dangerously early date for annual and then planting them in the large flower planters on the patio. At night, if there is even the remotest chance of frost, I cover the pots with black plastic bags. Once all danger of frost is past, I shift the plants to the side of the house, and plant flowers in the pots.”
lucia,
You are obviously a pro at plant TLC. I’m just a hack. I’m sorry, peppers!!
Andrew
Andrew — I discovered this method by fiddling around. I just got too impatient one spring, but knew it was too early to get the peppers and tomatoes started. So, I figured I’d risk the $3.00 and try a head start. It works great.
Thai birds eye are much smaller than yours Lucia and the plant is taller. Johnl is probably right with pequin.
I’d simmer them with vinegar, brown sugar, salt and bottle them in jars and use as a side dish.
janama and Johnl–
The plants are short– about 1 ft (0.3 m). I found pequin on wikipedia, and that might be match. They are hotter than jalepenos.
I’m definitely going to go for some pickled giardiniera as Tamara suggested, and also try your side dish recipe. We have a lot of these, and they are hot. I have tons of these.
as world gets cooler and cooler, my advice would be for a goulash. red hot peppers are one of the few things, that can give it the right taste. (i personally don t like too many onions in it)
.
—————–
.
anyone who can take the heat, should as always take a look at WuWt and the latest of Steven Goddard’s false claims about the sea ice.
.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/24/sewa-ice-news-arctic-mid-week-update/
.
it is abusing all the important ideas that lucia mentioned above. the 30% ice extend graph is getting mentioned more and more often, as it shows 2010 above 2009.
.
Steve made a very careful forecast, with Jaxa minimum being 5.5 mio. (he didn t seem all that sure about “recovery”)
.
all of his forecast was based on completely false assumptions, like the PIPS ice depths dataset. (he loves it, because it also shows “recovery”) and the plain out stupid idea, that measured temperatures over the arctic must be over 0°C for melting to occur. (ice will melt before a regional average of air temperature in the shadow hits 0°C, of course!)
.
all melt now is explained to be compression” of ice by wind, which will cause better conditions for next year…
.
he also declared the end of summer on august 15th, (Sea Ice News #18) just one more completely false prediction based on a wiggle in his preferred temperature dataset.
.
to stick to the sea ice facts:
.
The latest value : 5,552,188 km2 (August 24, 2010)
.
let us see, when and by how much it beats Steve and whether it beats 2009…
Lucia, the stock syrup is around 28 degrees Baumé, made by boiling 1 liter water with 1 kg sugar.
A pity it doesn’t work for young women, you will have to wait:
(h/t Junkscience)
Jamana and Johnl, thanks for the correction. We don’t have pequin here but we do have the wonderful ‘Madame Jeanette’ (thanks to our former colony Suriname).
Harold,
I’ll just use erythritol (sweet simplicity brand). It makes an ok simple syrup though you can’t get as heavy as sugar. Sucralose (i.e. equal) doesn’t have any weight and other sweeteners don’t have any weight.
I bet mixing konjac root in the water works even better than just drinking the water. (You have to see this stuff to understand why.)
I don’t think those are pequin peppers. The leaves don’t look right, too narrow at the stem end. How big are they? Pequins are less than an inch long. Pequins are good in pinto beans. Just don’t put in too many. My wife’s father liked to throw six or seven in the pot, which made the beans too hot for anyone else to eat. Salsa would be a good use too. Seed and scrape or slice off the inner membrane and ribs to cool them off a little.
DeWitt–
I find the best compromise when serving meals to people who want fiery hot (my brothers in law, aka “the twins”) people who want very hot (jim, jim’s parents, and me) and people who like fairly mild (my mom) is to make two batches of chili and serve firey hot sauce on the side.
On small batch of chili is for Mom. One very hot pot is for the “very hot” crowd. The hot sauce is for the twins.
So, I’m going to look for recipes for hot sauce. I’ll take closeups of the peppers and the leaves so people can do further “pepperology” studies.
sod (Comment#51319) August 25th, 2010 at 12:45 am
“to stick to the sea ice facts:
.
The latest value : 5,552,188 km2 (August 24, 2010)
.
let us see, when and by how much it beats Steve and whether it beats 2009…”
Would you care to prognosticate on Senator John Kerry’s July 2010 prediction that the arctic will be ice free in 5 to 10 years?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69845
Big money is riding on the prediction…billions will need to be spent to expand northern sea ports and billions more will need to be invested in container ships suitable for the ‘ice free arctic sea route’. If its’ only 5 years away then the decisions need to be taken now.
I want to invest my retirement savings…who should I believe…the powerful Senator John Kerry, who by virtue of his position has access to the worlds top experts on arctic sea ice or Steve Goddard, blogger?
harrywr2
Read the article: The expert Muyin Wang tells us Kerry’s estimate is the extreme case scenario and seems to suggest outcomes between what the blogger Goddard suggests and what Kerry suggests.
Kerry, a politician, may have access to experts. That doesn’t mean he a) really consults them, b) listens to what they say, c) avoids spin or d) knows much about what he says in speeches.
For many, may reasons– including the tendency to spin — powerful people occupying elected often are often very poor sources of scientific information, particularly those involving predictions.
Anyway, if you think Kerry is a good source because he is powerful political figure who, “by virtue of his position has access to the worlds top experts on arctic sea”, what of Inhofe?
Whatever you do, don’t cook them. Pickling is OK if you have a ton and can’t eat them all fresh. If they were not *so hot* then they should be eaten, like peas, right off the vine without even bringing them inside. Foods with a bright zing don’t stand up to heat, which is why pho and posole are served hot with cold veggies and herbs on the side. In addition to chicken and steak, the pequin salsa fresca would be a great topping to steamed soy or lima beans.
Johnl–
This is probably why “dragon turds” are hot but not as hot as one might expect. Recipe from John Kass ( http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-06-18/news/0606180249_1_ribs-beer-barbecue )
“Lucia: It appeared we might be in serious risk of setting a new all time low for minimum ice.”
Are you talking about an one-day-minimum, or about the mean for the whole month of September?
Lucia, the plant in the picture looks nitrogen deficient to me (light green/yellow leaves). It is not lack of light is it? Do you use fertilizer? My experience is that fertilizer (in spring and early summer) increases the production of peppers very significantly.
sod (Comment#51319)
If you keep reading that page you’re gonna end up needing a liprinosil IV… but hey, he’s been right once or twice… about something.
harrywr2 (Comment#51326)
If given the choice between Steven G. and a politician, I’d take my retirement money and get on the first flight to Vegas.
Niels– The leaves aren’t yellow green like that; colors aren’t true in the picture. I have TONS of peppers.
Wonderful
After the Hurricane
The Hot Peppers
Well… both. Since the former is for one day in september and the latter is the whole month. By “All time” I meant in the record we monitor– not since the creation of earth.
Here are enough Chili recipes from Pepper Fool to upset anyone’s digestive tract, just by reading, not even tasting:
http://www.pepperfool.com/recipe_home.html
Lucia, you must be a serious gardener as I see nary a weed in your pepper photo and it appears you mulch and do drip irrigation. I am long time Chicago area gardener who now does mainly flowers and few herbs. I do not use mulch anymore but simply plant and grow so that the wanted plants crowd out the unwanted.
I saved big time this year on water, but in past years I have spent lots on water bills just to hear people tell me that I have an oasis in the desert in dry times.
I have had a successful year if my basil grows wide and tall so that my wife can make a pesto that is to die for. I like it as a dip for crackers and bread probably better than with a pasta. You could put it on your cereal. I am guessing that it has to be loaded with calories.
They look like what are sold as birds eye chillies in Australia. Not quite as hot as Habanero or Scotch Bonnet. Twenty or thirty in a dish makes it fairly lively, however.
PS my sister grows them in Brisbane, the immature (purple) ones are far hotter.
Ken– The black thing is the cord to the mosquito zapper. I do mulch but it doesn’t entirely keep weeds out. I pulled a few weeds before taking the photo. Peppers tomatoes and basil seem to do ok without constant watering but dry summers, I do water once a week. This summer I haven’t had to!
I’ll show you the basil in a bit. It’s lush!
Lucia
Hey sod and MikeC, how accurate has Mark Serreze been? Maybe you should link to some of his statements 🙂
Cousin, who I believe lived on 5 (SW Chicago area) in the 50s used to plant plastic tulips around the front door step in March. She said she enjoyed meeting the people who stopped to ask her how she did it.
None was ever really offended at having been “had.”
j ferguson
I bet if you put plastic far enough from the sidewalk, you can fool people often. In March, I wouldn’t mind being had. It’s so grim and you just want to see color.
My mother told me about this. She disapproved. But the cousin said she had met some wonderful people this way.
Maybe a little better than the Dorothy Parker story of putting “MEN” on her office door as a way to meet them and then suffering the disappointment that the men she met this way always seemed to be in a hurry.
haha, I love Dorothy Parker.
j ferguson–
When Popsie-Wopsie first moved to the condo in Florida, he discovered owning a dog and walking it a lot was a great way to meet people. In a retirement community, this means women. He was very popular. I would go down, he’d have dates to the high school ball game or the fairgrounds, women would invite him over for drinks.
I don’t think a plastic dog would have worked though! 🙂
My original post on peppers seems to have gotten lost so to repeat.
I love to experiment with meals I cook and never follow recipes. My favorite adulteration is taking a Cooking Light recipe and turning into something with more calories and tastier. I say take smaller servings if you are worried about calories and weight gain/loss.
I have not gone the exotic route on peppers, but I do like to experiment with peppers in chili and Thai sauces.
Recipes, I don need no recipes, I don need no stinkin recipes.
Plastic dog? I’m not so sure. I was always mystified at how attractive some of the really crazy guys I grew up with seemed to some women.
Plastic dog would be crazy.
A plastic dog might work as a female magnet in a retirement community, if their eyesight was bad enough.
Kenneth Fritsch–
I sort of trade off portion control and lower fat/calorie etc. food. That’s why nothing is totally forbidden. To help make portion control automatic, I replaced my 10 1/2″ diameter (i.e. standard American size) with a French brand whose plates are 10″ diameter. I live 1/2 between two grocery stores, and I favor the one whose produce tends to be smaller in size. I can find honest to goodness medium potatoes in bins (not bags) instead of being limited to choosing between large to humongo-normous. The same goes for apples, oranges and what not. (This grocery store happens to also have better prices on produce.) They also have some cuts of meat in more appropriate sizes when you prepare food for 2. I like left-overs, but there’s a limit…. So, I’m happy I can always find chickens that weigh less than 4 lbs, and other stuff that helps me with portion control without my having to constantly refresh my memory.
Still, I’m not always in control of what gets served. Hubby and his brothers take over on Sunday. Two weeks ago, I suggested they make something using basil. I was instructed to buy the “America’s Cut” pork chops — which are pretty much two pork chops thick, prosciutto and provolone. They split them horizontally, stuffed in prosciutto, basil and provolone and cooked them. Talk about huge.
All the men ate a whole one. I split one with my 4’11” tall mother in law!
Don B–
Well, what dad had was a yappy little friendly dog who would strain at the leash whenever he saw a passer by. Dad would keep the dog away, but roughly 80% of people encourage the dog, end up petting it and talking to Dad.
My estimate is based on the times I walked the dog. Dad’s condo was next to a golf course, which had a walking path around the perimeter. Heck, the golfers waiting to put would see me holding the eager dog back and say “Here dog!!” I’d warn them he would jump on them, but the ones who shouted “Here dog” didn’t mind! 🙂
Looks like I was over enthusiatic about destroying the warmista ice myth but I is still winning by a tiny margin (ice still above 2009, So every year since 2007 still consecutively more. However you guys could still win and I would be so so sad Hahahah. BTW I don’t think NH ice extent means anything in the current debate whether its up or down. Soon I hope we can all get a life and stop looking at what is the equivalent of respiratory rate graph in normal humans LOL
“They split them horizontally, stuffed in prosciutto, basil and provolone and cooked them.”
That sounds like my kind of cooking. I have been doing sandwiches this summer with prosciutto, or something close, fresh basil, fresh tomatoes, provolone, French bread, olive oil and a shot of balsamic. I think next time I’ll try a little garlic in addition.
Re: Kenneth Fritsch (Aug 26 11:06),
Try topping with fresh mozzarella instead of provolone and maybe run them under a broiler to melt the cheese. Hoagie spread would be good too instead of or in addition to balsamic. Garlic is almost always good.
MMM, proscuitto and fresh mozzarella, delish! Several delis around here make some version of this sandwich. Definitely go with a little garlic and try substituting roasted red peppers (not the hot ones) for the tomatoes. You will definitely enjoy.
Lucia – I agree with others that your peppers look like pequins. We greaw those one year and they were a little skinnier than yours but about the same length and the plant was definitely low. When you first pick them, be sure do check the hotness before using more than one in a recipe. I tried making a pesto just adding one pepper, ended up being too hot even for my New Mexican wife.
JohnL – Nothing wrong with cooking chiles. In fact, roasting over an open flame and then removing the skin is a great way to prepare chiles. Just the smell of the peppers roasting is enticing.
“Try topping with fresh mozzarella instead of provolone and maybe run them under a broiler to melt the cheese. Hoagie spread would be good too instead of or in addition to balsamic. Garlic is almost always good.”
I am thinking to do my sandwich with either mozzarella or provolone and grille it with a little butter/olive oil and garlic and avoid heating it to the point that the garlic turns bitter. I could replace the proscuitto with Canadian bacon or just plain bacon in a pinch and, of course, increase the caloric content at the same time.
slimething (Comment#51344)
this blog is climate talk that gets hot but today it’s definately hot but nothiing to do with climate… so I guess I’ll have to check em out
very glad too see all you warmistas are actually getting a life and forgetting about ice extent and worrying more about your recipes hahahah. Hope some of us skeptics/deniers could do the same more hahahhas
DeWitt,
“Garlic is almost always good.”
What do you mean by “almost”?
SteveF– Garlic gets bad if you burn it. I think it might not be ideal in chocolate mousse either.
sea ice did drop below 5.5 mio today. sorry Steven Goddard.
Should be written “Steven Goddard” as its apparently not his real name, or so the rumour goes.
dorlomin (Comment#51374)
August 27th, 2010 at 6:10 am
Should be written “Steven Goddard†as its apparently not his real name, or so the rumour goes.
I suspect that “Carrot Eater” is not a person’s real name either.
Andrew
lucia,
“I think it might not be ideal in chocolate mousse either.”
Well maybe, but I wouldn’t discount the possibility without tests…. garlic is pretty good in most everything!
Garlic also reduces the possibility of STD’s… nobody will get near you.
neat sod.
Source?
See Gilroy California! Garlic Capital of the World. ;0)
garlic recipe for halloween:
http://www.cupcakeproject.com/2009/10/halloween-snack-idea-chocolate-covered.html
hi Andrew! And everyone..been enjoying the summer weather finally here at the end of August! Had friends in town from Northern Cali..and they love the heat and swimming in the pool. Went to the La Brea tar pits and watched the methane gas bubble out of the lakes of tar…I thought about all of you then! lol 🙂
Liza… I have to admit, yesterday, I meant to stir 1/8th teaspoon of konjac into my yogurt and fruit. I didn’t look carefully and I stirred in garlic powder. I thought “why does this taste like garlic?” Then, I thought, “And why doesn’t garlic with yogurt, fruit and sweetener taste horrible?!” (I later looked and saw the garlic was in the konjac / cocoa / sugar /salt cabinet and the konjac was in the “spice” cabinet. That solve the mystery of what I put in the yogurt.)
I don’t think I’m going to repeat the recipe, but I also had no inclination to throw the stuff away. I ate the sweetened garlic-fruit-yogurt. (I am going do make garlic-yogurt-lemon etc. dips. It’s just surprising the garlic and fruit don’t clash.)
Liza equates us with gas…Great!
Lucia,
Was it a konjak mix-up or a cognac mix up?
Hee hee Lucia. Sounds like something I would do. I had to look up konjac. That was new to me. Interesting!
MikeC (Comment#51382) August 27th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
You bet I do! Is that so farfetched? 😉
“I suspect that “Carrot Eater†is not a person’s real name either.”
His real name is John Doe
neat sod.
Source?
.
it was agreed to use jaxa data, if i remember right.
.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
.
The latest value : 5,477,500 km2 (August 26, 2010)
Lucia,
Garlic goes with almost everything. I had sweet garlic jelly once, and it was great. Crushed garlic in steam clams… great. Minced garlic in whipped potatoes… great. Roasted garlic and cream soup… great. You get the idea.
Konjac– a light colored powder. I’d have to be really drunk to mistake liquid cognac with powdered garlic.
Liza– I’ve taken to stirring 1/8th tsp konjac into water before meals and sometimes stirring into yogurt. It’s a dietary fiber– but so water absorbent it fills your tummy up more than any other. I find it especially useful if I get a little hungry around 5- 5:30 pm when I start fixing dinner. If I mix this with water, and drink it staves over hunger until 6-6:30, by which time Jim is home and we can both eat. So, it’s really helping me stick to the diet. The people who say plain water staves off hunger… well…. it might for them. But for me, plain water.
I’ve found quite a few studies on this stuff, and while there aren’t a huge number of studies, it appears that this stuff really does help people take off weight. (It has no magical calorie burning properties. It just sort of fills your stomach a little and also seems to help reduce block sugar spikes and dips if you eat lots of carbs. So, it sort of reduces the glycemic index of carb foods- – which is, on the balance, a useful thing when you are dieting.)
“His real name is John Doe”
MikeC, I guess yours is “Smart Alec” 😉
Andrew
Hi Liza! Happy Friday Everyone!
Here in Kentucky we are having some gorgeous weather after having it sweltering hot for a month. Tomorrow they tell me it’s going to be nice enough to play some some golf with the boys. Our fantasy football draft is tomorrow, too.
WHO DEY
Andrew
Andrew_KY– It’s gorgeous here too!!
Jim and I are going to dinner at a place with a sidewalk cafe.
lucia,
Now, give the hubs gets some credit for taking you out to such a nice place. 😉
Andrew
Sod, your boys made a big, fake graph. Everybody thinks global warming is a hoax and you haven’t shown one thing that hasn’t happened before. If you are so worried about the ice, go to the North Pole and build a snowmaker you idiot.
Mannboy’s big fake graph.
Global warming is a hoax.
Make the North Pole Bloom’s.
==================
Andrew_KY (Comment#51389)
August 27th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
“His real name is John Doeâ€
MikeC, I guess yours is “Smart Alecâ€
.
Andrew, I’m called “smart ass” more often…
Red Hot Chilipeppers
Swing
I’ve got a soul that cannot sleep
At night when something just ain’t right
Blood red but without sight
Exploding egos in the night
Mix like sticks of dynamite
Red black or white, this is my fight
Come on courage, let’s be heard
Turn feelings into words
American equality has always been sour
An attitude, I would like to devour
My name is peace, this is my hour
Can I get just a little bit of power
The power of equality
Is not yet what it ought to be
It fills me up like a hollow tree
The power of equality
Right or wrong, my song is strong
You don’t like it, get along
Say what I want, do what I can
Death to the message of the Ku Klux Klan
I don’t buy supremacy
Media chief, you menace me
The people you say ’cause all the crime
Wake up #$%^@#@$ and smell the slime
Blackest anger, whitest fear
Can you hear me, am I clear
My name is peace, this is my hour
Can I get just a little bit of power
The power of equality
Is not yet what it ought to be
It fills me up like a hollow tree
The power of equality
Well, I’ve got tapes, I’ve got CD’s
I’ve got my Public Enemy
My Lilly white a$$ is tickled pink
When I listen to the music that makes me think
Not another, #$%^@#@$’ politician
Doin’ nothin’ but something for his own ambition
I never touch the sound we make
Soul sacred love, vows that we take
To create straight what is true
Yo, he’s with me and what I do
My name is peace, this is my hour
Can I get just a little bit of power
The power of equality
Is not yet what it ought to be
It fills me up like a hollow tree
The power of equality
Madder than a #$%^@#@$, lick my finger
Can’t forget ’cause the memory lingers
Count ’em off quick, little Piccadilly sickness
Take me to the hick, eat my thickness
I’ve got a welt from the Bible belt
Dealing with the hand that I’ve been dealt
Sitting in the grip of a killing fist
Giving up blood just to exist
Rub me wrong and I get pissed
No I cannot, get to this
People in pain, I do not dig it
Change of brain for Mr.Bigot
Little brother do you hear me
Have a heart oh come get near me
Misery is not my friend
But I’ll break before I bend
What I see is insanity
What ever happened to humanity
What ever happened to humanity
What ever happened to humanity
Lime-garlic chicken saute from Desperation Dinners is quite good, speaking of citrus and garlic combinations.
Sod, your boys made a big, fake graph. Everybody thinks global warming is a hoax and you haven’t shown one thing that hasn’t happened before. If you are so worried about the ice, go to the North Pole and build a snowmaker you idiot.
.
very nice post, thanks a lot! you also display a serious lack of understanding.
.
—————-
.
R. Gates made a nice list of events to watch out for:
.
1) The extent will fall below Steve’s 5.5 million sq. km. forecast.
2) The extent will fall below Sept. 22, 2005′s low of 5,315, 156 sq. km.
3) The extent will fall below Sept. 13, 2009′s low of 5,249,844 sq. km.
4) The extent will begin to approach 5,000,000 sq. km. as we get into early September (causing Steve to perhaps get a bit nervous, as it is a statistical point of interest for him I should think).
.
so let us see:
.
The latest value : 5,411,094 km2 (August 27, 2010)
I’e been trying to find jalapeño seeds here in SW France without success. Even in the UK it’s difficult. So i’ve bought piment plants at our local market for the last 3 years but the weather has been too dry for them to prosper. I’ve got to say that yours look stunning and I’m very jealous of the jala’s.
Sod
your forgot to give us gates’ actual final figure. Care to do it before I do?
Lucia
I put my piment into tepid olive, then a bocal (not sure what that is in US) in October so that I have hot chili sauce all winter for cooking with. Work well for chillis, samosa, indien dishes, etc
stephen
( http://www.verreriesperrin.fr/p_leparfaitsuper/upload/produit/Bocal.jpg )
I used an advanced google search specifying french and looking for images. 🙂
It’s a sort of canning jar. I don’t can, so I don’t know if English has different words to distinguish “screw top canning jar” from “canning jar with the clamp and rubber gasket.”
I own some of both. I use the clamp type to store my home made granola. I use 1 pt screw tops when I make home made yogurt.
That kind of jar was always called (in my youth in New England) a “Ball jar” by those involved in making preserves, etc. I guess Ball was a trade mark.
Based on the loss to minimum of the 2003-2009 average JAXA extent from today, the expected minimum will be 5.02 Mm2. It looks like some ice is now being pushed south through the Fram Strait into the Greenland Sea where it will probably melt. My guess is that the minimum will be below 5 Mm2, but I’m out a lot of quatloos on my bets on sea ice so my guess isn’t worth much.
Sod
your forgot to give us gates’ actual final figure. Care to do it before I do?
.
do whatever you want to do!
SteveF- Hmm… I sometimes call the ones with screw-tops “Ball”. The ones I find at the store are manufactured by Ball or Kerr. Some call them Mason jars. I usually call them all canning jars because it seems weird to call jars labled “Kerr” “Ball”.
SteveF- Hmm… I sometimes call the ones with screw-tops “Ballâ€. The ones I find at the store are manufactured by Ball or Kerr. Some call them Mason jars. I usually call them all canning jars because it seems weird to call jars labled “Kerr†“Ballâ€.
.
looks like the system is a German invention.
.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einkochen
.
i grew up with glasses that look exactly as the picture above. German brand producing it was (and is!) named WECK, and there was a strawberry on all of the glasses.
canning is obsolete… zip lock it and toss it in the freezer
looks like both passages are open. strange recovery of the arctic sea ice, isn t it?
.
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2010/northwestpassage.jpg
(via Joe Romm)
.
ps: downward correction of ice extent: The latest value : 5,400,313 km2 (August 27, 2010)
sod and others,
I am a bit confused about what is called a “recovery” 2007 was the lowest extension since 2002, then winter 2008 was the second largest extension. That can be called a “recovery”. To me I just see fluctuation, a very natural thing indeed:
See a different plot of the same data here
cool sod.
maybe steven will listen to me and stop talking about the ice
That would be like Forrest Gump listening to Pinocchio
Patagon, I’m not sure if we are talking recovery or return to similar conditions when the St Roch sailed through the northerly route of the Northwest Passage in 1944. The St Roch was a combination steam and sail vessel and went thousands of miles from Halifax to Vancouver in just 86 days.
cool sod.
maybe steven will listen to me and stop talking about the ice
.
at the moment it looks like the “sea ice” series might be among the most embarrassing things ever posted on the “no 1 science blog”.
.
so yes, it would be much better if he had listened to you. (spreading such an amount of misinformation is simply a horrible thing to do!) we will see, today would be the time for his weekly post…
.
yesterday update: The latest value : 5,345,938 km2 (August 28, 2010)
Patagon, I’m not sure if we are talking recovery or return to similar conditions when the St Roch sailed through the northerly route of the Northwest Passage in 1944. The St Roch was a combination steam and sail vessel and went thousands of miles from Halifax to Vancouver in just 86 days.
.
look Mike, can you figure out the difference between the passage being open, and a ship slipping through?
.
the northwest passage is open four years in a row now.
.
why don t you tell us, which years around 1944 the passage was also open?
Lucia, home made granola!
I am about to have some home made in a few minutes, a recipe derived from what was once sold at the Boulder (Colorado) Farmer’s Market.
After bragging about my basil growth (well sort of) I have to admit to a recently noticed leaf miner problem, or at least one that looks like I used to get when I grew spinach. I was wondering if using those infested basil leafs would qualify my sandwiches made from them with a higher protein and perhaps fiber content.
Actually I hear that miner infested basil leaves loss much of their flavor. I still have enough green leaves for pesto making and I guess I need to remove all the infested ones. This is a first time problem for me with basil – as in years past it remained green all the way to the first frost.
I have an acquaintance of Italian decent who was complaining to me about something eating her basil leaves. I asked if she had any neighbors of Italian descent. She laughed, but now I would not be so flippant.
Interesting to have a food and ice extent discussion on the same thread. What does Arctic ice extent/area mean in the bigger picture? Are there any posts that dealt with that issue? Some of what I hear here sounds more like one would expect from sports fans discussing team statistics. I take it the major issue here is whether the ice extent has cyclical feature that is more driven by fluctuating climate factors than by temperature effects or are we seeing a downward trend towards zero summer ice and the unknown feedback effects of that phenomena.
Ice extent isn’t really a good measure of total ice. You could easily have not very much ice spread over a large area and have a higher extent than with more ice in a smaller area. Ice area is probably a better measure of the total. By that measure, 2009 was significantly better than 2007 and 2008, but only about half way back to the long term trend. Today’s ice area (Cryosphere Today) is only slightly higher than the 2009 minimum with about two weeks left in the melting season. If the ice area minimum is less than 3.09 Mm2, which is not out of the question, it will be the third time in the last four years that the area is more than three times the standard error (0.268 Mm2) from the long term trend (1979-2006).
year trend actual (Mm2)
2005 4.13 4.09
2006 4.08 4.02
2007 4.04 2.92
2008 3.99 3.00
2009 3.94 3.42
2010 3.89 3.49(as of 8/27/2010)
Ken–
The neighbor to my east is Sicilian. My basil is planted on the west :).
Actually, there is no danger she could make a dent in it. In fact, I told her she can harvest basil whenever she likes. I have many, many plants. I also have oregano, which grows like a weed. So much so, that I have “winter oregano” under the window well covers! I even sometimes wade through the snow and harvest some.
I told several neighbors they should never grow oregano because I have so much– just come to my yard. A few do.
“I’m beginning to doubt the existence of the Titanic”
http://www.breitbart.tv/dennis-miller-skewers-james-cameron-for-backing-out-of-global-warming-debate/
Hmmmm… and an AGW advocate behaving oddly.
Classic Miller.
Andrew
Luica,
Today I had (for the first time) some hot and sweet pepper jam from a local farmers’ market. It was made with finely chopped sweet peppers (looked like red bell peppers), finely chopped hot peppers (looked like a green variety), sugar, water, and pectin. The recommended use was to spread on whole wheat crackers along with cream cheese.
It was quite sweet, but also quite spicy, and really was pretty good with the cream cheese.
sure, sod… but since we have satellite data showing precise ice concentrations, let’s look at your 4 years… 2007, the northern route was open… 2008 and 2009 it was blocked, but the southern route was open. This year the northern route is open again.
In 1942/43 the St Roch couldn’t make it through the northern route so it went through the southern route. In 1944 it goes through the open northern route. Of course, in the 1940’s there were no satellites but a boat powered by a single boiler in combination with a few sails navigating those passes does tell us what areas were open. Further, in the 1940’s, the globe still had not completely emerged from the LIA so large chunks of ice coming from local glaciers should have been an additional obstacle for the St Roch.
In the mean time, the ice conditions in the 1940’s being similar to today is well known to scientists who specialize in the area. Even Mark Serreze of the NSIDC mentioned it in his 2009 Arctic Amplification study along with (what was a surprise to me) the statement that the 2007 low ice concentrations in the Arctic were not outside the bounds of natural variation.
Serreze, M. C., A. P. Barrett, J. C. Stroeve, D. N. Kindig, and M. M. Holland. 2009. The emergence of surface-based Arctic amplification. The Cryosphere 3: 11–19.
To take it a step further, looking at the Arctic temp graph created by Bob Tisdale suggests the end of a long term warming trend with a spike at 2007 and the beginning of a long term cooling trend… and the ice extents and areas currently being plotted and graphed all over the Internet strongly suggest the same.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2z3ubmu.jpg
This year you will see some elevated temps and reduced ice extents and areas due to the heat from this year’s El Nino filtering it’s way through the Arctic.
So in conclusion, the data suggests a natural variation or oscillation, not a catastrophic loss of sea ice due to surface warming from GHG’s.
… oh, and don’t let our conversations about sea ice and hot peppers distract from the equatorial Pacific where a monster cold pulse -2.5C is moving into the Nino 3.4 region.
“I also have oregano, which grows like a weed.”
I one time grew oregano as a perennial herb, but I babied it and it tried to take over part of my garden. No more nice guy, so I tore it all out and now grow oregano as an annual. Its scientific name is Origanum vulgare and I have always associated the term vulgare with weeds.
Part of my oregano problem was it got mixed with Veronica (Speedwell) and that variety looked much like my oregano. When I ripped out the oregano the Veronica came with it. I have lately taken no little pleasure in getting rid of weeds even if it means sacrificing a few (and sometimes more than a few) non-weeds.
Don’t get me wrong. I would not eat a tomato sauce for pasta without oregano or a Greek salad, for that matter.
I envy your load of basil plants, Lucia. I have to grow a pot in the kitchen windowsill or in the green house – even in summer. Only the hottest of Danish summers allow basil plants to grow outside and then only for a few weeks. They are never thriving. It’s ok to grow it inside but the wonderful taste is more pronounced in plants grown outside. Where is that global warming when you need it 😉
Is it Oreganum vulgare you grow? That’s almost a weed in my garden too. But a beautiful one. I really like the pinkish flowers and so do the bees.
I also grow a variety (perhaps it is another Oreganum species) with white flowers that has a more pronounced smell and taste of oregano.
stevenmosher wrote:
maybe steven will listen to me and stop talking about the ice
Instead of stopping talking about the ice, he should start telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He hasn’t done that so far, thus misinforming and misleading many people. That’s not right, no matter what Al Gore does.
If current weather forecasts come about, there’s a chance 2010 might dive under that 5 million square km extent (JAXA). Check out my latest Sea Ice Extent Update.
“Instead of stopping talking about the ice, he should start telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He hasn’t done that so far, thus misinforming and misleading many people. That’s not right, no matter what Al Gore does.”
Neven,
If Al Gore hasn’t been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, what should we do?
Andrew
Neven:
My own estimate for JAXA was around 4.5 million square km. I’d be surprised if it reaches that low now, but I agree under 5 million km2 is in easy reach.
Andrew_KY (Comment#51432)
.
You really need to take it easy on Neven on this one. One of the links on his page leads to a post on Wunder Blog by Jeff Masters where we are reminded of this little gem, “Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast that suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years during that period.”
.
Of course, that brings up the survivability of Polar Bears in an ice free Arctic summer. Summer is the tough season for Polar Bears; they usually survive on anything from grass, blueberries, walrus, crustaceans, whale carcass… and probably an Inuit or two. But even during a 1,000 plus year period of many ice free Arctic summers, they did just fine.
.
So let’s congratulate Neven on his use of the truth, the whole truth and etc, because it reminds us that there is no need for alarm and that those cute, cuddly Polar Bears (who would tear your leg off and wash it down with a beer from your cooler) are gonna be just fine.
MikeC states: ‘In the mean time, the ice conditions in the 1940′s being similar to today is well known to scientists who specialize in the area. Even Mark Serreze of the NSIDC mentioned it in his 2009 Arctic Amplification study along with (what was a surprise to me) the statement that the 2007 low ice concentrations in the Arctic were not outside the bounds of natural variation.
‘
Mark actually says that the 40s were another period of warming, without making any comparison to today’s conditions. He also states that there is no firm data to say that this warmer period corresponded to any reduction in ice cover, although such a reduction is ‘likely’. He most certainly does not state that the ice cover in the 40s is similar to today.
He does not make a statement that ice conditions in 2007 were outside the bounds of natural variation, but rather states that temperatures since 2007 are ‘extreme but may still be
within bounds of natural variations’. This statement is on the basis of computer modelling that calculated the standard deviation at 1.59, and the recent temperature anomalies at 3-5 degrees.
Neven:
“Instead of stopping talking about the ice, he should start telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. ”
and maybe simians will exit the southern end of my alimentary canal on wings.
You might be asking too much.
lucia (Comment#51403)
August 28th, 2010 at 7:26 am
That’s the one.
stephen– as you can see, we don’t know we English speakers all call it different things. 🙂
“Instead of stopping talking about the ice, he should start telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. “.
.
Talking about the “whole” truth, shouldn’t that include some other parts of the World? (Hint, look South). Not just mentioning a local warming event (disclaimer: just using here the Team’s excuse to adress the MWP).
Hoi Polloi (Comment#51439) August 30th, 2010 at 6:57 am
Yep, 2010 is the year without summer for Surf City USA. (and the water has been cold for my surfing family as well.)
You might be asking too much.
I know, I wish that was obvious to everyone.
Neven (Comment#51441)
August 30th, 2010 at 8:21 am
You might be asking too much.
I know, I wish that was obvious to everyone.
Neven,
What’s obvious to me is that I’m asking too much when I ask you a simple question about a topic (“that you introduced.
Neven (Comment#51441)
August 30th, 2010 at 8:21 am
You might be asking too much.
I know, I wish that was obvious to everyone.
Neven,
What’s obvious to me is that I’m asking too much when I ask you a simple question about a topic (“what al Gore does”) that you introduced.
sorry, that last comment posted itself prematurely
Andrew
DeWitt Payne (Comment#51421) August 29th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Ice extent isn’t really a good measure of total ice. You could easily have not very much ice spread over a large area and have a higher extent than with more ice in a smaller area. Ice area is probably a better measure of the total. By that measure, 2009 was significantly better than 2007 and 2008, but only about half way back to the long term trend. Today’s ice area (Cryosphere Today) is only slightly higher than the 2009 minimum with about two weeks left in the melting season. If the ice area minimum is less than 3.09 Mm2, which is not out of the question, it will be the third time in the last four years that the area is more than three times the standard error (0.268 Mm2) from the long term trend (1979-2006).
year trend actual (Mm2)
2005 4.13 4.09
2006 4.08 4.02
2007 4.04 2.92
2008 3.99 3.00
2009 3.94 3.42
2010 3.89 3.49(as of 8/27/2010)
2010 3.89 3.35(as of 8/29/2010)
I have a hard time grasping the alleged significance of Arctic ice.
(1) We have no detailed pre-satellite measures and given that the existence of the AMO was first hypothesized this decade, it seems like we don’t have enough tools to know what is or is not significant, cyclical or apocalyptic.
(2) It does not appear to be a linear phenomenon–any warming would seem to increase the influence of wind and current, more pieces melt faster than one big one with the same area etc.
(3) Anecdotal historical evidence indicates that the variance is substantial.
(4) I still do not get how AGW continues to be almost exclusively upper northern hemisphere phenomenon.
Without more meaningful reference points a lot of these discussions about daily ice coverage seem like picking the flysh*t outta the pepper.
And speaking of pepper, my pepper plants did rather poorly, not as a result of climate but of horticultural incompetence. However, the tomatoes did well and the basil is in excessive supply.
My immediate neighbors (not Sicilian but Iranian) have spectacular gardening skills which makes it impossible for me to blame climate change for my subpar pepper production unless I can generate a really finely tuned microclimate concept…
RealClimate commenter ‘Dan’ pasted this link from the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch, Judge rules against Cuccinelli in U.Va. case.
Cuccinelli spins this as a victory and promises additional actions, ick.
Amac,
Thanks for the link. This ruling is a mixed bag for Cuccinelli, a victory for Mann, but a huge loss for UVA. UVA is now officially at the mercy of any crusading prosecutor. Shades of Spitzer’s and Cuomo’s use and misuse of the Martin Act. The legal strategists at UVA must be kicking themselves for rolling the dice this way.
“While this was not an outright ruling in our favor, I am pleased that the judge has agreed with my office on several key legal points and has given us a framework for issuing a new civil investigative demand to get the information necessary to continue our investigation into whether or not fraud has been committed against the commonwealth,” Cuccinelli said
Yes, thanks for the link AMac.
Certainly you aren’t against the AG of VA doing his job.
I mean you of all people should understand that the science of obtaining information about legal concerns is just as legit as the science of obtaining information about climate.
Unless pehaps, you’ve prejudged without having all the information yourself.
Andrew
Sod, so you’re basically saying if the extent goes below 5.5 million everyone is doomed. It’s like a million below the 1979-2000 average, what a huge deal. It isn’t even going to be below 2007 so there is no point to be made, nothing special happened and you receive no cookie.
Re: Phil. (Aug 30 09:57),
That also puts the average concentration as defined by the ratio of Cryosphere Today area to JAXA extent below any previous year in the JAXA record at 62%. Extent has been flat the last couple of days. If CT area, which is 2 days behind JAXA, continues to go down we could see a record low for concentration. The previous record being 58.7% on 8/12/2008.
Re: George Tobin (Aug 30 11:12),
The minimum area in 1980 was 5.5 Mm2. The minimum area in 2007 was 2.92 Mm2. That’s a decrease of 47% in 27 years. If this were an industrial process, it would be out of control.
I’ve said this before, but I still don’t understand why anyone thinks that the average value of a highly significant declining trend over some period of years is somehow a standard for comparison. Having six years in a row with values below the linear trend with four of those values more than two standard deviations below the trend is fairly good evidence that there may be a new, even lower trend.
Michael Hauber (Comment#51435)
Hi Michael,
I went back and read his paper (as tired as I am) and your first point is up for interpretation and we could go round and round on it.
Your second point, however, is in serious need of a second look as he did not say “since” 2007. His analysis and runs ended in 2007 so when he says “the last few years” I’m certain he did mean to include 2007, and yes, it was based on observational data (NCEP and JAR-25) which he described in detail.
And by the way, thank you for actually having read the literature.
“The legal strategists at UVA must be kicking themselves for rolling the dice this way.”
That’s what they get for naming themselves after a color fading light wave.
AMac (Comment#51448) August 30th, 2010 at 11:30 am
RealClimate commenter ‘Dan’ pasted this link from the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch, Judge rules against Cuccinelli in U.Va. case.
————-
The Times-Dispatch piece has a link to the court document.
http://static.mgnetwork.com/cdp/core/media_path/pdf/Opinion_Granting_UVA_Petition.pdf
“..“While this was not an outright ruling in our favor, I am pleased that the judge has agreed with my office on several key legal points and has given us a framework for issuing a new civil investigative demand to get the information necessary to continue our investigation into whether or not fraud has been committed against the commonwealth,†Cuccinelli said”
this is a big win for Cuccinelli.
The judge ruled that the college had to comply with demands for information. This was the biggie.
The judge did rule that “this” demand was a bit to loose, so rewrite and resubmit. Which Cuccinelli will do.
DeWitt Payne when you say:
“The minimum area in 1980 was 5.5 Mm2. The minimum area in 2007 was 2.92 Mm2. That’s a decrease of 47% in 27 years. If this were an industrial process, it would be out of control.”
I have no doubts that we are experiencing a significantly downward trend in summer ice in the Arctic, but should we use an industrial process in an analogy? Industrial processes would certainly not be designed to have any cyclical feature or if they were would be controlled around those features whereas climate can be cyclical – not saying this phenomena is.
this is a big win for Cuccinelli.
The judge ruled that the college had to comply with demands for information. This was the biggie.
The judge did rule that “this†demand was a bit to loose, so rewrite and resubmit. Which Cuccinelli will do.
.
the judge dismissed the majority of the claims. (because they were about federal funds.) and it found little evidence for fraud.
.
“The Court has read with care those pages and understands the controversy regarding Dr. Mann’s work on the issue of global warming. However, it is not clear what he did was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia,†Peatross wrote.
Additionally, the judge said Cuccinelli could only ask about one of five grants issued to Mann that the attorney general has been seeking to investigate. That’s because the other four involved the use of federal, not state, funds.
.
i fear the facts destroy your dreams.
.
———-
.
Industrial processes would certainly not be designed to have any cyclical feature or if they were would be controlled around those features whereas climate can be cyclical – not saying this phenomena is.
.
did you ever eat a Chocolate Santa? cloth are produced for seasons.
.
and the factories in china that produce the majority of goods we use, clearly feel the cyclical chances in our demand.
.
————-
.
arctis sea ice is keeping things interesting. we had a recovery of sea ice lately!
.
The latest value : 5,348,281 km2 (August 30, 2010)
Re: Kenneth Fritsch (Aug 31 08:50),
An individuals control chart format is very good for seeing if there’s an abrupt change.
Here are the regression statistics for a linear fit to the annual minimum Arctic ice area for 1979-2006:
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.830371153
R Square 0.689516252
Adjusted R Square 0.677574569
Standard Error 0.26770689
Observations 28
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 4.138072344 4.138072344 57.74029284 4.57899E-08
Residual 26 1.863341449 0.071666979
Total 27 6.001413794
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%
Intercept 99.55 12.479 7.977 1.86569E-08 73.90 125.20
X Variable 1 -0.04759 0.00626 -7.5987 4.57899E-08 -0.060 -0.035
Residuals Plot
The residuals for 2007-2010 (2010 is year-to-date) are calculated from the extended 1979-2006 linear trend. There’s a clear break from what looks like very much like normally distributed data. I should probably crank up R and run the Jarque-Bera normality test, but not today. The daily residuals plot from Cryosphere Today looks very different to me for 2007 on compared to before 2007. After 2009, you could make the argument that the process was recovering back to the long term trend. That argument is much less compelling now as it looks like the minimum area will again be in the 2007-2008 range. It’s already below the 2009 minimum.
sorry sod
.
it is a win. UVA must comply with requests on state funded grants.
.
but thats ok…at this point I know you need to take what you can get with how bad the wheels on CAGW are coming loose on the political front.
.
A bit more than 60 days till Nov.
Max_OK, thanks for the link. That’s an interesting ruling, especially points 4 and 6.
Point 4: Of the grants designated by the AG, only one can be investigated, i.e. the 2001 one (others are federal grants, which are explicitly excluded by the ruling).
Point 6: Only requests for funds given after Jan 1 2003 (when FATA became law) can be investigated.
So the judge said, “I’ll let you request these documents, IF you provide any evidence of potential wrongdoing (which you haven’t so far), and IF you can find a grant from the state of VA to Mann after Jan 1 2003 (which you haven’t either).”
Not sure what the AG can do now.
Yah, toto, ‘federal grants, which are explicitly excluded by the ruling’, a ruling made by the judge without explanation or legal reasoning, and probably susceptible on appeal.
H/t to Skip at Pielke Fils place.
====================
Yeah you may as well just ignore Sod. Sod is the type of person who goes out and buys a pink ribbon for breast cancer and thinks he helped find the cure. He is all about the feel good mentality. Sod probably complains that nobody is helping Darfur while he himself does nothing, just like with this global warming business. He will attribute the lack of intervention in Darfur to a vast right wing conspiracy, while carefully omitting that the rest of the world does far less. Sod I’ll buy a green ribbon from you and I expect you to build a car that runs on air. You would have been much more successful if you began the argument with the simple fact that nobody likes or wants pollution. I think we can all agree on this. Instead, the discussion has devolved into arguments about who the best scientists are, who gets money from where and so on. Why aren’t manufacturers given tax reduction for creating green products? Why don’t distributors receive a tax reduction for stocking and selling these products? And Sod don’t dare try and tell me this is already happening because I am in an industry where the green movement is having a large impact. We sell many green items and I can tell you that 95% + all cost more than the traditional products. I think we can both agree this is a problem.
Yeah you may as well just ignore Sod. Sod is the type of person who goes out and buys a pink ribbon for breast cancer and thinks he helped find the cure. He is all about the feel good mentality. Sod probably complains that nobody is helping Darfur while he himself does nothing, just like with this global warming business. He will attribute the lack of intervention in Darfur to a vast right wing conspiracy, while carefully omitting that the rest of the world does far less. Sod I’ll buy a green ribbon from you and I expect you to build a car that runs on air. You would have been much more successful if you began the argument with the simple fact that nobody likes or wants pollution. I think we can all agree on this. Instead, the discussion has devolved into arguments about who the best scientists are, who gets money from where and so on. Why aren’t manufacturers given tax reduction for creating green products? Why don’t distributors receive a tax reduction for stocking and selling these products? And Sod don’t dare try and tell me this is already happening because I am in an industry where the green movement is having a large impact. We sell many green items and I can tell you that 95% + all cost more than the traditional products. I think we can both agree this is a problem.
Re: kim (Aug 31 12:36),
FATA only applies to funds paid by the Commonwealth of Virginia. That would seem to rule out federal grants prima facia. There is no need to cite precedent or legal reasoning in that case.
No lawyer here, Dew. P., but I think the argument can go that once the funds were paid into the University of Virginia account, then they become subject to the purview of the State. Let’s wait and see about any interlocutory appeals.
This is all preparatory to Cuccinelli’s suit against the EPA, anyway. The bricks in the wall will take awhile to assemble.
=============
I am seeing the term ‘lukewarmer’ show up outside of the cozy world of climate geek blogs. Who gets credit for coining the term? Was it Lucia?
DeWitt, I would like to do a breakpoint analyses of the minimum area/extent. Is there a link you could conveniently supply to that data?
TimG no it was coined on CA. wasnt me or bender. search the hurrican threads
dewiit. look back at the post willis did on the ‘annual’ signal that is present in the record now
“it is a win. UVA must comply with requests on state funded grants.”
No, that’s not what the ruling said. It said that in theory, a less stupid and incompetent AG could issue a CID to a university, and the university could theoretically have to answer it if, in contrast to this one, it was remotely plausible on its face. However, in this specific case, the AG’s request was a bunch of meaningless garbage that failed to even articulate what Mann was supposed to have done. Therefore, all of the AG’s inquiries were quashed, including the ones related to the state grant. He can come back when he’s fabricated a better case. He receives no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.
In general we should see this for the natural development it is. Deniers are slowly coming to accept that the total failure of their ideology to account for the observed facts makes it impossible to compete in a scientific debate. Anything that leaves a record, be it journalism or blogs, inevitably turns against them by documenting their lies and self-contradictory claims. Their only future lies in government-funded McCarthyist witch hunts like this one. If those continue to fail, expect murder and terrorism, a la abortion clinic bombings, to be the next tactic.
Re: Kenneth Fritsch (Aug 31 15:23),
The Cryosphere Today ice area data are here:
Arctic: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
Antarctic: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008
Global: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
The global is, of course, the sum of the Arctic and Antarctic for the same date. The data are updated daily (usually). The Arctic data are one day ahead of the Antarctic data posted on the same day. The first column is the decimal date, the second is the anomaly calculated from the 1979-2008 average, the third column is the actual area in Mm2 and the fourth column is the 1979-2008 average area for that date. The old 1979-2000 anomaly data are also available. Just remove the .1979-2008 from the URL.
The monthly average NOAA data are here:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
I’ve only plotted the NOAA extent data. The extent anomaly time series shows the same switch to spiky behavior starting in 2007, but the detrended September average extent plot does not show a significant deviation from the trend. The NOAA area isn’t corrected for the hole in the satellite coverage at the pole so there is a step change in 1987 when the hole got smaller. That’s probably why I haven’t done any analysis on the area data. For extent, it’s assumed that the entire hole has at least 15% concentration so it’s added in to the total. There’s daily NOAA ice data somewhere, but I don’t have the link.
I just like the picture.
Re: steven mosher (Aug 31 16:26),
It took a little searching, but I found it ( here for anyone that’s interested). I don’t think there’s any reason to believe it’s a problem with the satellites. There are different satellites and different algorithms for producing ice concentration per pixel from the observed data. They all show the same behavior. The massive loss of ice, over 1 Mm2 lower than the trend value for the minimum (4 Mm2) in 2007, seems to have put the Arctic in a different regime than before. If the AMO ever goes negative again, we might see recovery. It should happen Real Soon Now.
Wow. Just wow.
I am a little disappointed that you failed to work in a climate racism angle or the old denialist-on-the-grassy-knoll thing but otherwise you really put the fear of Gaia in those heretics, big guy. Was the HuffPo comment feature not working today, Robert– is that why you posted that stuff here? Again, wow.
Well Robert, the decision stated:
However, the University of Virginia is a proper subject for a CID and the Attorney General may investigate grants made with Commonwealth of Virginia funds to professors such as Dr. Mann.
http://static.mgnetwork.com/cdp/core/media_path/pdf/Opinion_Granting_UVA_Petition.pdf
All this ‘academic freedom’ stuff is politics, it is a simple investigation into whether or not Mann made misrepresentations on several grant applications.
Unfortunately we live in a legalistic world, a new request will follow…
Not a good week for global warming contrarians.
Cuccinelli’s case fails in court.
Well know warming skeptic, Bjorn Lomberg, changes his mind.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/31/bjorn-lomborg-climate-fund
only a minor decrease, still slightly above the 2005 minimum:
.
The latest value : 5,320,000 km2 (August 31, 2010)
.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
.
1) The extent will fall below Steve’s 5.5 million sq. km. forecast.
2) The extent will fall below Sept. 22, 2005′s low of 5,315, 156 sq. km.
3) The extent will fall below Sept. 13, 2009′s low of 5,249,844 sq. km.
Wow. Just wow.
I am a little disappointed that you failed to work in a climate racism angle or the old denialist-on-the-grassy-knoll thing but otherwise you really put the fear of Gaia in those heretics, big guy. Was the HuffPo comment feature not working today, Robert– is that why you posted that stuff here? Again, wow.
.
it is a sad thing, but Robert is right.
.
Roy Spencer calls for the destruction of the IPCC. and he does so with false claims and a disgusting picture.
.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/dump-the-ipcc-process-it-cannot-be-fixed/
.
Tom Fuller ignores a recent investigation that cleared Pachauri, and calls for his resignation. (Fuller had predicted that Pachauri would be gone in June on this very blog!)
.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/31/ipccs-pachauri-should-resign-for-failures-of-leadership/
.
the ZERO evidence witchhunt has become the new operation mode of the “sceptic” side.
Bollocks sod, Pachuari lives in a house worth 100 times his year salary, the KPMG investigation was not an audit. His below 50.000 income gets him free help with his taxes, the man belongs in prison along with Maurice Strong. TERI acquired two grants with the bogus Himalaya 2035 claim, I am glad the Carnegie 500.000 grant was never paid out.
The IAC recommendation: The term of the IPCC Chair should be limited to the time frame of one assessment. Pachuari has said that he will fully implement the recommendations … exit Mr 1000 dollar suit/playboy/soft porn author.
More baseless allegations. As for soft porn, his book is no more pornographic than the pot boilers Crichton used to churn out, and is completely irrelevant.
Bugs,
Did you read it?
Heh, Bugs reads between the lines of Crichton, but can’t read between the lines of the IAC’s message to Pachauri. They could hardly have been more clear. Well, yeah, I guess they could have been more clear, but oh, the politesse.
===========================
In my deficient memory the term ‘lukewarmer’ was first applied to lucia. Are we sure she didn’t invent the term herself?
We’re all lukewarmers, now. Just how luke, and just how warm are the questions.
==================
kim (Comment#51491) September 1st, 2010 at 5:55 am
Yes, we have just wasted 20 years arguing over inane non-science to finally get to the point, how much warming will CO2 doubling create. It’s taken the non AGWers a long time to get here.
“We’re all lukewarmers, now.”
Not so fast, Kim. All I’ve ever seen from AGW supporters is behavior confirmation of my Uber-Denialism.
Andrew
And the IPCC is holding meetings in Cancun this year. How nice! They should be given a prize for the most ingenious way to keep having such a cushy job despite the huge mistakes and misleading inaccurate information in their reports. Join the IPCC! Talk about the weather and live the lifestyles of the rich and famous! We’ll all be dead before our predictions ever come to pass or are proven; so come take advantage while you can! Don’t feel guilty! It’s a worthy cause! We love and care for this world more then anybody!!
LOL
“And the IPCC is holding meetings in Cancun this year.”
liza,
I can picture the IPCC starting a green cruise line and Patchy being a cruise director. The Love Boat indeed. Singles Disco Nite, here I come! 😉
Andrew
bugs, you are either naive or disingenuous. The sensitivity of climate to CO2 is the question and has been for a long time. That’s what we’ve been arguing about, and the skeptics’ hunch that the sensitivity is not as high as the alarmists would have us believe seems to be being borne out in recent temperature trends and in recent observational science.
==============================
What’s the sensitivity of climate to margaritas???
😉
Lucia, I apologize for posting unsubstantiated allegations on your blog.
On a lighter note (but still trying to smear Dr. P), 3rd clip.
Naqvi – You have trimmed your beard, haven’t you? That makes you look less like Rasputin
Pachauri -Well,one keeps changing styles.I mean I’m told that I wear 1000$ suits which I don’t. My tailor charges me 2200 rupees to tailor first-rate clothing and I’m afraid if he hears that these are…
Naqvi- But that jacket is from Seville Row
Pachauri- It’s borrowed (laughter) I don’t even own it (laughter)
http://libertynewscentral.blogspot.com/2010/01/schoolmate-to-pachauri-go-into.html
Re: TimG (Aug 31 15:11),
I didn’t coin it. I always forget who did– it might be mosher.
Re: j ferguson (Sep 1 05:13),
Out of curiosity, did anyone?
Re: kim (Sep 1 05:55),
Kim, that’s not quite right.
A few stone-cold coolers have declared themselves coolers here at this blog. So, it’s clear that we aren’t all lukewarmers.
Sadly, it seems some stone-cold coolers like to call themselves lukewarmers and provide definitions that would erase the distinction between someone who periodically predicts the world might equally well plunge into an ice age as warm and those who think the world will warm but wants to emphasize that they do not believe it is warming as rapidly as one might imagine reading blogs written by people like Joe Romm and who think on the balance, various projections disseminated by the climatati are biased high.
The lukewarmer definition was specifically created to distinguish “lukewarmers from both
a) people who think warming either isn’t happening or is so imperceptible that it can’t be detected even now in the climate record or
b) who think warming and climate sensitivity are on the high side of of consensus values (like IPCC projections etc.) and/or who think that we must always be trumpeting the risk of warming being on the high side — conveniently forgetting to mention what the “most probably” levels are and also forgetting that the low side is included in the range of projections.
English being an evolving language, I can’t decree what the correct usage should be. But it seems to me that lukewarmer is a valuable term and ideally, it would be best if people who actualy predict cooling, think the greenhouse effect does not exist at all and/or who think warming is so imperceptable that there is a better than 25% chance the warming during the 20th century was not mostly due to greenhouse gasses should not call themselves “lukewarmers”. They should called themselves “not-warmers”.
“climatati” — I like it! Is that a new word from you, Lucia?
Well, lucia, I admit the radiative effect of CO2 and that it might have some warming effect, but believe the concatenation of the cooling phases of the oceanic oscillations will cool us for a couple of decades. I also suspect that the Cheshire Sun portends a new Grand Solar Minimum which might cool us for a century. I think it is very likely that we soon may regret that CO2 doesn’t have a stronger warming effect. So what am I? A lukewarming cooler?
===========================
Re: HaroldW (Sep 1 09:59),
I didn’t invent it. Gavin’s use was the first I read:
He wrote
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=568#comment-88890
Kim
Given that you only admit CO2 “might” (not does) have some warming effect, you are suggesting cooling, not warming, during the upcoming century, I consider you a cooler not a warmer. I don’t really see how you can honestly select an adjective that suggest you believe warming is more likely than cooling.
So, I would not describe you as a lukewarmer. To do so would obliterated the entire distinction between “lukewarmer”– a term originally intended to convey the notion that one does strongly expect the earth to warm somewhat over the next century– and people who are suggesting the earth’s surface could, quite plausibly cool. If we use “lukewarmer” to include people who frequently suggest cooling is likely, then we will obviously need a new adjective to describe the group for whome the term “lukewarmer” was coined.
Of course, we could coin a new term. But I think any need to do so would only show that– for some reason — people who want to suggest cooling is likely over the next century wish to label themselves with an adjective that suggests they think the balance suggests warming is anticipated. Wouldn’t that be a bit silly situation?
“This site is just about the science.” -gavin
Yeah.
Andrew
Ah, I see. I think that ‘lukewarmer’ has two meanings. I consider myself a ‘lukewarmer’ because I suspect that CO2 has a slight warming effect. I’m a ‘cooler’ because I think natural cycles will cool the earth despite the effect of CO2. One usage of ‘lukewarmer’ refers to the effect of CO2 on atmosphere, and the other to the end result of all the natural and unnatural modifiers of climate.
======================
I ran a custom google search. Gavin’s is the only use prior to May 31, 2008.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&as_q=climatati&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=y&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images#q=climatati&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&hs=8Hr&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&sa=X&ei=Z4V-TPaQEsjunge0idDwAQ&ved=0CA0QpwU&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F31%2F2008&fp=7db4f7af4a13aa89
After that, Frank Bi used it for a while. I’ve used it in past posts. It hasn’t been catching on, but it can be a useful term.
So how can you be a lukewarmer under your definition if you don’t know the effect of the natural cycles? Or do you?
==================================
Kim–
But you are going so far as saying you “suspect” CO2 has a slight warming. Moreover, you think the natural cycles ware large enough to think natural cycles will cool the earth despite any effect. I’m pretty sure that most people who speak English use “think” to convey a stronger level of conviction than “suspect”– which tends to hint at a high level of doubt in your what you suspect might be true.
To me, it appears that despite thinking that, on the balance, the earth will cool over the next century, you wish to embrace a label that conveys the impression that you expect warming. You suggest this is somehow fair because you “suspect” (but don’t necessarily actually think or outright believe) CO2 has a slight warming effect.
To my way of thinking: If you are saying the effects of GHG are so small that you anticipate cooling over the next century, you are not any sort of “adjective-warmer”, no matter what adjective you pick. You are an “adjective-cooler”. You think– on the balance — the earth is set to cool.
Applying the word “adjective-warmer” to people who think cooling is imminent is confusing. That people who think cooling is imminent would self label themselves “adjective-warmer” tends to show they lack courage of their convictions.
Andrew_KY has the courage of his convictions: He says he does not anticipate warming, and he hunt around for just the right adjective that he thinks could make the term “adjective-warmer” describe his belief set.
Well, no, lucia. I’ve just figured out that I’ve been laboring under a different definition of ‘lukewarmer’ than you use. And you can’t justify your use of ‘lukewarmer’ to describe yourself unless you know the effects of the natural cycles will NOT overpower the effect of CO2.
Look, most of the hockey stick argument was about the magnitude of natural cycles. It seems clear that natural cycles can cause a MWP and a LIA, and the magnitude of the temperature excursions during those times dwarf today’s apparent CO2 effect.
So again, using your definition, how can you call yourself a lookwarmer, absent more perfect knowledge of the natural cycles?
Really, we’re all agnostics, specifically meaning that none of know enough to predict the future temperature course of this, our one and only Earth.
==================
Re: kim (Sep 1 10:58),
Do I know them precisely? No.
But we are talking about the meaning of a descriptive label not whether or not I am correct.
I think the balance for the earth’s surface will is for warming over the 21st century. I think it will end warmer than cold. This warming will be sufficient to exceed any natural cycles that might otherwise result in cooling. I think at least some (likely more than 1/2) of the warming during the 20th century was due to ghgs– it was not all the result of some natural warming cycle.
This cluster of beliefs means I must be some sort of “adjective-warmer” as opposed to “adjective-cooler” or “adjective-statist”.
With respect to me, we can look to other beliefs that point to the correct adjective. I think the correct adjective is “luke”.
You, on the other hand, believe that the balance for the 21st century is cooling. You give reasons for your belief– but in the end you are predicting cooling. This suggests the correct label for you is “adjective-cooler”.
However, as I said, I don’t own the English language. If you and many others want to describe yourselves as “lukewarmer”, I can’t stop you. But using “adjective-warmer” to describe people who believe the balance points toward cooling is a bit confusing. The word “lukewarm” was specifically coined to distinguish between people who believe the balance is toward warming and those who think it’s toward cooling. If the group who thinks the balance is toward cooling, it means that people who actually believe the balance points to warming will have to coin a new adjective to distinguish the fact that we believe the balance points toward warming, not cooling.
Of course, language evolves. So, maybe this will happen. If someone like Mosher does coin two new words to distinguish between
a) “people who call themselves lukewarmers to convey the idea they think the world is actually warming”
from
b) “people who call themselves lukewarmers to convey the idea that they think the world is cooling but think the word lukewarmers conveys the notion they suspect the greenhouse gas properties dictated by radiative physics might possibly exist (but they don’t suspect it strongly enough to admit to actually thinking ghgs will cause or have caused any detectable warming”
that will be great.
If he coins these two words, then maybe we can all start using those words. In the mean time, when people ask me how I use lukewarmer, I use it as (a). I recognize that there are people who use it as (b) — but I don’t apply the word that way.
FWIW: I rarely say “Person X is a ‘adjective-warmer/cooler’ “. I prefer to suggest that my impression is “I think person X believes Y”.
But people ask me what the word “lukewarmer” means to me. I discuss what I think the word means. I would never describe someone who is predicting cooling over the 21st century as a lukewarmer. Never.
Yeah, it is all in the meaning of words. My father used to say that all argument is a matter of definition. I was around when ‘lukewarmer’ was first used and I’ve always thought it had to do with the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere, not predictions of future climate.
I’m glad you agree that we don’t know enough to predict future temperature. I can’t either, but consider the odds of cooling to be greater than the odds of warming, given that I fundamentally believe, without a whole lot of evidence, that something about the sun determines climate, and given that I think the warming effect from CO2 is quite small.
==================
Kim
First– in point of what I think: I think natural cycles will not overpower the effect of CO2 over the 21at century and did not over the 20th.
I don’t think you get to decree what I think the definition of “lukewarmer” is. My usage does not require me to know with absolute certainty that natural cycles absolultely, positively totally, completely cannot overwhelm CO2.
Likewise, I don’t decree what you think lukewarmer means. I recognize you use a different definition than I. I don’t own English and can’t decree my usage is correct. However, I would not refer to you as a lukewarmer. If you don’t want to refer to me as one either, that’s ok. We can just stick to discussing what we believe about natural cycles, CO2 etc. It’s clearly anyway.
So again, using your definition, how can you call yourself a lookwarmer, absent more perfect knowledge of the natural cycles?
Simple– my definition of “any adjective-warmer”, including “lukewarmer” doesn’t require anyone to have 100% certainty in their knowledge. It only requires that they think the balance points toward detectable warming over the 21st century.
You have repeatedly said that you think the balance points toward cooling over the 21st century.
I certainly agree that none know enough to predict the future temperature course with 100% certainty. I suspect even gavin might agree that if for some mysterious reason, the earth sustained a period of unprecedented vulcanism with 3 Pinatubos firing a year, resulting in solar shading, crop failures and starvation, the earth might close out 2100 cooler than 2000.
In my opinion (and it’s an opinion) and when I use it (and I mean “I”), adjective “lukewarm” is not supposed to convey a sense of certainty about a person being correct. It’s just supposed to communicate that they think the balance of forcings is driving the earth toward warming.
And now to question your belief that half of the 20th Century warming was from GHGs. Temperature correlates with the oceanic oscillations overlain on a rising trend from the LIA better than it does with CO2 concentration. The only time that CO2 level correlated well with temperature rise was during the last quarter of the last century, and not before and not since.
Also, three times in the last century and a half, the rate of temperature rise has been the same as that of the last quarter of the last century, and of course, only one of those times had a rising CO2 level. So where’s the GHG effect?
======================
lucia, I don’t think I’ve decreed what the meaning of ‘lukewarmer’ is. I’ve quite clearly explained that we’ve been using two different meanings of the term.
But, given that you have agreed we don’t know enough to predict future temperature, how can you use the term? I assumed the term referred to the effect of CO2 because it would have been absurd to use it as a description of future climate, which no one knows.
========================
kim
I suspect your claim is incorrect. If you do the math and compute a correlation coefficient, I’m pretty sure there is a positive correlation between CO2 and Temperature over the entire interglacial cycle. We can discuss the nuances later– but first, we should look at whether or not your claimed fact is correct.
Yes. Monckton showed that graph in one of his talks….
With respect to being a lukewarmer, the more important fact is not that the rate of rise during periods has been similar, but that each successive peak is achieveing a higher temperature.
Kim–
You wrote this:
When I read that, it seems to me that you are telling me I can’t use the term according to my use because you have decided my definition requires me to be certain about natural cycles. To me, that appears to be you telling me how I must define and use that word.
Simple– my use of the term “lukewarmer” doesn’t intend to convey both the notion that a) I think the century will end warmer than it began and b) that I am absolutely, positively, totally and completely certain that I must be right, dag-gummit!
It only conveys (a).
There is nothing absurd about using terms to describe anything (including future climate) one predicts or expects to be true. The fact that one cannot know the future with any degree of certainty does not render these usages absurd.
I’ll counter your ‘Monckton’ with ‘Phil Jones’ who is the one who pointed out to me that there have been three episodes in the last century and a half with a very similar rate of temperature rise.
Let me put it this way, lucia; you are on much more solid ground using my definition of ‘lukewarmer’ than you are using your definition. And OK, ‘relatively absurd’.
Also, each successive peak at a higher temperature reflects the underlying temperature trend since the end of the LIA. No one knows the cause of that. And I do encourage you to do the correlations. I think you might be surprised.
=========================
OK, about the correlations between CO2 and temperature. Once again we are talking at cross purposes and the fault is at least partly mine. When I said that CO2 only correlates well with temperature rise during the last quarter of the last century and not before and not since, the time frame I was using was the time since the end of the Little Ice Age. Sure over longer spells, CO2 correlates with temperature, but the arrow of time suggests that temperature forces CO2 level, not the other way around. And over even longer spells, CO2 levels don’t correlate with temperature, but I think enough other processes were acting at those times to conceal the relationship.
=====================
erhmm….. Look, I get that you like your definition.
However, your definition of “lukewarmer” includes people who believe the earth’s surface will cool over the next century. I do not, and will not refer to these people as “lukewarmers”.
I have no idea why you think my applying to word to people who a) think the world will warm over the next century, but b) not as much as the Joe Romm’s world seem to suggest is not solidly footed.
As for the rest, you are now just discussing why you believe the world will not warm. This is a change of subject from what the term “lukewarming” is supposed to mean.
I take that despite telling me they are not positive, you have not computed them?
Instead of encouraging me to do the work to support your claim, why don’t you compute them over several interglacials before you make your claim? I don’t think the burden of supporting your claims falls on me. I am simply pointing out that a) you have not supported it and b) I doubt your claim is even true. If you compute them, maybe you can show my my doubt is misplaced.
I am not, btw, denying that there have been periods with similar rates of rise. I am just noting that, with respect to diagnosing the tendency toward warming, the more important thing to note is that each period ended with higher highs. That Monckton superimposes the trend lines on the three periods can confuse some into believing the similarity in the trends is the most important feature to note in the long term trend graphs– but it’s not. The important bit is the fact that the highs get higher each time.
Kim
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Now, clarify further: Do you mean the absolute concentration of CO2 does not correlate well with temperature? Or the rate of change of CO2 does not correlate well with temperature? Or something else?
Because I want to know what you mean before I engage this further.
Meanwhile, I’m off to the gym. To help me explain, why don’t you provide some links and graphs etc. That way, I’ll have a better notion of what, precisely, you are trying to claim.
Yes, I mean the absolute concentration of CO2, as well as we know it.
Frankly, your meaning of the term ‘lukewarmer’ renders it virtually meaningless. It’s just a guess about the future with patently inadequate knowledge. Using ‘lukewarmer’ to describe the effect of CO2 on atmosphere is at least a little more grounded.
Sorry, I don’t do links or graphs. I use words almost exclusively, and I know that they are poor devices. Nonetheless, you’ve understood me, and I you.
==================
Not very original, I know, but I suspect that Kim is a lukecooler.
Also, I think you are dead wrong about the meaning of those graphs. That the highs keep getting higher reflects the underlying trend since the end of the LIA. As I mentioned, no one knows what the cause of that trend is. That the rate of rise of temperature has three times been nearly the same is quite critical. Natural cycling had to do it the first two times and probably did it the last time. So where is the CO2 effect?
=========================
Hint: those three episodes of nearly identical temperature rise co-incide with the onset of the warming phase of the PDO.
Further hint: I think the trend since the end of the Little Ice Age has been a recovery from some diminished effect of the sun. If the Livingston and Penn findings purport a Grand Solar Minimum, and if GSMs cool the earth, then that trend since the end of the Little Ice Age is about to reverse.
============================================
I never take my coffee lukewarm, it’s either iced in the summer or hot in the winter… therefore I am an extremist
I know I’m way late on this (and not invited:-), but I always think of ‘Luke warmers’ as those that perhaps accept the consensus view on radiative effects of GHGs (what would that be, something like a doubling effect of 1.5 to 4 deg C?), but feel the feedback mechanisms are not as well understood and perhaps the consensus has slanted it a little more toward the ‘alarmist’ side than the evidence warrents.
SGeiger–
Your description captures my notions. But I don’t see how anyone who fits that description can also think the earth’s temperature is going to cool during the 21st century. Climate sensitivity to CO2 would have to be much lower than 1.5 C – 4C for that to be true or the sun would have to go into deep levels of hybernation never witnessed.
Kim–
No. Yours does. Are we going to play “is not”, “is so”?
So, have you computed the absolute correlation between CO2 and temperature since the Little Ice Age? Or do you have a link? (I guess you don’t do those?) Or a graph? (I guess you don’t do those?)
You made a claim. I actually doubt your claim is true. But, since you made it, why don’t you support it by telling us what CO2 data you use, what temp data you use, computing the correlation coefficient and providing it here in comments? Since you don’t do links, that would be a good way to support your claim.
I get it. You often predict cooling is imminent, but want to call yourself an “adjective-warmer”. And you think this makes sense than my saying the term “adjective-wamer” should apply to people who predict that in the multi-decade or century time frame, I expect warming due to GHG’s is sufficient to overbalance any natural cooling trends.
Lucia – maybe if you believe in the very low end of the doubling effect and a negative water vapor feedback and some other ‘natural variations’….then you could get a negative trend for a while(?) Still though, I see no basis for someone to ‘predict’ an overall decline over this century…even for the lukest of warmers it would be a very low probability event 😉
Well, if we presume a fairly steady concentration of CO2 until around 1950, and a rising trend since then, and if we note that temperature has followed the oceanic oscillations in regular excursions around a slowly rising trend since the end of the Little Ice Age, then the only time both have risen together(correlated) was in the last quarter of the last century.
Surely, S. Geiger, a careful reading of what I’ve written would show you that I predict a cooling century from a reversal of the rising trend since the end of the LIA. I predict this on the basis of the Livingston and Penn findings suggesting an imminent Grand Solar Minimum. I believe Grand Solar Minimums cool the Earth, but not necessarily from any great change in TSI, since there is isotopic evidence that TSI doesn’t vary enough to explain the climate variations of the last millenium. And yet, the climate varies.
What’s the mechanism? I have little proof, but it seems obvious that variations in albedo are capable of the feat, whether it is through cosmic rays modifying clouds, or through UV effects on the thermosphere changing circulation patterns or whatever. I also can’t get around Leif Svalgaard’s concerns about hypersensitivity of such a mechanism. But something has caused temperature and climate changes in the last millenium much greater than any effect we’ve been able to isolate to CO2 alone.
=========================================
Maybe Cool Hand Luke-Warmer
Re: S. Geiger (Sep 1 15:08),
The low end of doubling already accounts for what you think of water vapor feedback. So, you can’t add it in again.
Kim
This sentence demonstrates that you do not know how one computes the correlation between absolute levels of CO2 and temperature. Also, you are switching from the concept of “rising together” instead of “absolute”. I specifically asked you whether your claim relates to corelation between rate of change of CO2 and rate of change in temperature, or absolute CO2 and something. You said absolute CO2.
You are going to have to make up your mind on whether you mean your claim to say there is no positive correlation between:
absolute CO2 and absolute Temp
rate of change of CO2 and rate of change in Temp.
absolute CO2 and rate of change in Temp.
Rage of change in CO2 and absolute Temp.
The reason I am pressing you to actually compute the correlation and explain what you did, and provide links to your CO2 and Temperature records it is so you will be forced to decide which you mean. As it stand, your words only discussion is just changing from one idea to the other and I suspect you don’t even know when you are doing it. I’m not going to try to engage your claims and argument until it is possible to tease out what you actually mean to claim and argue from the words you post.
Currently, it is not possible to do so.
Correlation has a very specific mathematical meaning. It’s easy to compute. I encourage you to do so and tell us the metric you used.
I’m also very sorry to point out, lucia, that the descriptions of S. Geiger which fit your notions correspond better to my meaning of ‘lukewarmer’ than they do yours.
===============================
Well lucia, I think you’ve lost me. It seems clear to me that my words which you replicate in your last post indicate that I’m talking about absolute CO2 level and absolute temperature level. There is no rate of change about it.
=============
I’m also very sorry to point out, lucia, that the descriptions of S. Geiger which fit your notions correspond better to my meaning of ‘lukewarmer’ than they do yours.
.
you are wrong kim.
.
which natural effect would case cooling, when doubling causes an INCREASE of 1.5 to 4 deg C?
.
please look at the Loehle reconstruction and tell us, which century saw a drop of 1.5°C!!!
.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig3.JPG
.
ps: it is rather obvious that you simply do not know what you are talking about.
Sod @ 5:01 PM.
I’ll let lucia and S. Geiger determine which meaning is closer, thank you.
You’ve erected strawmen for me to blow upon. First, I dispute your figure for the temperature effect of doubling. I think it is much smaller. Second, the temperature excursions from natural cycles act over longer than a century, often.
But, I’m glad to see you recognize the value in the Loehle Reconstruction enough to refer the readers to it.
===================
Holy cow. One slight change in the angle of the planet and we get seasons-changing the climate for months on end and you can’t wrap your head around anything other then C02 driving temperature? The Jet Stream stalls and Russia becomes Southern California and Southern California has no summer. UP to and sometimes over 10 DEGREES below normal for this time of year we had. Water temp-winter like conditions!
ONE MILLION YEARS 20 or more ice advances AND retreats and C02 at the same level of concentration.
Correlation my eye. The trend of temperature IN FRACTIONS OF JUST ONE DEGREE you see might just be NOTHING on a planet that is billions of years old and you focus on it with your human mind and lifespan. And that trend you see is only there because you have FAITH in the temperature data.
Yeah sod.
like Robert knows what he is talking about ? Check the news about the Discovery Channel offices. Who was it he said was going to go crazy and start terrorizing people?
Hey it was a beautiful day today otherwise! 🙂
j ferguson (Comment#51531)
September 1st, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Maybe Cool Hand Luke-Warmer
… or Luke Sky-Warmer
Kim–
Oh? I disagree. But, since you are making this claim, it would be nice if you could support it. So, please explain why you think this and, since you think you fit the definition of lukewarmer, while doing explaining how your view fits, tell us
a) The level of climate sensitivity to CO2 you believe is plausible
b) How that your estimate of climate sensitivity fits with the consensus view
c) How you square this with predicting cooling, when clearly, the consensus is that sensitivities below the lowest bound in the consensus range are not consistent with anticipating cooling over the next century.
When doing (c) please provide numbers; don’t just wave around names of people who you think we could hunt down to figure out your argument.
YOu now ask:
In fact, the notion of “rising together” implies you are checking whether the rate of change share the same sign. You are not comparing absolute levels of CO2 to absolute levels of temperature. And this is what you said:
I think I said that I suspect you don’t realize you are changing from rates of change to absolute and back. But you don’t. This is where you disciplining yourself to do a few calculations would help you out.
Okay, wait, isn’t Lucas and Lucia the same name with the gender thing… and Luke is short for Lucas… so there ya go… Luke Warmer… it’s like a Davinci code conspiracy!!!
Kim
In otherwords, you do not, in anyway, fit S. Geiger’s definition of lukewarmer, not withstanding that you think his definition matches yours and you already told us you think you fit the definition.
What we see is that one of the reasons you think natural cycles will cause sufficient warming to overcome any warming due to CO2 is that you think the temperature effect of doubling is much smaller than in the IPCC report. In otherwords, you predict cooling because you are not a lukewarmer by S. Geiger’s definition.
lucia, please read S. Geiger’s descriptions at 2:23 PM again. He is talking about the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere and not about predictions for temperature at the end of the century. Please don’t put words in my mouth; I’ve not said S. Geiger’s description match my belief, I said that they correspond better to my meaning of ‘lukewarmer’ than it does to yours. This seems obvious to me.
I suspect the sensitivity of climate to doubled CO2 is about what Arrhenius calculated, with corrections, about a century ago, that is around a single degree Centigrade. But what the great analog computer, our earth’s heat engine, does with the extra CO2 all depends on feedbacks, and we don’t know what those are, nor can anyone predict with any certainty what they will be. So I guess I would call the consensus view merely a rough guess. I’d also mention that recent observational science is indicating a small sensitivity.
No, you and others repeatedly miss my point. I don’t predict cooling on the basis of only a small effect of CO2. If I believe that CO2 has a small warming effect, which I do, and agreed that the unknown cause of the underlying rising trend persists, then I would predict warming at the end of the century. But I don’t believe that underlying rising trend will persist. I believe the coming Eddy Minimum will overcome the effects of CO2 and cool the globe for the next century.
You may have a point about me confusing rate of change and absolute values. I do the correlations in my head, and I’m simply waiting for one of the more numerate observers who understands my purely literate point to give you the numbers you seek. Or, if you’re so sure I am wrong, you could work the numbers yourself.
==============================
I thought Arrhenius (1906 revision) called for 1.6 C in warming for a doubling and a 0.5C additional due to feedbacks/forcings, or just slop. For a 2.1C total…
“Check the news about the Discovery Channel offices. Who was it he said was going to go crazy and start terrorizing people?”
liza,
Lukewarmers, coolers, and crazed doomsday enviro-hostage takers have something in common. They all pretend they know stuff about “the earth’s climate” (about which way the line squiggles) that they don’t know.
And the charade continues.
Andrew
Kim–
You reread s. Geiger again. It begins with:
You specifically reject that range in your response to sod, saying radiative effects are “much” smaller–
Yet think your beliefs somehow mean you fit Geiger’s definition. That’s nonsense. Your definition of lukewarmer, which you think includes you, and which you think includes thinking sensitivity is — to use your word– much lower than the range in the IPCC report utterly contradicts the description Geiger gave.
BTW: Explaining why you believe what you believe is fine. But that explanation does not somehow, magically turn that belief into a “lukewarm” one. You are a cooler.
Kim– In fact, you don’t do the correlations at all. This isn’t art– you can’t just describe what graphs make you feel like. You either calculate a correlation coefficient or you don’t. Since you will not clarify which metrics you think have no correlation, it is not possible for a more numerate person to run the numbers. If you would pick a metric (rate of change, absolute, range of years) anyone could run the numbers.
Presumably, if you think you are right, you could also work the numbers you need to support your claim. Meanwhile, I mostly don’t know which things you think don’t correlate with what. Some of the groups you might mean don’t correlate– and the theory of how they should correlate does not require them to do so. Other groups certainly do correlate. But, until you figure out which X you think does not correlate with “Y”, I can’t possibly tell you which mistake you are making. It may be conceptual or it may be computational (or more likely, mis-guessing what numerical value you would get if you bother to compute. )
Meh, S. Geiger is pretty clearly talking about the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere and not about century ending climate predictions, which is what your definition of ‘lukewarmer’ is all about. This is clear to me and apparently not to you.
I think your assessment of my inadequacies is keeping you from exploring a relationship between CO2 and temperatures that is easily recoverable from the temperature and CO2 record. I believe the insights from such an exploration would be useful and revelatory for you.
=======================
Heh, it seems I’m a lukewarmer by my definition of ‘lukewarmer’ and a cooler by your definition of ‘lukewarmer’. So I’m back to being a lukewarming cooler. I’m happy with that, but it’s just where I started hours ago.
=============================
So interesting…I thought the low end of doubling sensitivity (sans feedbacks) was ~ 1.5 ish….I now read (wiki) that its closer to 1.0 C / doubling. So, I guess this would only add to the uh, lukiness of my argument. A luker could conceivable take the no feedback doubling number of 1.0 C, assume we’ve marched a ways toward that already, throw in a pinch of natural variability (something of the multi-decadal variety), and wah la, its a slight negative trend for the next century. Of course, again, this takes a bit of luck with the (yet to be objectively identified) natural variations.
But, really, since there was some additional discussion about my POV, I kind of see the luke warmer as believing in the lower end of the doubling effect range, thinking there is a fair amount of hype (and maybe confirmation bias) in some aspects of AGW science, and thinking Gavin and Tamino are mean spirited twits 😉
One last try. I believe that CO2 levels and temperatures only correlate well during the last quarter of the last century in a time period since the end of the Little Ice Age. I suspect that correlation will be so whether you look at absolutes or at rates of change.
lucia, I have vast respect for your talents and am mildly distressed that you dispute my points which seem simple and obvious to me.
===================================
S. Geiger–
I’m not sure where you are finding 1.0C as any sort of consensus, or scientifically held opinion for a possible climate sensitivity.
Wikipedia says this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
So, “lukewarm” is relative to that range and 1.0 C is well outside it.
This discussion seems to be confusing a climate sensitivity of 1.0 C for CO2 doubling and the actual projected temperature change which is a different number. So, the logic doesn’t apply.
Anyway, believing in a climate sensitivity of 1.0C is getting to the range where it is difficult to be a lukewarmer. Being 0.5C below the IPCC range, it might conceivably represent the lowest climate sensitivity one believes is likely while not being a cooler. If you think it’s lower, you are a “not warmer”. (You may not be a cooler. But if you think natural variations will result in cooling, you are a cooler.)
More plausibly a lukewarmer believes the sensitivity is probably inside the IPCC range, but on the lower end. It is very, very, very difficult to square projected cooling with a climate sensitivity of 2.0 C. It’s just difficult (with out the very’s) for a climate sensitivity of 1.5C.
Kim–
Last try:
A) tell us your temperature and CO2 series since the little ice age. Until you do, I do not believe you know the correlation of anything at all. I suspect if we ran the whole series and knew what your “X” and “Y” are actually supposed to be, we might discover you are wrong. But you are insufficiently clear to be either write or wrong. Like many politicians, no one reading what you say can be certain what you are claiming.
Also: FWIW, if you understand the theory explaining how GHG’s warm the surface and also understand how correlations are computed, you should also recognize that you can only find a detectable correlation during the period when CO2 varied. CO2 didn’t vary much before 1950, so of course you don’t see a strong correlation that pops out over the effect of other forcings (like volcanic and solar) prior to 1950.
If you compute a few correlations of noisy data where “X” is known to cause “Y”, but your data set does not vary the “causal” (i.e. X) factor, you will never get any correlation even if X is a very strong effect on Y. For example: If you want to discover the correlation between smoking and emphazima, and your test includes thousands of people all of whom smoke exactly the same number of cigarettes a day, you won’t find any correlation between smoking and the number of cigarettes smoked each day. To get positive correlation, you need a population of people who smoke different number of cigarettes a day. To stick up over noise, you want to make the range of number of cigarettes a day as large as possible.
Even if you bothered to compute the correlation (which you haven’t, you just “suspect” the values match what you think would support your argument) and bothered to get data (which you haven’t) finding no correlation in temperature trends and CO2 prior to 1950 is nearly meaningless because CO2 barely varied. The only data that can be usefully used to show the correlation is the data set that you admit shows a correlation– the data after 1950.
No, I think the correlation is only there from around 1975 to 2000, and not from 1950-1975 and from 2000-2010. And it is useful that there is no correlation before 1950 because that shows that temperature can rise and fall without the effect from CO2.
======================================
Kim–
Once again: Please tell us the series you use. Please tells us if you mean absolute CO2 vs absolute T or trends or whatever.
No one disputes it can rise and fall without CO2. The fact that it does rise and fall without CO2 is anticipated based on radiative physics. So, this doesn’t in anyway contradict the fact that CO2 is a cause.
Going back to the tobacco emphysema example: Showing some non-smokers get emphysema doesn’t clear tobacco. It tells us very little about the cause-effect relationship between emphysema and smoking tobacco. You need data over a range of tobacco use. Similarly, showing that temperature can vary without CO2 tells us nothing about how much temperature variation is caused by CO2.
And again, you are posing your discussion of ‘lukewarming’ within the concept of climate sensitivity to CO2 and not to predictions of century ending temperatures.
========================
Well, people used to dispute that temperature couldn’t rise or fall without the effect of CO2. So show me that the temperature rise from around 1975-2000, at the same rate as two other periods in the last century and a half, was due to CO2 and not to natural cycling.
=================================
Now that we have this Lee thing, the definition of a warmer or warmista will be someone who straps explosives to themselves and takes hostages… so I guess a “lukewarmer” will be someone who runs around mooning gas station owners.
And again, you are posing your discussion of ‘lukewarming’ within the concept of climate sensitivity to CO2 and not to predictions of century ending temperatures.
.
you seriously overestimate natural variability. if we accept CO2 sensitivity within a reasonable range (like the IPCC one), and we know about other anthropogenic effects that also act as positive forcings, we come to a straight conclusion: natural variability within the usual range will not enforce cooling.
.
here is the Loehle graph again:
.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig3.JPG
.
it kills your theory, kim!
You can pick the series; I’ve confidence the correlation or lack thereof will show in any series. And I’ve already said I suspect the correlations will hold whether you use absolutes or rates of change.
==========================
Sod, you are simply not paying attention. I’ve said several times that my prediction of 21st Century global cooling depends upon the sun sending us into another Little Ice Age.
=======================
Now that we have this Lee thing, the definition of a warmer or warmista will be someone who straps explosives to themselves and takes hostages…
.
ah, the world according to Mike and kim!
.
“lukewarmer” is a massive range between 6°C for CO2 doubling and cooling to ice age minimums within the next decade.
.
while all “warmists” (including the majority of scientists) are violent terrorists just waiting to blow something up.
.
a brave new world!
Sod, you are simply not paying attention. I’ve said several times that my prediction of 21st Century global cooling depends upon the sun sending us into another Little Ice Age.
.
my attention is fine. the Loehle graph simply does NOT show a decrease by anything even close to 1°C per century. and you need 2°C to get cooling over the next century!
.
it did NOT happen.
gee sod, I’m setting up a joke and you take it seriously… I’m thinking it’s time you call your connection and tell him to quit selling you that cheap commercail stuff
OK, Sod, my prediction depends upon the sun sending us into a Little Ice Age and on low sensitivity of climate to CO2.
Alright MikeC, so would a ‘lukewarming cooler’ be someone who runs around mooning Luna?
===========================
… or luning moona (its all an experiment on the independent variability of sanity)
Lucia – My 1.0 deg C/doubling was a shot at what the pure radiative effect of the added CO2 was w/out feedbacks. It was from the Wiki article on climate sensitivity: “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.”
I’m not claiming any expertise, so I could be incorrectly interpreting how these numbers are used, but it would seem to me that if you then tack on feedbacks (water, ice/albedo, cloud, lapse rate, etc), then perhaps there is enough uncertainty in those ‘parts’ that the resultant feedback could be a negative number….so the overall atmospheric effect of doubling CO2 could actually be 1.0 + (neg number), or somewhere between 0 and 1 degC/doubling (?). (or is it physically impossible for this total feedback value to be less than zero…I’m kind of grappling with this idea 😉
kim
So? I use multiple bits of information. The range of sensitivity you believe in is outside the lukewarming range. This makes you a “not-lukewarmer”.
You also predict cooling over the 21st century. This makes you a cooler, and I do not describe anyone as any sort of warmer if they are a cooler. Period. In the earlier part of the conversation, I was discussing your claim to be a lukewarmer while also predicting cooling. So, in that context, I pointed out that in my usage, a person who is a cooler cannot be a lukewarmer. This alone means I will never call you a lukewarmer. Period.
I did not mean this to exclude the climate sensitivity issue, nor did I mean this to describe the full definition. But now that you have mentioned that you think climate sensitivity is much below the consensus range, that shows that you are not a lukewarmer based on your estimate of climate sensitivity.
It is only by your deciding that uber-uber low, near zero climate sensitivities fit “lukewarmer”, ignoring the logical-lunancy of someone being both a warmer and a cooler at the same time, and insisting that your predicting cooling is not inconsistent with being a warrmer that lets you think people might call you a lukewarmer. You may call yourself whatever you like. I don’t, and won’t call you any sort of warmer. If you ask me the definition, I will say that people like you don’t fit the one I recognize.
==========================
No Kim. I’m not going to guess what your claim is and then do any math. Either you clarify your claims or not. Otherwise, I’m just going to say that I “suspect” that you don’t have any idea what you are claiming, want to support your arguments with ‘convenient’ facts whose facts you have done absolutely nothing to test for truth, which you describe ambiguously so no one can really even do the work to determine if they are true, and then you complain if others doubt these “facts” are true.
Clarify your argument. Clarify which facts you think are true. After that, maybe I will consider doing some arithmetic to figure out whether the fact you claim is true is true. In the meanwhile, I’m not going to try to tease out what the supposed “fact” is from your inconsistent language usage. If you need someone else to do the math– describe your fact to them, give them excel and ask them to get the data and compute a correlation. Presumably, you know someone who can do this.
“Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.â€
Wiki means “on Fantasy Earth, this is what we would expect.”
On Fantasy Earth all the calculations are easy and undisputed and everyone has the same opinion and Big Al is a scientist.
Andrew
So, one can admit a small warming influence from CO2 and not be called a ‘lukewarmer’?
Well, as I said before, I think you are missing out by not exploring the correlations between CO2 and temperature during the period from 1950 until now.
Lastly, I’d encourage you to spend a little thought on the fact, known to me from Phil Jones’ interview with Roger Harrabin, that three times in the last century and a half temperature has risen at the same rate, and only one of those was with a rising CO2 level. Odd that each of those times co-incide with the onset of the warming phase of the PDO, isn’t it?
===========================
And interstingly, wiki uses the phrase “which is easy to calculate and is undisputed”.
I didn’t know climate math was so obvious. I mean, everyone should believe in it, I guess, because it’s of such quality. 😉
Andrew
I want to try and help Kim out here. I am very suspicious of whatever effect co2 may have because some scientists actually made a fake graph, in order to rewrite history. I really do not understand what else you need, Lucia. Also, you realize that all of these people are talking about temperatures rising, despite the fact the atmospheric co2 content is below earth’s historical average. There is no evidence that 590ppm or whatever Sod and his team says is the tipping point, is in fact the tipping point. It is a guess. What we do know is that the earth had over 7,000ppm and now….390ppm. Additionally, there is no evidence that we are adding co2 emissions at an alarming rate. I contend co2 was being added at a much more rapid rate during the time of the dinosaurs. Lucia, for the millionth time, please post the MWP graph with the Mann graph below it. I understand you probably have already done this before but I think many people have not seen the comparison.
I am posting this link myself because it makes it very simple to see why global warming is a hoax.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/ipcc-mwp-hockey-stick-globalwarming-graph-wuwt.jpg%3Fw%3D640&imgrefurl=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/15/hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated-mcintyre-gets-props/&usg=__Ym1nNX0tbBHKuIjFeJVEA-wgVGg=&h=307&w=419&sz=25&hl=en&start=2&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=-Gu5xtJVuOYqHM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmwp%2Bgraph%2Bcompared%2Bto%2Bmann%2Bgraph%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1R2ADSA_enUS336%26tbs%3Disch:1
How can anyone deny that Mann tried to change the historical temperature record? You show that to a teacher or an ordinary person and they are going to think deceit was involved.
Correlation is not necessarily causation.
MACKEY, R., 2007. Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50 (Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium), 955 – 968. Gold Coast, Australia, ISSN 0749.0208
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
There you go Kim. Lot’s of sun stuff and references and it blasts the IPCC for ignoring it all.
sod, get a grip on reality. You and Robert claim up thread with an arrogant level of certainty that terrorism from non believers in Global Warming hypothesis and from tea party members is eminent and I show you that is not the truth. A man with guns and bombs strapped to his body took hostages and is dead now because he was influenced by Al Gore (and dare I say, people like you) and this is documented in his own words on the internet, in police reports and confirmation from his family.
Andrew_KY (Comment#51544) September 1st, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Hi Andrew!
I would say : The world may be warm now but it will be cold again. And that would be the truth! I can’t believe anyone can get so worked up over one degree. Nobody can even feel a change of one degree. The temperature here on the coast measures a 1 degree increase per mile moving away from the beach and visa versa. You can’t feel a one degree change walking from room to room. “Global Average Temperature” is a number constructed in a computer.. And no one here can tell us what that number is supposed to be naturally or otherwise and for how long. Sheesh; I bet the folks during the Little Ice Age probably wanted warmer temperatures for their children and grandchildren in their prayers. Now the fanatics shout we should worry about our grandchildren and great grandchildren because of warm. They are dismissing the grandparents that lived in the LIA! It only takes a generation or two to be forgotten really…humans are silly! 🙂
Sod, I am eagerly awaiting your spin story on how the graphs I used are misleading, disingenuous, wrong, etc. Please don’t even start with the graph values. I realize the vertical numbers are different in both graphs, does not matter because the overall curves are correct. It was warmer in the medieval period than today and that is all that counts.
“…global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed”
Yes, Global Warming math is of SUCH quality that anybody who is somebody will believe in it. Try it, it’s much better than other complicated and questionable calculations. 😉
Andrew
Re: S. Geiger (Sep 2 07:02),
Ok. But lukewarming is a descriptive term. Based on my memory the original definition as absolutely not relative to “no feedbacks”. The term defined relative to the “scientific consensus” (IPCC) range for climate sensitivity; that range is based on the “scientific consensus” (i.e. IPCC) range for feedbacks. Even if someone advances an argument for zero feedback, even if the argument sounds plausible to you, or kim, or someone else, and even if it ultimately turns out to be true, zero feedback is not inside the current “scientific consensus” range.
That is to say: The scientific consensus for climate sensitivity is what it is: 2-4.5 C for doubling of CO2 with very unlikely to be below 1.5C. The scientific consensus may turn out to be wrong, but that doesn’t change what the scientific consensus currently is.
Because “lukewarmer” is defined relative to the current scientific consensus for the probable range of climate sensitivity, lukewarmers, by definition, think feedbacks are in the low but not zero range of the consensus. So, you can’t use the no-feedback value as the lower end of “consensus” and then say lukewarmers believe in an even lower value than that value. People who believe that are generally either “not-warmers” or “coolers”.
So, I agree with your original definition, which did not include 1.0C, but I disagree with any modification that decides 1C somehow falls in the “consensus” range that lets us define lukewarmers into coolers. The fact is: 1C is not in the consensus range for warming due to doubling of CO2.
There is uncertainty in these parts, but you are moving away from the question of “what is the definition of lukewarmer” and onto a question of “what do the physics tell us we should believe?”
There are two discussions going on in comments (because kim keeps switching from explaining why she things she is lukewamer to why she thinks her belief in cooling is plausible).
The two discussions are:
1) What constitutes a lukewarmer: This is a definition, period.
2) What is a reasonable range to of climate sensitivity to believe in. This has to do with physics and stands apart from the definition of terms like “lukewarmer”.
Lukewarmers are defined as those who believe the climate sensitivity is in, or at least near, the lower range held by the “consensus”. In contrast, hell-fire and brimstone warmers think it’s in, or at least near, the upper range. Or, failing that, only discuss the upper range or constantly focus on the danger of the upper range. Because it is practically impossible to square predicted cooling with a range of climate sensitivity in or even near the IPCC scientific consensus range, these people anticipate warming during the 21st century. (So, when I read someone predicting cooling, I am pretty durn sure they are not a warmer, luke or otherwise. They are a cooler.)
Coolers think climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 is definitely below and possibly well below the scientific consensus range. Specifically, they think it probably below 1.5C, which the scientific consensus thinks unlikely. Some may think the climate sensitivity to CO2 is 0 or effectively zero. (I don’t thin there are many coolers who think CO2 actually cools.) Coolers often predict cooling because they believe climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 (or green house gases) is so low that natural factors overwhelm the effect of CO2 and they happen to think the sun will go into a cooling phase. This is the class of cooler kim falls in.
The paragraph above discusses only definitions of Lukewarmer, hell-fire and brimstone warmer, and cooler: i.e. (1). You don’t need to understand any physics to recognize which bin someone falls in because the definition tells us nothing about which group is right, or which groups view better aligns with the physics. It only distinguishes how much warming people expect (for whatever reason.) Kim is a cooler. I am a lukewarmer. (Of course, this is based on my useage; kim has a different one, which I find mysterious.)
Now turning to (2): Explanations about why one believes a particular level of warming are usually about physics. Arguments about physics– or why one predicts cooling, slow warming, or rapid hell-fire and brimstone warming might tell us whether cooling, lukewarming or hell-fire and brimstone warming are better supported by physics. That is: the suggest which group might be correct. But they don’t define which view corresponds to “cooler”, “lukewarming”, “warming” or “hell fire and brimstone warming”.
At least, that’s how I see it.
I got 447,000 hits by googling “Global warming causes global cooling”.
Pigeonhole. A specific, often oversimplified category.
How petty. Please don’t do that to me. I don’t fit!
Thank you very much.
lucia @ 7:35.
Ah, this is quite elegant. I really can’t disagree with you, except on the minor and immaterial point of the precise definition of ‘lukewarmer, a definition you have honed through this discussion. I simply disagree with your definition.
Now, about those correlations.
=======================
Hi liza! 🙂
Andrew
MikeC: to be fair, sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish the jokes from the “serious” comments here. Illustration:
.
“How can anyone deny that Mann tried to change the historical temperature record? You show that to a teacher or an ordinary person and they are going to think deceit was involved.”
.
Actually I suspect that they would ask you why you are comparing a global reconstruction with a European reconstruction (it’s written on it, “Europe”). But most probably I just missed the joke 🙂
Er, in my post above I was quoting a comment by shooshmon, not by MikeC!
So, Toto? Compare Mann’s graph with Loehle and McCulloch’s global reconstruction, which Sod has recently touted here.
=========================
S Geiger,
It’s a political spectrum. Think of it as right and left…
People on the left are likely to think that warming is anthropogenic, that the observations are robust, that the calculations and the models are accurate and that a warming has many negative / dangerous aspects. They believe that it is all driven by greed.
On the other side of the spectrum (the right), people think that any warming is natural, that the observations of warming are exaggerated, that the calculations and models are inaccurate and that warming is good for the human condition.
Lukewarmers are in between on many of those aspects.
Kim–
I know you disagree with my definition.
Yes. You made a vague claim about something having to do with CO2 not correlating with something having to do with Temperaure over some period of time, which seems to change.
I’ve told you I’m not sure what your precise claim is, and that you haven’t computed an correlations. That the counter argument would depend on the claim — but I sort of doubt that whatever it is you claim about whatever correlation will turn out to be true. (Or, if it’s true, I think it will likely be irrelevant to diagnosing anything about CO2.)
Feel free to a) define what you are making the claim about, b) find metrics, c) check your claim about what’s correlated with what by computing the correlation and d) connect that to some claim or another about climate sensitivity and warming. Then get back to us.
Challenging me to figure all this out just because– based on your lack of picking metrics or computing any correlation– I doubt your claim about correlation or anything will be true… well… That doesn’t really motivate me to do a lot of work to figure out what your amorphous claim might actually be or do any work hunt around to figure out if any possible interpretation of something you “suspect” might be true. You firm up what you claim and learn to compute a correlation or don’t. Until you do, I doubt your “suspicions” about the outcome of some vague unspecified computation might be will turn out to be true. If you care about that, you do the work to convince me. I do not care enough about whether or not your vague “suspicions” of the non-correlation between “You don’t know” and “You wont’ say” to do one iota of work to solidify your pondering.
It’s simple, lucia; I’ve made an unsupported claim, that CO2 and temperature only correlate well in the last quarter of the last century. You’ve made an unsupported counterclaim, that I’m wrong. So we’re even and stymied.
What we have done is stimulate curiosity about the correlations and that is very useful. I’m sorry to have manipulated you in this fashion, but it is my modus, to stimulate curiosity rather than attempt to persuade. Somebody, somewhere, is going to explore the correlation, and that is a good.
==============
No. We aren’t even. I suspect you are either a) wrong or b) your claim is irrelevant to any diagnosis about anything having to do with CO2 affecting Temperature. But more over, I can’t do any calculation to check because you have stated your claim so vaguely as to make it impossible to check.
You can either support your claim, or not. Meanwhile, it is an unsupported claim. You can go around and continue to make it, spout it as a “fact” which you admit you have never check. Or not. I’m not stymied: I just don’t care.
I disagree. As far as I can tell, no one’s curiosity has been simulated. Mine certainly isn’t.Nothing useful has been done.
A less charitable to you sperson might say modus is to make bald, unsupported, never checked by anyone, likely-as-not incorrect claims, and string together complex arguments based on the truth of these claims. Every now and then, someone will converse with you and you tell yourself you have simulated curiosity and that is good.
If they do, it probably won’t be owing to this conversation. Moreover, since no one knows what you think is not correlated with what, it’s likely no one could be stimulated to do anything based on this conversations. (Though, it may be that you will convince yourself that someone who later computes some correlation involving CO2 and T will have done so based on this correlation. But.. probably not.)
toto, … or maybe it really is an experiment on the independent variability of sanity (deep joke)
Lucia, Her claim about no correlation between T and CO2 except in the last quarter of the 20th century is correct. But you could have argued back that there is correlation when weather noise and short term climate variations are subtracted and the long term trend is observed. (notta joke)
Well, I would insist that I’ve been fairly specific about my claim. From the end of the Little Ice Age to the present, CO2 levels and temperatures, either by absolute levels or by rate of change, and with whatever CO2 and temperature series you choose, have had poor correlation except during the last quarter of the last century.
=================================
kim, what date do you fix to the end of the LIA?
Thanks, MikeC. I know I’m not putting out anything revolutionary here.
==================
The attribution of late 20th Century warming to CO2 is the grandest example yet of the ‘Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc’ logical fallacy.
========================
MikeC, @ 8:51 AM.
I don’t have one. Perhaps I mean since the depths of the LIA. It doesn’t much matter because lucia has agreed that pre-1950 there is poor correlation.
=====================
MikeC–
Could you clarify what her claim actually is? Is it absolute CO2? Rates? She keeps changing. If she provided a link, I might know what the claim is.
She has said absolute CO2. Absolute CO2 is higher in the second half of the century, and lower in the first. Absolute temperature is higher in the second half. It suspect it is very unlikely the correlation of these two things is not positive. This can be tested if you or she pick a metric.
If you (or she) pick a metric, then we can all compute whether or not the absolute CO2 and absolute T are correlated based on measurements from 1950-now. She refuses to pick a metric. So, I’m not going to pick one for her. You pick one, compute the correlation between absolute CO2 and Temperature anomaly, not trend, using 1950-now, and we can see what the number is.
Why would I argue this? When I asked her– above– absolute CO2, not trends. So, why would I discuss correlations in trends rather than absolutes?
The biggest problem with her claim is it’s utter ambiguity.
I’m not going to post counter arguments to every possible thing one might read into the vague claims kim makes, and I’m not going to counter argue the zillions of possible things it might mean. Either she makes a specific claim or not.
What I said I doubt was said at a time when I thought she was making a claim about absolute CO2 vs Temperature since the little ice age. If you can get good thermometer data on that and compute the correlation, I’d welcome it. We can test whose “guess” is right. Of course, she keeps switching. If you get other data and check other claims– but of other ones, I have not necessarily expressed specific doubt. I have said she is switching willy-nilly and I’m not going to try to do a computation to test her claim when a) she keeps switching and b) I can’t even tell what the claim is.
An even better argument she could have made is that albedo masked the correlation from 1950-1975. That one doesn’t cover the last decade, however.
=======================
kim
No. You are misunderstanding me. I said we don’t expect a strong correlation that pops out over noise during periods when CO2 is not rising. I did not say there actually is a poor correlation– I don’t know. I haven’t computed it.
For all I know, it turned out to be strong enough to detect the correlation between absolute CO2 vs T if you use 1900-now data or even mythical “since the little ice age” data.
What I wish to communicate is that demonstrating poor correlation between CO2 vs T would tell us nothing. (I’ve also said demonstrating a poor correlation between the co-instantaneous rate of change in CO2 vs the rate of change in T would tell us even less.)
ROFL Lucia, You would love for her to use the absolute rates of CO2 because that leaves her open to the whole logarithmic thing since there is less temperature response as CO2 increases.
Okay, so let’s start by defining a few things… End of LIA is 1850… use the HadCRU global for temps and I think just about any dataset for CO2 (provided that it is temperature response and not absolute CO2 values)… can we agree on that or is this a catfight? (notta joke with a bit of chauvinistic smirking at the end… Lucia’s catwoman pic is floating around)
kim,
“An even better argument she could have made is that albedo masked the correlation from 1950-1975. That one doesn’t cover the last decade, however.”
… nah, then she would have to show how changes in ENSO cause changes in albedo… ENSO from 1950 to 1975 seems to have had a large effect on mid-20th century cooling
Kim–
Either ? Or? Both?
Make A the “absolute levels” version and “B” the rate of change”, is your claim:
* A is true or B is true but not both. (Exclusive or.)
* A is true or B is true or both may be true. (Inclusive or or.)
When I said I doubted , you hadn’t expanded to either/or, had told me you specifically meant the “absolute” issue (i.e. A) and were discussing the little ice age. Later you switched to supporting your argument by discussing trends (i.e. B) and switching from “the little ice age” to “since the 50s”. Then you switch to saying your claim is either/or etc.
I haven’t doubted every possible correction to what appeared to be your earlier claim, but I have to tell you… it looks like you just throw out claims and then modify until you have added sufficient numbers of “or” that some computation of something might show you aren’t wrong. (But then, that’s because your “either/or” group encompasses so much that the observation doesn’t mean much. It’s almost like claiming “I think something about temperature and CO2 could be shown! Don’t press me to say what!”
Of course no one can doubt the truth of your expanded claim. But your initial one could perfectly well be utterly wrong.
I know I have posted this before:
http://comp.uark.edu/~jgeabana/gwfig1ab2.png
That’s the entire HadCRUt record, so from 1850 on.
“it looks like you just throw out claims and then modify until you have added sufficient numbers of “or†that some computation of something might show you aren’t wrong.”
That’s a great description of GCMs and statistical temperature graphs of “global average temperature” -they are both proof AGW is real don’t you know. 😉
lucia (Comment#51601)
The way I read it she is saying that regardless of the data set you use, they do not show correlation except in the last quarter of the 20th century which is clearly 1975 to 2000.
“it looks like you just throw out claims and then modify until you have added sufficient numbers of “or†that some computation of something might show you aren’t wrong.â€
That’s a great description of GCMs and statistical temperature graphs of “global average temperature†-they are both proof AGW is real don’t you know.
liza, you go girl. 😉
Andrew
Mike @ 9:19
Yes, I agree that the cooling from 1950 to 1975 was the PDO in its cooling phase, but the argument has been made that the albedo from unscrubbed smokestacks caused the cooling.
lucia @ 9:20. I choose ‘both may be true’.
=======================
kim, I would disagree that mid-20th century cooling comes from them smokestacks because optical depth measurements do not support such a claim
kim–
It seems Julio is willing to get numbers, and create graphs. So what do you say to this graph which shows a distinct correlation between CO2 and Temperature since 1850– well before 1950:
MikeC–
The graph shows the claim of no-correlation is simply wrong.
Well, lucia, I only switched from the LIA to 1950 because you pointed out that CO2 level was supposedly steady before that. Do it either way; you’ll still only find the correlation during 1975-2000.
===============================
Re: kim (Comment#51610)
Um, no. See the figure above.
It is not the tightest correlation in the world (R-squared = 0.76), nor should one expect it to be, of course. There are lots of “natural variability” and other forcings that sometimes go up and sometimes go down. But you can see what they all amount to: excursions of not more than about +/- 0.3 C around the regression line.
Lucia, Julio, I’d like to see where that graph came from and what went into it… just a point of information
lucia @ 9:44 AM
Where’s the temperature rise from 1850-1950 while CO2 level was supposedly at a steady state?
===================
kim–
No. The first introduction of the 1950 limitation is you here:
Please see Julio’s graph:
There is a positive correlation over a data set with data over a long time frame. If you get something else with your preferred data set, let us know.
Kim– Please provide your temperature record and CO2 record when you ask quantitative questions about their relationship. Ok?
Lucia, do you know what Julio’s graph is and what went into it, can we get that information please?
MikeC–
Nope. But, based on Julio’s history and email address, I suspect he will return and answer your question.
In any case, if you or kim doubt that graph, you can find your own CO2 and T data, enter it into excel plot log CO2 vs. Temp, and read off the correlation coefficient.
lucia, lucia, lucia; you’ve claimed I switched around from ‘end of the LIA to 1950 without reason, and I’ve claimed I only did it because I agreed with you that we’d not likely get much information before 1950. As I said, either way should show you the poor correlation except during 1975-2000.
========================
“MikeC (Comment#51615)
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:05 am
Lucia, do you know what Julio’s graph is and what went into it, can we get that information please?”
MikeC,
My graph can beat your graph with one axis bar tied behind it’s back! 😛
Andrew
Wait a minute Lucia, you’re arguing a point and don’t even know what you’re arguing about?
Confirmation bias strikes deep. Into your heart it will creep.
====================
And your claim that you switched for this reason appears to be untrue because you switched to 1950 on September 1st, 2010 at 4:20 pm, which is before I said anything about what we might discover if there happened to be no correlation prior to 1950. I engaged your choice of 1950 on September 2nd, 2010 at 5:46 am
Prefacing your response with “lucia, lucia, lucia” does not magically change the facts. Otherwise, your comments include all sorts of date hurled around willy-nilly. The last quarter of the century, 1950, since the LIA etc.
Julio has posted a graph showing a strong correlation between CO2 and Temperature since 1850. He’s been asked to give the source– and I suspect he will. As it stands, his graphs shows there is a strong correlation based on absolute T and CO2 over the full record.
Everyone who understands correlation nows his graph is the way to illustrate it. Everyone know understand correlation knows that subdividing into smaller and smaller divisions (so as to throw out data and reduce the span of CO2) give the test less power. Everyone who understands power knows that a way to show “no correlation” is to subdivide and throw out data until you have created a test with no power.
Unless you can find data to show Julio’s graph is wrong, his graph flatly contradicts your claim that one only finds a correlation between CO2 and T if you look at the final quarter of a century, or if you only look at the final half century. The correlation exists over the full span. Period.
MikeC
Way back up in comments, kim made what I thought was a specific claim which appeared to be wrong. (If julio’s graph is correct, that claim was wrong.)
Later, kim started editing her claims in ways that make it utterly vauge. I have asked her repeatedly to clarify her claim and will not say whether the vague form are true, untrue or whatever. I keep saying they are vague. I have tried to engage some of the ore specific arguments she made– relative to limiting to the last quarter of a century, last half century etc.
You’ve jumped in and assumed one of the many possible interpretations of kims claim is the one she means and suggested I made a suggested the argument you advanced is wrong. I didn’t say the interpretation you make was wrong (nor did I say it was right.) When I said one of her claims was wrong, it was about absolute temperature– not trends. Kim introduced the “trends” think later, but I don’t know precisely what idea she means to discuss with respect to trend.
Kim wants to discuss ‘correlations’ without pinning it to data or numbers, or any particular graph. For now, I will simply say that unless someone shows that julio’s graph is wrong, I’ believe that graph and it contradicts Kim’s claim.
Kim has shown bubkiss, so even if Julio’s graph lacks a figure caption, it still beats kim. (Plus, Julio has a history of backing up his figures and running numbers. Kim herself tells us she does not do that.)
When I first mentioned 1950 it was to illlustrate the presumptions upon which I was acting. At that time I still wanted to explore the correlations from the LIA onward. It was only after you pointed out that we’d not likely get much information before 1950 that I changed the terms.
And what about that time from 1850-1950 when temperature was rising and CO2 not? Where is that on Julio’s graph?
========================
Lucia, Julio,
It is a nice graph. The problem is that it tells a story that may be a bit misleading. Total radiative forcing is due to more than just CO2; a more informative graph would be a plot of total historical forcing versus temperature change, or if preferred, a plot of the base 2 log of a CO2 concentration that yields a forcing equal to the total from all sources. The IPCC (AR4) estimates that CO2 represents only about 62% of forcing from all well mixed GHG’s.
The slope of a line based on the base 2 log of a CO2 concentration equivalent to all well mixed GHG forcings would be about 1.3.
SteveF–
Kim made a claim of lack of correlation between CO2 and T, and the graph speaks to that specific point. The correlation exists.
You’re now moving into something more interesting than Kim mistaken assertion.
Whether the graph can be used to determine the sensitivity or to support more detailed arguments is a bit orthogonal to that. But yes, you are correct that the graph alone doesn’t explain everything about the historical temperature rise. The graph does, however dispense with Kim’s claim about lack of correlation in absolute values being limited to the latter part of the century (quarter, half, what have you). If you apply the mathematical definition of “correlation” to “CO2” and “T” (not trends) you’ll get a positive correlation. (You improve it with log(CO2) — but since log(CO2) increases monotonically with CO2, you’ll still get it with CO2.)
I don’t know why you keep saying ‘quarter, half, what have you’. I’ve said ‘the last quarter of the last century’ from the gitgo.
==================
Kim
At the lower end of log CO2, and T, of course. So, near the lower left hand corner.
You said your claim was about absolutes, that’s the graph of how a person who knows the definition of ‘correlation’ would organize the data to specifically illustrate the correlation between “log CO2” and “T”. (Other graphs might be useful for other purposes and other correlations, but this is the best one to illustrate the correlation between Log CO2 and T.)
Scan back, you’ve also said since the LIA and since 1950. It seems to me your claims about what could be seen in the last quarter of a century are always contrasted with what you thought could (or could not) be seen in longer periods. So, the last quarter never stands alone.
But moving on from your tendency toward vagueness: whether your claim about lack of correlation was “last quarter of a century”, “since 1950” or “since 1850”, your claim was incorrect– as illusrated by julio’s graph.
I don’t know about the end of the LIA because you’d have to tell me precisely when you think that ended. But I suspect if we had data since the end of the LIA, we would discover your claim of non-correlation remains wrong if we add that data to julio’s graph beginning in 1850.
Two separate things, lucia. The ‘last quarter of the last century’ refers to time when I believe there was a correlation between temps and CO2 and the terms ‘since the LIA’ and ‘since 1950’ refer to time span over which I wanted to check the correlations. No wonder you don’t understand my argument.
==============================
kim (Comment#51620) September 2nd, 2010 at 10:23 am
“Confirmation bias strikes deep. Into your heart it will creep.”
The song from which the above line was modified also has the line “There’s a man with a gun over there / telling me I got to beware.” Was this an allusion to yesterday’s news? Or just happenstance?
I know, this is a little off-topic to the current discussion. But I had to ask.
There is something screwy about Julio’s graph which I can’t put my finger on. There should be a larger excursion of temperature down at the lower left, unless the graph was generated with a rising CO2 between 1850 and 1950.
======================
Naw, HaroldW, just a flippant remark that I now regret.
==========================
kim
What I understand is the meaning conveyed in what you wrote. And what you wrote is a mish-mash of argument that jumps around.
You made a claim about the correlation since the “LIA” and then when challenged to support it, switched to discussing data since 1950. You can’t support the claim about “since LIA” that way. It’s just switching because you can’t support your claim. So, what I understand about your argument is that you make claims about A and then try to support it with data about “B”. That’s what I said you did, and it’s what you did.
As it happens, you have also made no effort to show what you wrote about “since 1950” is true. Whether or not it is true, looking at data since 1950-forward cannot be used to support your rather bold claim about the correlation since the little ice age.
kim–
If you think there is something screwy about julio’s graph, why don’t you just make your own?
Lucia, I could produce for you the exact same graph and substitute co2 with nitrogen. I’m glad you have decided that only the last century and a half tells us anything about the earth’s climate. In the interest of believing untested guesses like you seem to favor over historical records, I contend that more glaciers are growing than melting. Sod, we both know that there is no world index of all the glaciers. But since you and Lucia are convinced of this 590ppm number, I am going to start making unfounded claims like both of you. Kim, I recommend you quit arguing about the co2 temperature correlation because Sod and Lucia are only willing to go back about 150 years. Neither of them can answer why we had over 7,000ppm of co2 and now…390ppm. Instead, hammer Sod over his false “tipping point” claim. Ask him why Michael Mann made a fake graph. Ask him why the earth’s oceans no longer absorb co2. In fact Kim, just refer Sod to me because evidently I have more expertise in these matters than a lot of people on this website, base on their refusal to acknowledge historical events. Kim, you need to understand that we’ve had tons of co2 in the atmosphere but the earth’s oceans sucked it all up and most of it went into limestone rock. I cannot tell if Lucia is denying this event because so far she just ignores my questions about it. Sod definitely is denying this occured because he believes that 590ppm will cause catastrophe.
lucia, @ 11:13 AM
We are clearly not on the same page. I’m sorry about that. I’m sure the fault is more mine than yours, but at least one other person has understood what I’m talking about.
Can you explain the lack of temperature excursion in the lower left of Julio’s graph?
=================
MikeC, there is no mystery about the data. HadCRUT3 comes from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ (global). CO2 comes from Mauna Loa + ice cores, via NOAA (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/ftpdata.html)
I could give you a link to an excel file with the data if all you want is to play with them, but if what you want to do is verify them, then you should do the same work I did, beginning with those two links.
SteveF (Re: other forces, including other GHG) Yes, of course, this comes up every time I post that graph. As Lucia says, what you bring up is in a way the most interesting part, because it is trying to nail down that last 40% or so, which I don’t think anybody has got quite right yet.
The last time I tried this exercise I produced this figure
http://comp.uark.edu/~jgeabana/novols.png
of the GISS temperature anomaly versus the GISS model E forcings excluding the stratospheric aerosols (volcanos), which clearly do not correlate well with the magnitude of the observed temperature fluctuations, unless they are multiplied by a separate fudge factor. The slope corresponds to about what you say (a transient climate sensitivity of 1.3 C), but that has to be an underestimate, because I have taken volcanic aerosols out of the picture entirely.
Shooshmoon–
So make the graph.
I didn’t decide that. We are discussing evidence to support or refute kim’s various claims.
Huh? I don’t think I have ever said anything about believing anything about a 590ppm number.
Huh? I’m happy to go back any number of years. Note that in the current thread, my first counter to Kim’s claim discussed the correlation over several ice ages– including glacials and interglacials. Kim has been progressively reducing the time period.
As far as I know, I have never, ever discussed this. Why would I? As it happens, I rarely discuss tipping points and rarely agree with sod. So why are you attributing his claims to me?
Sure. Over the course of eons, co2 is sucked out of the atmosphere. Never denied it. Think it’s true.
Your current comment seems to be the first to mention the word “limestone” in this thread, so I’m a bit perplexed about the accusation that I am ignoring your questions about limestone.
I don’t answer every question. In fact, sometimes, if I go out and see 30 comments when I arrive, I don’t even read them all. I never answer the ones I don’t read. I also often don’t answer the ones I have very little knowledge about. I don’t very much about the precise mechanisms whereby CO2 is sucked into the oceans and turns into limestone– so plausibly, I would not answer those.
Re: kim (Comment#51637)
Kim:
Please look at HadCRUT. The first big peak in my graph (lower left) is about the year 1880. The big dip following is about the year 1910. The next big peak is about 1940. Plotting versus the concentration of CO2 tends to compress the early years, because CO2 did not change very much back then. This also makes natural variation more noticeable at that end of the figure.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/articles/article/nitrogenthebadguyofglobalwarming1160583306/
“Finally, nitrogen oxides
contribute to global warming. Although the concentration of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere is considerably lower than that of carbon dioxide, the global warming potential of nitrous oxide is over 300 times greater. So although carbon dioxide causes climate change and its associated problems, nitrogen compounds are arguably worse. They have a greater global warming potential, could lead to more exaggerated climate change problems, and cause havoc with health and the environment to boot! So what can we do about it?”
Oops, so sorry I had to this but I know Sod or someone would have asked for a reference. What we can infer from this article? The same thing about the false co2 claims. Warming potential of nitrous oxide 300 times greater than co2, big global warming potential, health and environment problems, etc. It is all crap.
So Kim, here is more ammuntion for you. Lucia, I hope you now see how stupid this argument is. Either that or you should immediately begin uprooting your garden.
Kim
Of course, Not even hard.
As Julio said, the correlation is only in the 70% region. My guess is lack of exact correlation is owing to ‘natural variability” and forcings other than CO2: Volcanic aerosols, solar other aerosols.
It happens the earth experienced quite a few stratospheric eruption in the late 1800-1900, while CO2 was not varying so much. That period also represents the lower end of the CO2 range. So, much of the imperfection in the correlation in that specific region of the graph might be attributed to volcanic aerosols. Nevertheless the temperature are still fairly close to the curve-fit line. So, they don’t mess up the overall correlation very much– a 70% correlation is pretty high for “noisy” data.
Note that volcanic eruptions also cause deviations from the trend line during the final quarter of the century. But, those cases are at higher CO2 and higher temperatures. So, we get a positive correlation.
HOHOHO, I have a great question. What doesn’t cause global warming? Is there anything out there that doesn’t make global warming worse? Again, I advise Kim to disgregard Julio because he only wants to use a century out of the earth’s history. Dr. Shooshmon does not cheat, he looks at it from the historical perspective. I am guessing the next argument will be that lightning, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis never occured before the industrial revolution. In fact, Sod should make a graph of major storms starting since 1900. Just keep putting zeros in until about 1940 or something then put in false numbers of storms and defend it by saying people who don’t believe are corporate shills or are not well educated.
Well Lucia this is good to know. So maybe you can do a post or do a vote on who thinks 590ppm is the tipping point.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/58e5483d1fed.gif
So I want you to look at this graph then and tell me if you see a correlation because I don’t see anything. In some cases co2 and temps track nicely but in other cases the co2 level goes way down and temperature goes way up. I just don’t see the correlation.
Shooshmoon–
No one says CO2 is the only ghg, or that other factors don’t matter. If you look at periods where other factors mattered, you have to consider those.
Lucia,
“But I suspect if we had data since the end of the LIA, we would discover your claim of non-correlation remains wrong if we add that data to julio’s graph beginning in 1850.”
Indermuhle et al (1999, Nature) show with ice core records essentially flat CO2 concentration from ~210 years ago to ~350 years ago, at about 277 PPM. Which does seem to correspond to the cold period of the LIA. Before that, the CO2 was modestly higher (up to about 284 PPM during the MWP).
The trend from 210 years ago to ~75 years ago was pretty much a straight line increase from ~277 to ~290 PPM, for sure in part the result of the industrial revolution, but with some contribution from warming ocean surface temperatures during that same period.
So with julio’s graph, I’m not sure about clear cause and effect implications prior to ~75 years ago.
The ice core CO2 concentration says that the MWP/LIA transition dropped atmospheric CO2 by ~6-7 PPM in less than 100 years. Takahashi et al (1993) said 1C change in ocean surface temperature changes atmospheric CO2 by 4.2%. A 7 PPM drop therefore represents about a 0.6C drop in ocean surface temperature, which is a reasonable estimate for the size of the MWP-LIA temperature transition. The interesting question is what can explain the MWP-LIA transition? The CO2 forcing for a change of 7 PPM for sure is not enough to explain a temperature change of ~0.6C over about 100 years. How can we rationally assign all of the warming of the last 200 years to CO2 if a ‘natural’ change of 0.6C in ~100 years (not driven by CO2) appears supported by the ice core data?
SteveF
Mathematically, this would contribute a positive value to the correlation coefficient in Julio’s graph.
I don’t assing all that warming to CO2. I was just making an observation about the sign of the correlation coefficient. That’s different from interpreting what it means.
You seem to want to move to the more interesting questions. Can’t say I blame you. (Looks like Julio wouldn’t either.)
But, if framed in the context of “is the correlation positive or non-existent as claimed by kim”– I feel the need to point out the data you discuss has lower CO2 during cold periods and higher during warm periods. Irrespective of cause or effect relationship, that would compute to a positive correlation.
SteveF,
I’ll give you 0.6 C or even 0.7 C as a reasonable estimate (*) of the temperature difference between the year 1100 and the year 1600, but that is a change of 0.7 degrees over 500 years, not “in about 100 years”! I’m willing to buy a “natural background warming trend,” due to unknown sources, of about 0.1 or at most 0.2 degrees per century. That’s about 1/5, or 20%, or what we have seen over the past century.
(*) source: Frank et al., Nature, vol. 463, p. 527, January 2010
Julio,
“The slope corresponds to about what you say (a transient climate sensitivity of 1.3 C), but that has to be an underestimate, because I have taken volcanic aerosols out of the picture entirely.”
Well sure, you neglect aerosols, which are enormously uncertain, but you also neglect the possibility of substantial ‘natural’ warming from recovery from the LIA period (see my earlier comment). The point is that there remain huge uncertainties involved.
IMO, the only way to get a good value for climate sensitivity is to 1) accurately measure the ocean heat accumulation rate (including the deep ocean below ARGO’s range, and 2) dramatically improve the accuracy of aerosol measurements, which I find today little better than an arm-wave. Models are not going to do it. Once ocean heat and aerosol effects are accurately known, it is straightforward to generate a solid value for sensitivity, and just as importantly, to accurately calculate (and consider the consequences of) the temporal response to increases in CO2. When I hear about climate sensitivities based on fixed CO2 concentrations for 300 to 500 years, I can only laugh… the age of carbon fuels will be long over, and CO2 levels falling long before the ultimate sensitivity is evident. The “transient sensitivity” may turn out to be the most important issue.
Lucia,
“Irrespective of cause or effect relationship, that would compute to a positive correlation.”
Agreed. But not informative.
typo…
That’s about 1/5, or 20%, of what we have seen over the past century.
Julio,
From 420 years ago to 350 years ago, the Taylor dome ice cores show a drop in CO2 of ~8 PPM. That seems to me to be pretty clear evidence of a very rapid drop in ocean temperatures of about 0.6C Do you not agree?
Sod, we both know that there is no world index of all the glaciers. But since you and Lucia are convinced of this 590ppm number, I am going to start making unfounded claims like both of you. Kim, I recommend you quit arguing about the co2 temperature correlation because Sod and Lucia are only willing to go back about 150 years. Neither of them can answer why we had over 7,000ppm of co2 and now…390ppm. Instead, hammer Sod over his false “tipping point†claim. Ask him why Michael Mann made a fake graph.
.
Shoosh, you better tay out of this discussion. look, kim doesn t know or understand anything, as he demonstrated in dozens of posts on this topic.
.
the big problem is, that you understand and know significantly less than he does.
.
——————
.
for a start, you talk about 7000 ppm CO2 as, if it was a lot more than what we have today. but it actually is not, because of the logarithmic scale. 7000 ppm is only about 4 “doublings” away. (1000, 2000, 4000, 8000).
and with the (incredibly stupid) low sensitivity assigned per doubled CO2 (like 1°C) we would get temperatures that are only 4°C warmer than today with 7000 ppm CO2.
.
and if you increase the time period to hundreds of millions of years, you will see “natural” forcings, which can overcome such a temperature increase by CO2. (during the Cambrian, continents were in other positions,…)
.
your graph is funny.
.
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/ipcc-mwp-hockey-stick-globalwarming-graph-wuwt.jpg?w=640
.
it shows very little temperature variability (in europe) and strengthens my point.
SteveF,
I agree that there are large uncertainties, of course. But by “large” I always mean “about 40%”. The climate sensitivity could be as low as 1 C, or it could be as high as 3 C, but it is highly unlikely to fall anywhere outside of that range. And as long as it is in that range, and the “natural variability” does not exceed what we have seen over the past millenium, then the temperature is going to keep going up for the foreseeable future…
julio,
“The climate sensitivity could be as low as 1 C, or it could be as high as 3 C, but it is highly unlikely to fall anywhere outside of that range.”
Fair enough. But I do want to point out that the two ends of that range are sufficiently different to justify very different public responses, and even more importantly, very different degrees of urgency in making those responses. The transition from fossil to non-fossil energy sources will take place; the only question is the duration of that transition. It is going to take an almost unimaginable amount of capital investment to make the change, and the social burden, both short and long term, of that investment is far greater if the change has to be made very quickly (30-50 years).
The costs and consequences of a rapid transition are so large, and the justification for that rapid transition so uncertain, that I find it absolutely incredible so many people seem willing to say “we must cut CO2 emissions by 80%” within 30 to 50 years, no matter the cost. IMO, humanity would be prudent to get solid data before making costly investments. The endless shouts of “now, now, now” strike me as terribly unwise.
Ok Sod, now we are getting down to business. Here is a quote from Roy Spencer.
” As I have pointed out before, it takes 5 years of CO2 emissions by humanity in order to add just 1 molecule of CO2 to each 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. ”
So my question Sod is what year will we reach 1,000ppm of co2? I infer from what Spencer is saying that the amount of co2 added to the atmosphere from humans is fixed…agree or disagree?
“But since Lee was an insane anti-baby, anti-birth, population control environmentalist, you’ll not read much about the focus of his insanity in the headlines, only what fits the meme.”
http://www.jillstanek.com/2010/09/breaking-discovery-channel-gunman-debated-american-life-leagues-kill-the-pill-protesters-outside-dc-planned-parenthood/
Andrew
Whatever happened to the “null hypothesis”?
Liability for climate change – New Scientist
Shoosh>
your C02 chart
1. Shows GEOCARB model results. oh no a MODEL
2. You’d first have to log transform the C02
3. eliminate all other varying forcings to isolate the contribution
of C02 forcings.
4. Physics demonstrates that C02 will warm the planet. How much? well ‘estimates’ of past temperature and c02 can constrain your answer, but it cant determine it. Far too many confounding forcings. The only way to answer the question is with GCMs. and they appear to run a little hot.
Anyways,
Start at AR4 chp 6 if you want a better place to start
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1. (Top) Atmospheric CO2 and continental glaciation 400 Ma to present. Vertical blue bars mark the timing and palaeolatitudinal extent of ice sheets (after Crowley,
1998). Plotted CO2 records represent ï¬ ve-point running averages from each of the four major proxies (see Royer, 2006 for details of compilation). Also plotted are the plausible
ranges of CO2 from the geochemical carbon cycle model GEOCARB III (Berner and Kothavala, 2001). All data have been adjusted to the Gradstein et al. (2004) time scale.
(Middle) Global compilation of deep-sea benthic foraminifera 18O isotope records from 40 Deep Sea Drilling Program and Ocean Drilling Program sites (Zachos et al., 2001)
updated with high-resolution records for the Eocene through Miocene interval (Billups et al., 2002; Bohaty and Zachos, 2003; Lear et al., 2004). Most data were derived from
analyses of two common and long-lived benthic taxa, Cibicidoides and Nuttallides. To correct for genus-speciï¬ c isotope vital effects, the 18O values were adjusted by +0.64 and
+0.4 (Shackleton et al., 1984), respectively. The ages are relative to the geomagnetic polarity time scale of Berggren et al. (1995). The raw data were smoothed using a ï¬ ve-
point running mean, and curve-ï¬ tted with a locally weighted mean. The 18O temperature values assume an ice-free ocean (–1.0‰ Standard Mean Ocean Water), and thus only
apply to the time preceding large-scale antarctic glaciation (~35 Ma). After the early Oligocene much of the variability (~70%) in the 18O record refl ects changes in antarctic and
Northern Hemisphere ice volume, which is represented by light blue horizontal bars (e.g., Hambrey et al., 1991; Wise et al., 1991; Ehrmann and Mackensen, 1992). Where the
bars are dashed, they represent periods of ephemeral ice or ice sheets smaller than present, while the solid bars represent ice sheets of modern or greater size. The evolution
and stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (e.g., Lemasurier and Rocchi, 2005) remains an important area of uncertainty that could affect estimates of future sea level rise.
(Bottom) Detailed record of CO2 for the last 65 Myr. Individual records of CO2 and associated errors are colour-coded by proxy method; when possible, records are based on
replicate samples (see Royer, 2006 for details and data references). Dating errors are typically less than ±1 Myr. The range of error for each CO2 proxy varies considerably, with
estimates based on soil nodules yielding the greatest uncertainty. Also plotted are the plausible ranges of CO2 from three geochemical carbon cycle models.
Sod, this is tangential, but does the logarithmic relationship [forcing proportional to log(CO2 concentration)] remain valid until 7000 ppm? My recollection is that the logarithmic relationship doesn’t emerge from any fundamental equation. Rather, the numerical solution to the radiative equations was computed for a limited range of concentrations (perhaps 250 to 1000 ppm), and a log function provided a good fit to the results over the range. [Possibly from one of the Myhre papers? Sorry to be so vague. I don’t have access at the moment to the relevant papers.] If my unreliable memory is accurate, then one shouldn’t extrapolate beyond 1000 ppm (or whatever the upper limit of the range); the relationship may not continue to follow a nearly logarithmic course up to, for example, 7000 ppm. Can you confirm or correct that impression? Thanks.
SteveF–
Agreed. But OTOH, I’ve just gone through a long discussion with kim on whether it is or is not positive. So, I don’t want her to get the impression that this is evidence of not positive R. 🙂
Well, even on Julio’s graph I think you’ll find the best correlation during the last quarter of the last century.
===============================
David L. Hagen (Comment#51660) September 2nd, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Whatever happened to the “null hypothesis�
Nobody who ever uses that phrase has even defined it properly.
And its utterly beside the point.
DeWitt Payne @comment #51476:
I took your data for Arctic ice area for 1979 to 2009 and plotted the following with breakpoints (if found):
1)Annual Arctic minimum ice area
2) Annual Arctic maximum ice area
3) Annual Arctic mean ice area
4)Day of year of the minimum area
5)Day of year of the maximum area
The plots of these graphs with breakpoints (if found) are shown in the link below:
http://a.imageshack.us/img828/6541/breakpointsarticicearea.png
The plots show breakpoints for minimum, maximum and mean area of 1995, 2004 and 2004, respectively. No breakpoints for day of year for minimum or maximum were found.
The breakpoint for the minimum show at rather rapidly decreasing trend from 1979 to 1995 and then an even faster decline after that year to 2009. The breakpoint for the maximum shows a declining trend from 1979 to 2004 and then and increasing trend from that point to 2009. The breakpoint for the mean shows a decreasing trend from 1979 to 2004 and then a much slower decline from that point to 2009.
The day of year for the minimum and maximum areas tends to vary from year to year without any trend apparent. I am not at all personally informed as to what would cause these occurrences and non occurrences of breakpoints.
One of the criticism of determining breakpoints in a time series like these is that often we cannot associate a priori or even after the fact a cause of the apparent regime change. Therefore, we all throw up our hands and go back to looking for and estimating straight line trends and even when those trends are hardly straight lines.
julio (Comment#51638),
The problem with your simple log CO2 versus temperature graph is that it implies at first glance a transient sensitivity of 1.9C per doubling (why else use a base 2 log scale?). Transient sensitivity is most certainly not a value than can be determined from the graph… you need lots of other data and assumptions to generate a transient response value.
.
Your second graph (temperature change versus GISS forcing) does include all GISS estimated aerosol forcings except volcanic; these off-set about 30% of well mixed GHG forcing. The problem with this graph that it implies/assumes the GISS aerosol forcings are correct, even when it is well known that the size of those forcings is very uncertain.
.
Total GHG forcing (which really is pretty well known) versus temperature is I think a more informative alternative to your log CO2/temperature graph. Without any assumed aerosol off-sets, GHG forcing is more like 2.8 watts/M^2 since 1850, with a temperature change of ~0.8C, which corresponds to about 1.06 C ‘transient response’ to a doubling of CO2. Might the transient sensitivity be more? Sure, and it probably is more, but how much more depends on the size of the assumed aerosol off-set of GHG forcing, and that is where much of the total uncertainty lies. It also depends on the ocean heat uptake rate profile… another layer of uncertainty.
.
I think a measure of Feynman’s ‘bending over backwards’ is called for here.
Re: HaroldW (Comment#51662)
That is true, but it is more or less equivalent to assuming that the absorbing power of CO2 decreases exponentially as the wavelength of the incident radiation deviates from resonance. From the curves here
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/spectra-h2o-co2-o2-n2.png
that is probably not such a bad approximation, at least on the long wavelength side (note the vertical axis is logarithmic).
Re: Kenneth Fritsch (Sep 2 17:25),
A break point in 1995 is not surprising. It kind of jumps out at you when you graph the AMO index and the UAH NoPol anomaly ( both EWMA smoothed, alpha=0.08):
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u43/gplracerx/AMOandUAHNoPolEWMAanomalies-1.png
AMO data are here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data
UAH data here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
The correlation of the AMO index with the NOAA monthly extent anomaly isn’t as obvious.
Things were actually starting to look better until the AMO index spiked back up again.
And speaking of ice, the Cryosphere Today Arctic ice area for today was down again:
2007 3.146378
2008 3.2846451
2009 3.5711212
2010 3.2508845
SteveF:
I’d say your value of 1.06 C per doubling is almost certainly too low. My personal best guess is about 1.5, but it is just that, a guess. The IPCC itself shows probability distributions for the transient climate response that peak around 2 C per doubling. If you have to bet on a random variable, the conservative strategy is to bet on the mode of the distribution. 2 C per doubling is certainly not reason to panic and start advocating mandatory sterilization, but it should be cause for some concern.
There are a number of strategies that could and probably should be pursued right now at moderate cost. I basically agree with most of what Pielke Jr. proposes (Pielke Sr. too, for that matter). Even Monckton advocates stopping deforestation. I’d like to see it reversed (afforestation, I think they call it now), for local if not global climate reasons. And I think the oceans are already stressed enough, with overfishing and pollution, without having to absorb huge amounts of CO2 on top of that. One can argue over the best strategies and the speed at which we should proceed, but I think substantial decarbonization needs to happen, sooner rather than later.
sod @ # 51653.
My original contention, in comment #51514 @ 11:40 AM on 9/1/10 was ‘The only time that CO2 level correlated well with temperature rise was during the last quarter of the last century, and not before and not since’.
If you look long enough at julio’s graph, you’ll find that contention borne out.
====================
sod @ # 51653.
My original contention, in comment #51514 @ 11:40 AM on 9/1/10 was ‘The only time that CO2 level correlated well with temperature rise was during the last quarter of the last century, and not before and not since’.
If you look long enough at julio’s graph, you’ll find that contention borne out.
.
this is plain out false. Julio found a good correlation over the WHOLE timespan used by him.
.
your claim was false. completely false.
sea ice dropped below the 2005 minimum yesterday.
.
The latest value : 5,301,406 km2 (September 2, 2010)
.
third lowest sea ice extent on record. (and area looks even worse)
.
here are the important numbers again:
.
1) The extent will fall below Steve’s 5.5 million sq. km. forecast.
2) The extent will fall below Sept. 22, 2005′s low of 5,315, 156 sq. km.
3) The extent will fall below Sept. 13, 2009′s low of 5,249,844 sq. km.
.
but facts do not stop Steven Goddard. he is spreading the same misinformation on his own blog now.
.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/arctic-forecast-verification-september-2/
.
My June Arctic ice forecast continues to be right on track.
.
shocking stuff.
No sod, he didn’t.
==============
Neither you nor lucia understood my argument, and I blame myself for that. It was obvious to me yesterday that she was not understanding it. My clue to her misunderstanding came from her comment #51663 @ 3:20 PM yesterday. She showed then that she thought I was arguing that there was not a positive correlation between CO2 and temperature for the whole time period. In fact I’m claiming that the best, the only good correlation, was in the last quarter of the last century.
julio’s graph shows that there is a positive correlation between CO2 and temperature for the whole time period. This says little more than that CO2 and temperature both rose over that time period. It also doesn’t say anything about causation. Think about that one in the light of subsequent discussion.
=======================
Julio,
“If you have to bet on a random variable, the conservative strategy is to bet on the mode of the distribution.”
.
And that pretty much sums up our differences. I do not think it is at all required that we ‘bet’ on a random variable, and I think in fact placing any such bet is terribly unwise. What really is needed is much better data on ocean heat accumulation and atmospheric aerosol effects. The investment in time and money to eliminate most uncertainty in climate sensitivity is a small (or even tiny) fraction of the time and money that will be needed to migrate from fossil to non-fossil energy. 10-15 years of accurate total ocean heat data, including the deep, combined with a reduction of 75% in aerosol uncertainty, would provide the kind of reliable projections of future warming, both transient and long term, that are needed to have public policy mesh with physical reality.
.
I see the current priorities in climate science as terribly confused and not at all helpful. We need good measurements of reality to eliminate uncertainties, and CGCMs are never going to do that… too many tuned parameters that can tweak the results toward the expected outcome. I consider the range of projected sensitivities from the models a reasonable proxy for the robustness of climate modeling in general; in short, they stink at determining climate sensitivity. I just do not believe them.
.
How many times (and how many years!) has the Glory satellite launch been delayed? How is it possible that the satellite which is supposed to much better define atmospheric aerosol effects has such low priority, when there remains huge uncertainty in atmospheric aerosols, and that uncertainty makes a reliable calculation of climate sensitivity impossible? Were are the cries of outrage from activist climate scientists?
.
Like you, I agree with much of what Roger Piekle Jr. advocates, since a transition to non-fossil energy is inevitable, and better non-fossil energy technology will help in any case. My concern is that politicians (being politicians) will never follow the sensible suggestions offered by Roger, and will instead adopt mostly useless and horribly expensive policy options like cap’n trade.
What’s telling for me, is that during that time of best correlation, the earth was in the warming phase of the PDO. Twice earlier in that time period, the PDO had also been in the warming phase, with a rate of temperature rise that was all three times about the same. The first two times, CO2 was rising only very slowly. So once again, my plaintive cry, where’s the signature that CO2 caused the temperature rise?
=============================
I get the impression that some ( and I mean some! ;)) of you guys don’t understand that the Holocene has been punctuated by many rapid climate transitions. Some of them transitioning on time scales of thousands of years; to decades or even less then that. The evidence and data for this is found all over the world. That is 1,000s of years of climate phases between warm and moist or cold and dry. Most of the stuff you can find to read claim “a relatively stable” Holocene CO2 concentration. I’ve also read the C02 concentration in the grips of an ice age (we are still transitioning out of) was as low as 180 ppm increasing to 280 – 300 ppm during warmer interglacials. This is an increase of 100 ppm between cold and warm. And this rise in concentration was accompanied by MANY degrees of rising global temperatures not **fractions of one degree of rising global temps** The same 100ppm increase of CO2 from 280 ppm in the1800’s to 380 ppm for right now is only accompanied a fraction of one degree rise in temp? Oh no! -compared to the Earth’s recent past history that amounts to nothing alarming unless like me you like warm! The past couple of winters have been colder and colder and I did not have a summer where I live!
Speaking of…
sod (Comment#51679) September 3rd, 2010 at 5:02 am
Seems to me that you are rooting for this planet to forever stay in an ice age . Does your desire ever seem a little bit unrealistic considering the history of this planet’s climate? Not too long ago, a tiny sliver of this planet’s life-the Sahara was covered with vegetation.That’s wasn’t normal? (I am sure the humans who started to come together and create civilizations thought it was)
kim (Comment#51683) September 3rd, 2010 at 6:22 am
I was posting at the same time as you. I am so long winded!
In a nut shell; I am crying out too! 😉
kim
I considered this issue and engaged this notion as well. What I told you is that if you understood how correlation is computed, it is meaningless to complain that there is little correlation during a period when the claimed causal factor (i.e. CO2 here) barely varies. If someone who understands the mathematical definition of “correlation” and also understands the statistical power associated with test to detect it subdivides into regions with every smaller variations in causal factors (i.e. CO2) the practice is called “statistical cheating” . If someone who does not understand the either does it, subdividing is called “a silly, but innocent mistake.” I suspect you fall in the later category– but I tried to explain this to you.
Yes. That’s the relevant graph. No, it doesn’t say anything about causation. And if you avoid wasting time insisting on things that are simply untrue (i.e. there is no correlation) based on nothing more than your “suspicion” and refusing to look at actual numbers (because, evidently, that’s other people’s job) , then you can get to arguing based on actual facts more quickly.
Avoiding claiming obviously untrue “facts” and posting comments that flat out tell people you don’t check numbers, do graphs or link might also raise the credibility of your blog handle when you ask questions like “So once again, my plaintive cry, where’s the signature that CO2 caused the temperature rise?”
Yeah, my particular tragedy is that my intuition exceeds my literacy and both tower over my numeracy. Why do you think I write haiku?
Now, what about the ‘fact’ that correlation was best during the last quarter of the last century, during a time of the warm phase of the PDO. Where’s the CO2 signature?
=========================
lucia, julio’s graph is not the relevant one for my point. You may call it ‘statistical cheating’ if you like, but my point does refer to that short time period, and I think my point illustrates something important, that CO2 and temperature correlate best during a warm phase of the PDO, but only the most recent one.
===================
See Oh Two and Temp;
Sure they rise together.
Why is the question.
===============
kim– You are dwelling on an unimportant “fact” and the answer to your question is “so what?” Anyway, the explanation is simple: CO2 is not the only forcing (i.e. “cause”.) In cases where correlation between “X” and “Z” does arise because “X” causes “Z” (instead of just by accident), the correlation coefficient describes the proportion of Z caused by “X”. A correlation of zero implies “X” has zero explanatory power, a correlation of 1 implies X has 100% explanatory power. (Don’t just change to percent though– the relationship is not linear.)
However, this “explanatory” power needs to be interpreted in context of the experiment. Suppose both “X” and “Y” and nothing else affect the value of “Z”? Then, if you hold “Y” constant and vary “X” you might be able to perform an experiment where you get a correlation of 1 between “X” and “Z”. Some individuals might say: “Look! All variations in Z can be explained by variations in X! We need look no further! Done!”
But this is incorrect because “Y” actually also has an effect. But you didn’t vary “Y”.
Ok, so now, suppose that instead of holding “Y” constant, it just varied in some uncontrollable way the scientists can’t do anything about. Now the scientists varies X (on purpose) and measures “Z”. He will get a different correlation coefficient, which will almost surely be lower than R=1.
Why does “X” explain less in the second experiment? It still has the same fundamental effect — but the effect of “Y” now introduces something the experimenter might consider “noise”.
Ok. So, now I’m finally going to get to your question about why the lower correlation in the 1850-1950 is not a problem — but using “X” and “Y”.
During the period you want to dwell on, CO2 (i.e. our “X”) varied very little. Meanwhile “Y” (volcanic activity, solar etc.) varied either a lot– or just as much as in the later period. So, even if “X” where a known cause, we expect to get a lower correlation coefficient in this ‘experiment’ for either reason alone– and even lower when both are happening. That if CO2 is a cause, we would expect just the sort of behavior you are taking to be counter evidence to CO2 “causing” increase in temperature.
But…. I think I’ve explained this several times in this thread. At least twice, in different ways. And I’ve even explained it when you complained I didn’t “understand” your point about the correlation being lower in sub-sets of the data.
A new point, right? Because you have at least abandonned the old one and are now focusing on “better” correlation during the “warm phase of the pdo”, right?
Sigh…. Yes. If you keep trying to mentally subdivide the data into parts you will always find periods where the correlation looks “better” and periods where it looks “worse”. There are reasons for this, that I could explain in terms of the “X”, “Y” and “Z” above. But– honestly, I have other things to do. The response to your ‘point’ is, once again both “So?” and “If you understood what’s involved in correlation, you might already know the answer to your question.”
I would suggest what I have suggested repeatedly: Start getting numbers and teaching yourself a little about what “correlation” means, how it is computed, what affects it’s magnitude and how large one expects it to be in situations where “X” is a cause of “Z” (but other factors are also.) If you do that, you may develop the basis for understanding the answers– which appear repeatedly in this thread. You might even learn to figure out how to connect the answer to the questions you ask and arguments you advance instead of believing that your arguments are being misunderstood when they were, in fact, engaged.
Lucia,
Since you spend so much valuable time ‘teaching’ people (even me!) about statical data treatments, maybe you should try to somehow make money from your efforts… teach an introductory course, or maybe write a ‘statistics for dummies’ book with the basics. 😉
My June forecast is looking pretty good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adXkVq8aVUg&NR=1
As is my August forecast.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/august
Well, no lucia, this is not a new point. It’s what I started with two days ago, and it’s taken you this long to figure it out. And I don’t demand that you explore my point; I think you’re missing out if you don’t.
======================
SteveF, please answer one question for me. Isn’t the basis for your whole discussion with Julio the assumption that CO2 was causal in the temperature rise over the period of his graph?
====================
Well, lucia, one person’s answer to your question ‘So?’ was the hockey stick. And we’re still trying to get over that one.
My answer: The PDO did it, and not the CO2, which co-incidentally rose during that time.
=======================================
Red hot peppers:
remove the seeds and the white on the inside. Chop fine, mix with parsley, coriander, garlic (lots) salt to taste. Cover an entrecote or T-bone steak and lay to rest in room temperature for 10 hours.
Make a potato sallad with potatoes, spring onion, black pepper (coarse), apple, and anschovies.
Barbeque the meat a few minutes over high heat.
Pour a glass of Californian Zinfandel (e.g. Seghesio) and enjoy!
Kim–
I am aware you mentioned the PDO. I suspect few people think they are missing out when they fail to explore what you think are your points. Clearly, you lack motivation to explore them!
I’ll answer the question you asked SteveF: Yes. Their discussion assumed CO2 is causal. This is fully legitimate because a cause-effect relationship is based on understanding of radiative physics. But even if it weren’t expected based on something other than the observed correlation, it is common scientific practice to seek explanations for any observed strong correlations. Generally, the observation motivates both discussion and additional experiments or tests.
Kim:
It is true that the temperature data show something that looks like an oscillation. The power spectrum of the residuals to the fit I showed you yesterday shows strong peaks corresponding to oscillations with periods of about 69 and 21 years. These match what other people have seen in the PDO.
It is not clear whether this is a true oscillation, natural variation, or the response to some weird combination of forcings, but it is probably safe to assume that it is unrelated to CO2, since CO2 has not gone up and down like that. So one could think of separating the two things out by modeling the temperature record as follows:
temp = oscillation + b*log[CO2]
The easiest way to do this is to get the oscillation frequencies from the power spectrum, then do a least-squares fit to determine the coefficients of the sines and cosines, as well as the constant “b” above.
When that is done, you can subtract the oscillation from the temperature record and plot what is left versus the log of the CO2 concentration. The result is shown in this figure:
http://comp.uark.edu/~jgeabana/forgwfig2ab.png
As you can see, the result is a much better correlation with the rise in CO2. The R-square is now 0.84 for the 160-year HadCRUT record, and 0.87 for the 130-year GIStemp record. Note how tight the fit is. The slope is 1.94 +/- 0.07. Clearly, we have recently spent a few years below the line, but the warming we’re seeing this year will almost certainly get us back on track (unfortunately, I hasten to add. I do not want to see the world warming any more than, presumably, you do).
In short, the PDO does not “explain” the warming trend, and “whatever” is causing the trend correlates very well with the increasing CO2.
DeWitt Payne @ comment #51672:
I like your AMO graph, since it would appear, visually, to have breakpoints that correspond to those that I found for min/max/mean Arctic ice areas.
Thanks for the AMO data as I will be doing a breakpoint analyses of that time series.
By the way, I use R and Excel to do my data manipulation in determining breakpoints. I could do it all in R and probably make it simpler, but I retain the nasty habit of wanting to see my progress better by putting my results into and out of Excel from the R script (using write.csv and read.table(“clipboard”). I have the script for my calculations of breakpoints that I could post if anyone here is interested.
DeWitt, as I recall you have been using R more yourself of late. Have you had any problems weaning yourself off from Excel – completely? There are some data manipulations that I could do in my sleep with Excel, but have to think about before doing in R.
When all is said and done I think that that thinking to do it in R is a good thing as it sometimes gives you a better grasp of the problem at hand.
julio, that is both interesting and very helpful. But I don’t insist that the PDO caused the temperature rise over the whole time period, just the three times we’ve talked about. I think the cause of the trend since the Little Ice Age is cyclical recovery secondary to some aspect of the sun.
And the next two decades of the cooling phase of the PDO is likely to keep us below your line. This latest El Nino was a weather blip. Not something you should hang your hat upon.
==========================
lucia (Comment#51700) September 3rd, 2010 at 8:13 am
“I suspect few people think they are missing out when they fail to explore what you think are your points. Clearly, you lack motivation to explore them!”
So as far as THE CLIMATE of this planet is concerned; this blog is uninterested. I always thought so. You know what they say; there are lies (Where the Climate Talk gets Hot), damn lies and statistics!
And thank you, julio, for presuming that I don’t wish the world to warm anymore. What I fear is future cooling. The Livingston and Penn effect possibly has climate implications; my intuition, informed by Ockham, says probably.
=========================
Well, no, liza; lucia is just sneering at my inadequacies, which are manifest.
==================
Inadequacies;
Manifold and manifest.
Mind you, I don’t mind.
================
Mosher, that is a very well wriiten post. I am trying to keep things basic, however. These things get very confusing because I assume certain things. For example, I assume Sod believed that GHG forcings are stronger than natural ones but apparently he doesn’t which is good. I’ve always contended that natural forcings can be much stronger than anything manmade. But the IPCC position is that manmade events are stronger so I get confused. Really all I am trying to show is that we have had a lot more co2 in the atmosphere and basically the weather and the earth in general is and has been extremely variable. One way in which man could cause a massive, extreme event is if we were to blow up nuclear bombs in the San Andreas fault. This would not be a good idea but I wonder what would happen?
kim (Comment#51706) September 3rd, 2010 at 8:43 am
Hee hee…I think she is cherry picking.
read page marked 959 from this link I posted way up thread:
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
I am not saying that everything written in this paper is proven or correct; it’s just evidence that the things you are interested like the sun aren’t so uninteresting. All earth science papers “BTHS”, “before the hockey stick” had a fuller scope IMHO and my husband’s too (who was in the mists of the transition of thought while he was in school-and he was warned by his professors that this C02 and climate model obsession was about to begin) (I can’t believe that folks who think the climate of the planet is unstable/changing because of one gas..think a whole star isn’t unstable or unchanging-it doesn’t matter…or find it un-interesting.)
“So as far as THE CLIMATE of this planet is concerned; this blog is uninterested.”
OMG liza,
This is so true. The beliefs of this blog and it’s warmer commenters are based on one massive appeal to authority. They literally don’t know what they are talking about when they opine on “the earth’s climate.”
Andrew
Kim:
I don’t think so. Remember, I have done the math. The PDO, or whatever that was, was strong enough to give us a net cooling in the 1940’s to 1970’s period, when the CO2 concentration was lower. But at today’s concentration, assuming this “PDO” is really a cyclical phenomenon with the same strength it had back then, it will not be enough to result in any significant cooling, just the broad plateau we have experienced for the past 10 years or so. Net warming should resume momentarily–in fact, by all indications, it is already underway.
Andrew_KY (Comment#51712) September 3rd, 2010 at 9:02 am
I didn’t mean to sound so harsh; but it might be the way it is at this time (??) I still don’t understand what lukewarmer means either! 😉
kim
I’m not sneering. I am addressing the arguments you are posting. But I am also frustrated that you seem unable to even tell that an argument has been addressed because you don’t understand enough about the terms you use in your arguments to recognize that the counter argument is related to your “point”. Many of the “misunderstandings” stem from the fact that you are making claims about “correlations” when you a) don’t really know the definition b) don’t know how to compute it c) won’t define the terms you are claiming have correlations or not. Correlation is a mathematical term and if you are going to make claims about it you really do need to spend at least 3 hours learning what it is, what it means and computing a few.
FWIW: alternative to engageing your arguments is to ignore them. In my opinion, ignoring them comes closer to sneering than criticizing them for being inadequate.
“I didn’t mean to sound so harsh”
liza,
Often the truth is harsh. To withhold it from someone when they need to hear it only enables error.
But like your daddy said
The same sun that melts the wax can harden clay
And the same rain that drowns the rat will grow the hay
And the mighty wind that knocks us down
If we lean to it, will drive our fears away
Andrew
Kim,
“Isn’t the basis for your whole discussion with Julio the assumption that CO2 was causal in the temperature rise over the period of his graph?”
.
That is a very good question, and highlights an important difference between people trained in science and engineering and (most) people not so trained.
.
The short answer is no, the discussion with julio was about what the credible limits of causation are, with a bit of discussion about suitable public policy in the face of causal uncertainty added. Arguments of basic cause and effect (like “Does CO2 in the atmosphere cause warming of the surface?”) are a whole other can of worms, and depend on application of basic physical understanding (scientific laws, if you will) to observed phenomenon.
.
Let me try to explain it this way. As a scientists, I have learned and used many basic physical concepts. One of these concepts is ‘radiative physics’… something I started learning about when I was still in high school ( many, many years ago 😉 ). I have used the basics of radiative physics both explicitly, to solve/understand a specific problem/observation, and implicitly, as a continuous ‘reality check’ or ‘quality control check’ on any problem/subject that I happen to be working on, for most of my life. Radiative physics is so fundamental to understanding of how the world works in general that if I ever encounter data (or an argument) which implies radiative physics is wrong, then I can be pretty certain that conflicting data is incorrect or incomplete, and a conflicting argument is mistaken.
.
You might wonder how I can be so sure that radiative physics ‘has to be’ correct. The answer is that radiative physics is just one piece of a huge jigsaw puzzle of knowledge, and the entire puzzle must, and does, fit together without conflict. For me to question a basic concept like radiative physics requires to also question my entire understanding of the world… everything I have ever learned or observed about how the world works would have to be incorrect. And I just don’t believe that based on how well it all fits together and works.
.
So when julio (who clearly has some scientific background/training) and I discuss CO2 and global warming, we start on the same page of the story: we both know that any increase in a gas in the atmosphere (CO2 or other) which absorbs infrared light must increase the surface temperature by some amount, however small. The only real question is how much. This initial agreement is not a conspiracy, and it is not because we agree politically (I think it is safe to say we do not!), it is just that neither of us would ever entertain the possibility that radiative physics is wrong… and that is the only way that adding CO2 to the atmosphere could not cause some warming.
.
Now returning to my discussion with julio: I noted that his graph of correlation of the base 2 log of CO2 with historical temperatures appeared to imply a certain level of causation (1.92C per doubling of CO2) which can’t be supported without adding a whole bunch of (very uncertain) assumptions and data, which are not shown on the graph… in other words I found julio’s graph to be misleading, especially to those without a whole lot of additional information already in their heads. It is the same kind of objection (though much smaller!) that I had to Al Gore’s graphic of the correlation of ice age/interglacial temperatures with CO2….. simply misleading, and in Al Gore’s case, willfully misleading…. about what causes what.
.
My effort in the discussion was to establish a rationally determined lower limit of causation (I calculated about 1.06C per doubling), assuming that natural warming due to the end of the LIA contributed nothing to the observed warming since 1850. If you assume some natural warming contribution, then the true level of causation could be lower; if you assume some cooling effect from atmospheric aerosols, then the level of causation could be higher. The key is to explicitly lay out what assumptions go into any estimate of causation, and then do the work to support those assumptions with defensible data and analysis. My discussion with julio mostly focused on the need to be very explicit about assumptions when connecting causation to correlation.
Julio – NIce graphs. One comment on format, however. Since you are plotting log CO2 vs. temp and there is no time element, the data would be more appropriately plotted as individual point without the connecting line since there is no time element. This would avoid any confusion about “early” and “late” data.
Julio @ 9:08.
Again, a useful and interesting comment. We’re still only a decade into the cooling phase of the PDO, and staggering sideways as you say. The next decade will be revelatory.
==========================
SteveF @ 9:33 AM
Yes, that is also very helpful, and I understand you. Someday we’ll actually know what the radiative effect of CO2, with feedbacks, is.
==========================
And, SteveF, I do assume natural variability in the rise of temperature since the LIA. Temperature does vary cyclically on a centennial to millenial scale. Albedo, or aerosol effect, who knows; a wild card.
================================
Steve F, good thoughtful post…but (in the same spirit as kim I say…) Physics tells us that heat spends all of it’s time trying to get into empty space too and C02 doesn’t cause warm; it just traps warm. My husband’ says (who took years and years of physics classes for his masters in environmental geology not too long ago!) is that you GH theory guys are missing something because this is PLANETARY radiative physics not a lab experiment nor a green house. No where in the vast geologic record does C02 drive temperature as you claim- it’s the other way around; and what makes the temperature rise and fall is all kinds of things…the orbit; the sun, mountains growing, snow sticking around, everything moving..basically and all that other stuff still going on this planet being disregarded over and over again in these discussions.
People are still messing around with Einstein’s theory and finding holes too. (There are websites and television shows that we watch all the time that keep us up on these things!)
So when we question it is in the same spirit!
See Oh Two and Temp;
Sure they rise together.
Why is the question.
Arrhenius knows
Where CO2 blows
the infrared goes
And where the heat glows
So also trees grow
Which drives more COtwo
And dries the inland pools
Dust sails in the sky blue
Seeding the clouds to poo
And lingering snows cool
As summer sun looses joules
Until once again the cold snows
Grips with frozen flows
And oceans currents slow
while CO2 goes …
… sleeping under the sea
liza,
While I am a scientist, I most certainly am not a “GH theory guy”. I believe that most projections of future warming caused by CO2 are almost certainly not supported by the available data, and are too often exaggerated to try to force the implementation of idiotic public policy.
But that being said, I can assure you that radiative physics is equally applicable to lab and planet scale systems. It works at all scales. Yes, all kinds of things can potentially change the earth’s surface temperature, but that simply begs the question at hand: is an increase in infrared absorbing gas in the atmosphere, all else being equal, expected to increase the surface temperature by some amount? If you (or anybody else) contends the answer is “no”, then further discussion of CO2 and global warming is pointless until you have done some studying.
SteveF (Comment#51725) September 3rd, 2010 at 10:35 am
We’d say some amount and it is perhaps so small and insignificant you could say… So what?
Like now, less then a fraction of a degree is reported as a “trend” upwards (timescales matter..and this one is teeny tiny insignificant on a PLANETARY SCALE and like lucia said “If you keep trying to mentally subdivide the data into parts you will always find periods where the correlation looks “better†and periods where it looks “worseâ€. won’t you? ); and this is all reported against questionable temperature data; that is supposed to represent the whole globe.
“all else being equal”
SteveF,
This is a Not-Scientifc Diversionary Not-Meaningful cliche. It doesn’t impart any meaningful information because no one knows what “all else” is or what it is supposed to be equal to, if anything.
It’s Science-Speak… akin to Coach-Speak, which is what comes out of footbal coaches when they want to act like they are telling you something valuable. 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment#51727)
So you do or do not accept that all else being equal increasing CO2 must increase the surface temperature by some amount? If not, then further discussion is pointless.
and I should add… questionable temperature data ( plotted in fractions of less then one degree) where the margin for error could be equal to and/or greater then the “global warming” plotted in fraction of one degree on these charts.
SteveF,
Thanks for defending radiative physics! 🙂
Re: my possibly misleading graph–of course I introduced it only in the context of correlation, not causation, but I would argue that it probably has some predictive power; not, of course, because CO2 alone is causing all the warming, but because other things that contribute to the warming probably also correlate positively with CO2, and so the CO2 concentration ends up acting as a proxy for them. GHG’s, for instance–if CO2 goes up, so do (typically) methane, and N2O. Assuming that they are going to remain correlated for the foreseeable future basically amounts to picking a GCM scenario (see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/).
Even if there is a mysterious unknown warming factor at work, it also is trivially positively correlated with the increasing CO2–since they are both (apparently) increasing, and the assumption (null hypothesis) that it is just going to continue to do whatever it has been doing for the past 100 + years is at least as good as any.
So it is not unreasonable to assume that, at least in the immediate future, things are going to continue to develop “along the lines” (literally!) that I have drawn. I am, in particular, impressed by how little scatter there is in the plots. We have never strayed very far from the line. Even volcanos like Pinatubo in the end amount to diddly-squat, in the big picture.
But anyway. Going back to the “actual” sensitivity to CO2 doubling–you’ll notice that the “best guess” I gave you yesterday of about 1.5 C per doubling splits the difference between the 1.9 you would get from my fits assuming CO2 is responsible for all the warming (which is surely an overestimate) and your own approach with only GHGs and ignoring all aerosols (which is almost certainly an underestimate). So I don’t think we’re that far off, really.
Beyond that, I certainly agree that better measurements can only help, and that computer models are not the real world–I know from experience how hard it is to model accurately the experiment down the hall, and they have only one atomic species and one wavelength to worry about!
“Andrew_KY (Comment#51727)
So you do or do not accept that all else being equal increasing CO2 must increase the surface temperature by some amount? If not, then further discussion is pointless.”
No, I do not accept it because you qualify it with “all else being equal”. What does that mean? The surface temperature is driven by things other than just C02 so when you talk about “surface temperature”, you have to include all the things that make it what it is.
And I also disagree that further discussion is pointless, we might have some interesting things to discuss in the future.
Andrew
Liza,
“We’d say some amount and it is perhaps so small and insignificant you could say… So what? ”
Is that the royal ‘we’ or are you speaking for yourself and someone else as well?
If you believe that “some amount” of warming is possible, and you believe that this amount is perhaps small and insignificant, then you need to identify and verify what other factor(s) has (have) caused the not so small and not so insignificant observed warming.
The point is that there is very good (basic scientific) reason to expect a warmer surface in the presence of more CO2 in the atmosphere. Determining how much warming as a function of CO2 concentration is a reasonable question that needs to be pursued. Ignoring the possibility of bad long term effects is unwise, just as is hysterically claiming extremely dire consequences… both are irrational.
Andrew_KY,
“we might have some interesting things to discuss in the future.”
Maybe about golf or some other subject, but not about CO2 and global warming. Yours is a position which is beyond my ability to comprehend, and I do not think that is going change based on your many posts here and elsewhere.
SteveF (Comment#51733)
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:07 am
Andrew_KY,
“we might have some interesting things to discuss in the future.â€
Maybe about golf or some other subject, but not about CO2 and global warming. Yours is a position which is beyond my ability to comprehend, and I do not think that is going change based on your many posts here and elsewhere”
Steve,
Please don’t Delibrately Obtuse me! ‘Tis beneath you, sir. 😉
Lemme try again, the “surface temperature” of the earth changes in different spots depending on things like the seasons, day/night, shade from things…etc. These are all non-C02 factors in driving what the surface temperature is. To exclude them from being a factor (ie equal them out for arguments sake) in determining why the temperature is what it is, at any time, is non-sensical.
Andrew
SteveF (Comment#51732) September 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 am
The “we” is my wonderful husband..working published earth scientist; who doesn’t have time or the inclination to post himself (he thinks its a waste of time; and he helps me when I think you guys have said something wrong or incomplete- I don’t give up! And I enjoy the debate. ;))
Hello! NY was covered with snow and ice 3 miles high a blink of an eye on a PLANETARY timescale.
Come on- the ice has been melting for thousands of years already. So when you guys point to melting ice and predict “warming in the next century”…it’s no big achievement to me. Sorry. However; kim’s posts and feelings about the sun, etc are interesting because we know there are all kinds of swings in the earth’s climate for small periods of time (on a PLANETARY SCALE) ( during glacials AND interglacials); and like I said about this Holocene-it has been a wild ride already.
“a blink of an eye ago” is what I meant to type.
Andrew_KY
“Lemme try again, the “surface temperature†of the earth changes in different spots depending on things like the seasons, day/night, shade from things…etc. These are all non-C02 factors in driving what the surface temperature is. To exclude them from being a factor (ie equal them out for arguments sake) in determining why the temperature is what it is, at any time, is non-sensical.”
Ok, I will try one more time. Imagine the world you just described (all those other things happening just as you describe). The all ‘else being equal’ is what you describe. Now change only one thing… CO2, or a slightly brighter sun, or whatever. The question is what can we rationally expect to be the average net result of that single change?
Now if you think that is not a reasonable question to ask, then I do really give up; no further discussion will be constructive.
liza,
Wow, so many red herrings, all completely unrelated to the question of the influence of CO2 on surface temperature.
Good luck with this line of irrelevant argument.
Re: BobN (Comment#51719)
Thanks for the suggestion! I actually like the connecting lines, though, precisely because they bring in the time element: you’d go from one year to the next as you walked from dot to dot along the line–if you could see the dots, that is. So probably what I need to do is plot connecting lines and dots!
“Ok, I will try one more time. Imagine the world you just described (all those other things happening just as you describe). The all ‘else being equal’ is what you describe. Now change only one thing… CO2, or a slightly brighter sun, or whatever. The question is what can we rationally expect to be the average net result of that single change?”
SteveF,
The problem is that I don’t care about an imaginary world, where these things fantastically cancel each other out. If we measure the surface temperature during a summer where it was unusually hot due to other factors, you aren’t going to be able to determine how much of the temperature was C02 driven and how much wasn’t.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to pursue slimate science and the effects of C02. It’s not reasonable to claim knowledge of the climate that you really don’t have, you just imagine you have.
Andrew
julio (Comment#51730),
“I certainly agree that better measurements can only help, and that computer models are not the real world”
I am happy that you do.
I do understand that many (but not all) GHG’s have historically grown pretty much in lockstep with CO2. But I think it is best to highlight that fact, since these other gases contribute a substantial fraction of total GHG forcing, and since they are mostly much easier to control than CO2 (low hanging fruit, if you will). It would be constructive to consider control of their emissions independent of CO2 emissions. Any rational GHG public policy should attempt to get the most impact for the least cost, as opposed to the policies that have actually been proposed, which pretty consistently get the least impact for the highest possible cost.
Andrew_KY,
Like I said before, it is clear further discussion will accomplish nothing. Bye.
SteveF (Comment#51738) September 3rd, 2010 at 11:39 am
“liza,
Wow, so many red herrings, all completely unrelated to the question of the influence of CO2 on surface temperature.
Good luck with this line of irrelevant argument.”
Wow yourself! You asked me who the “we” was that is not arguing. I told you the truth; because we are a team; and I wanted to explain why I am here and why he isn’t. The rest is the truth too. I am not impressed. Do you always dismiss people who are not impressed? I dont’! I keep trying. (maybe hubby is right!! waste of time!)
Besides you misrepresent what is right here in type. I have said plenty relevant to the argument already. Even gave a link.
What about were I pointed out that C02 concentrations in ice ages around 180ppm and then interglacials concentration rose ..280-300ppm??? That’s a 100ppm of “extra C02” just like now. BUT not one degree temp rise – but more like 6, 7,8 degrees temp rise higher. Hello? You ignored me. I assume you have that all figured out to some “natural causes” or orbital parameters in your head but you didn’t care to share; and assume you still believe natural causes can’t possibly make half a degree of warming right now that 100ppm of extra “modern” C02 is the culprit. Okaaayyyyy.
Liza,
I do not dismiss you, I only dismiss arguments and issues which are unrelated to the question at hand. I wish you (and your husband) well. 🙂
.
The entire subject of glacial versus interglacial periods is complicated, and no, for sure CO2 is not the primary driving force. Here are a few thoughts I wrote about this subject recently at Jeff Id’s blog: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/solving-a-solution/#comment-35442 .
just saw some graphix showing pdo and warming, and also co2:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/compare_pdo_temp_co2_solar.png
from here:
http://skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-an-ice-age-isnt-just-around-the-corner.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/PDO_vs_Temp.gif
Sorry kim but it doesnt look like pdo is the perp.
I’m not very good at putting the pictures into text comments, sorry.
SteveF,
Good point about controlling the other GHGs. I admit I had not thought about it much, if at all.
I still do not believe that sensible CO2 emission reduction policies have to be disastrous. It is true that politicians and lobbyists are very good at turning everything they touch into a disaster, but somebody has to set the policy. If industries had always been left to self-regulate, child labor would still be legal, and California would have disappeared under the smog long ago… We just have to try and elect sensible people, which means (on this particular issue) neither Liza nor Joe Romm 🙂
Re: politics, I am slightly center-left in America, which makes me center-right in Europe. Really.
I get numbers close to Julio’s using the ENSO and AMO as the natural oscillation variables (I’m a little lower).
It is just that Julio’s formula actually gives different answers than might have been assumed:
Temp C increase to date = 1/Log(2)*Log(389Co2)*1.942-16.17=0.55C
Temp C double = 1/Log(2)*Log(560)*1.942-16.17= 1.56
Temp C 2100 = 1/Log(2)*Log(715)*1.942-16.17 = 2.24
(There might be some confusion regarding the slope coefficient of 1.942 (for GISS) – it doesn’t automatically lead to 1.942C per doubling)
Julio’s formula is not much different than the other forms of the IPCC global warming formulae (but it is not quite the same because it is missing the 280 which changes the effect slightly from the assumed 1.94C per doubling).
3/Log(2)*Log(560/280) = 3.0C = 3/Ln(2)*Ln(560/280)
julio,
Policies for sure do not have to be disastrous, but I think what has been kicked around so far (cap’n trade… and worse) can be fairly described that way; an invitation for endless political interference and malfeasance. The more money is involved, the worse the potential for destructive and counterproductive results. It is much like handing an unreformed alcoholic a fresh bottle of whiskey each 3 hours, and expecting he won’t be continuously drunk. Modest proposals like Roger Jr.’s make sense…. which tells me they have not an ice cube’s chance in Hades of being adopted.
Combine all that with the ever rising demands for trillions of dollars in ‘global warming’ wealth transfer from developed to poor countries (with mostly corrupt governments firmly in control), and you have the potential for theft and corruption than can be described as ‘almost without limit’.
In politics, long experience has taught me to loath almost all of them. And I do.
Re: Bill Illis (Comment#51750)
It’s just that I’m not assuming doubling from any particular initial concentration (I understand 280 ppm is the standard reference). If you were to double the *current* concentration, from 389 to 778 ppm, you’d get
1/Log(2)*Log(778)*1.942-16.17=2.48C
which is 1.94 more than your “Temp C increase to date”, as it should be. I’m sorry for any confusion. (Just to be clear, I’m not expecting such a doubling over the course of the next 90 years, nor am I expecting the formula to “work” that far into the future!)
What do you mean by “I get numbers close to Julio’s using the ENSO and AMO as the natural oscillation variables”, though?
julio (Comment#51748) September 3rd, 2010 at 1:12 pm
What are you talking about? People like me? I live in California and felt the effect of smog in my throat playing outside as a kid. And my husband; a state certified environmental scientist cleans up the Earth everyday while you just talk about doing it (or tell everybody else to). I don’t want people like you elected.
People don’t know the difference between smog/pollution and C02 and people like you don’t give them that information because you believe C02 is some kind of pollution. Al Gore shows a picture of a power plant with “pollution” coming out of a stack and I know it is just steam. The history of the Earth says C02 is not pollution. That timescale is bigger then you graph. I don’t like graphs like yours driving politics and scaring my kids.
SteveF thanks for that comment really -too tired to respond..and your post on the other blog…How about talking to a geologist instead of treating all of it like some big mystery?
So…Now you all care about other gases? Wow. lol I mentioned methane way up thread; saw it with my own eyes bubbling out of the ground and thought of you guys. ( I still don’t get how you all decide what is relevant and want is not when talking about the whole planet’s climate. I’ve been in the debate along time. You guys play a games and I don’t!)
Sorry kim, didn’t mean to abandon you..I looked at Julio’s graph and it does not do or represent as sold… R=.76 is not impressivve, but I’ll have to address that a little later when things here settle down and I get a free moment
julio (Comment#51754),
Bill Illis and I have both looked in some detail at correlation between radiative forcing and temperature. Bill started with log(CO2), AMO index, and Nino 3.4 index regressed against temperarture; AMO pretty closely captures the ~60 oscillation you noted earlier.
I later substituted explicit forcing values for each known forcing (CO2, N2O, solar cycles, methane, halocarbons) and regressed their total, either as the immediate forcing or lagged at any exponential approach constant desired, along with AMO and Nino 3.4 against temperature.
The regression result is always pretty much the same (R^2 near 0.9), even when you assume a lag constant up to 12 years… the sensitivity is pretty low, somewhere under 1.2 degrees per doubling, and considerably less if the assumed lag is 5 years. The overall fit is actually a little better at =<5 year lag.
SteveF,
Thanks for the explanation. I buy that. Just by adding two sinusoidals to my fit the R^2 went from 0.76 to 0.84 (0.87 for GIStemp), so if you actually have something that correlates well with a lot of the wiggles, like El Nino and the AMO index, you’re bound to do better. The low sensitivity, I imagine, must still be due to the absence of aerosols?
I’ve played with lags a bit myself and concluded that the temperature data simply do not contain enough information to allow one to conclusively favor one lag over another. Is this more or less what you find?
No worries, MikeC. I’ve managed alone and have learned a lot, mostly that we don’t know very much. And why is that Cheshire Sun grinning so mysteriously at me?
===================
Liza,
I’m sorry, I’m sure you’re a fine person, and have many admirable qualities otherwise: it’s just that, on this particular issue, you simply are not reasonable. I can say that unequivocally, after having watched reasonable people for months trying to reason with you.
“Lukewarmers are defined as those who believe the climate sensitivity is in, or at least near, the lower range held by the “consensusâ€. In contrast, hell-fire and brimstone warmers think it’s in, or at least near, the upper range.”
I’m not sure your definition of “hell-fire and brimstone warmers” is useful, except in a rhetorical sense, to try and identify a parallel to the “lukewarmers.”
While I’m sure that description applies to somebody, it misses a lot of people who think global warming poses a huge and unacceptable threat to human civilization. That group may, as you say, think that the warming is likely to be at the high end of the range, which would be pretty clearly catastrophic — a 6C warming by the end of the century, for example. But they need not believe that for a “hellfire and brimstone” attitude to make sense. They may believe:
1. That warming is likely to be on the upper end of projections.
2. That warming will not likely be on the upper end of projections, but that the chance that it would be is unacceptable — comparable to a 5% or a 20% chance of nuclear war.
3. That warming will likely be about where the IPCC says it will be, 3C or so, creating conditions not seen on earth for millions of years, which are likely to be extremely destructive, including the loss of most of the ice sheets, ocean acidification, megadroughts and deadly heat waves, etc.
4. That, just as with #2, even if warming is unlikely to be in the middle of the range, the 5% or 10% or 25% chance that it will presents an unacceptable risk.
5. That warming may very well be on the lower end of what the IPCC says is likely, creating conditions not seen on earth for hundreds of thousands of years, with an unacceptable risk of widespread destructive changes.
In order to be somebody who believes in the basic science of global warming, but does not believe it presents a severe threat to humanity, you have to believe to a high degree of confidence that none of the above propositions are true. I’ve never seen anybody make a rational case for that given the facts in hand, and I frankly doubt anybody can.
Robert
Well, I’m not sure your observation has any utility at all. Rhetoric is the art of using language and we use words when communicating. So, having different terms to describe different groups would tend to have only have utility in a rhetorical sense. Were you expecting a word to have another sort of utility, like nutritional value so you could eat it? Or material values so you could literally use it as a construction material to build a house?
Of course the term wouldn’t apply to everyone and so will miss lots of people. I could equally well write “I’m sure the word “wino” applies some people, but it all the oenophile who enjoy wine with dinner without indulging to excess.
Yep. Words describing people with “trait A” don’t apply to all people. The existence of a word like “wino” doesn’t imply that everyone in the world is a wine.
Returning to your complaint about “hell file and brimstone warmer”, if you want words to distinguish between people who believe warming will be rapid and on the high end of the IPCC range from those who your 1 from 2 from 3 etc. feel free to coin one. It’s done all the time.
Interesting segues from complaining about a word only having utility as a rhetorical device to discussing what people might believe. I’ll just go to your close though.
Can you make a case that 1-5 constitute all the things a rational person could believe? I’ve never seen you do it. I doubt you can.
How’s that for an argument? Looks a lot like your argument.
“Well, I’m not sure your observation has any utility at all. Rhetoric is the art of using language and we use words when communicating. So, having different terms to describe different groups would tend to have only have utility in a rhetorical sense. Were you expecting a word to have another sort of utility, like nutritional value so you could eat it? Or material values so you could literally use it as a construction material to build a house?”
Feeling a bit testy tonight? I don’t thing “hell-fire and brimstone warmers” exist in the same sense lukewarmers exist. It’s a made-up category to achieve imaginary balance. The actual parallel is between the scientific community on the one hand and “lukewarmers,” a mostly amateur and amateurish fringe on the other. “Hell-fire and brimstone warmers” are introduced above to avoid the harsh reality of that contrast.
“How’s that for an argument? Looks a lot like your argument.”
Only to people who don’t know what a rational argument looks like. 😉
“How’s that for an argument? Looks a lot like your argument.”
Only to people who don’t know what a rational argument looks like. 😉
PS: Comment got caught on the “internal error” page. There’s a typo there.
Robert–
Is your point you didn’t make an argument and never intended to make one? Sorry I mistook that for an attempt.
No, my point is that your attempt to turn my argument on its head revealed that you didn’t understand it in the first place. My argument is rational; your turnabout is a hissy fit. No comparison. 🙂
julio (Comment#51763),
“The low sensitivity, I imagine, must still be due to the absence of aerosols?”
That is certainly a big part of it. Use of a reasonable assumed climate/ocean lag period (al la Stephen Schwartz or ARGO) is the rest. If you use an 8 year lag (Schwartz’s best auto-correlation estimate, exponential lag constant of 1/8) and assume 25% of the GHG forcing is canceled by aerosols, then the diagnosed sensitivity is about 1.5C per doubling. If you use a 12 year lag (exponential constant = 1/12) and assume 30% cancellation of GHG forcing by aerosols, then the diagnosed sensitivity is 1.71 degrees per doubling, still way short of the IPCC ‘best estimate’ value of 2.85 per doubling. ARGO data does not (of course) support this kind of lag at all…. it suggests much shorter.
If you assume a 25 year lag (exponential lag constant = 1/25) and assume 30% of the radiative forcing canceled by aerosols, then the diagnosed sensitivity reaches 2.1 degrees per doubling, which is finally in the IPCC range, but still well short of the ‘best estimate’. A combination of 30 years of climate lag and 40% cancellation of all GHG forcings by aerosols , yields a sensitivity of 2.6 degrees per doubling, approaching the IPCC ‘best estimate’ of ~2.85C per doubling. 30 years of lag is so far removed from ARGO data as to be comical, yet this is what GISS says is consistent with Model E (see the many ragings of Tamino for more details, or visit RealClimate for the full treatment/abuse). 40% canceled forcing via aerosols is supported by… well, nothing at all, as far as I can tell.
Of course, a much more reasonable combination, 8 years of lag and 15% cancellation by aerosols, yields a diagnosed sensitivity of about 1.3 degrees per doubling.
Only the most extreme combinations of ocean heat accumulation (not supported by ARGO) and assumed cancellation of GHG forcings by aerosols (supported by nothing but WAG’s) can possibly yield a sensitivity that is near the center of the IPCC sensitivity range (that is, ~2.85C per doubling). Were this any field other than climate science, I think such preposterous claims would already be prompting snide comments during presentations, and people would be asking rather disrespectful and very pointed questions after each presentation. But this is climate science.
“I’ve played with lags a bit myself and concluded that the temperature data simply do not contain enough information to allow one to conclusively favor one lag over another. Is this more or less what you find?”
To some extent, yes. There is not a whole lot of change in R^2 with different assumed lag times. But inclusion of the ~11 year cyclical forcing form the solar cycle as an explicit forcing does make the fit gradually worse for longer lags, especially for lags more than ~5 years. You should not be able to see the contribution of a regular, but very small, 11 year forcing oscillation in the temperature history if the system lag is several times longer than the 11 year solar cycle; yet the falling R^2 with increasing assumed lag suggests that the solar signature is clearly present.
Of course, a slightly more sophisticated regression model, one that combines a faster ‘immediate response’ with a much slower long term response, might give better R^2 values… but I have not found any combination that does it, and I have tried.
My best guess, after thinking about the data for vary along time, is that the “practical” climate sensitivity (Which I define as the temperature response within ~30 years of an applied forcing) is probably near 1.3C per doubling. Claims of >2C per doubling are simply wrong.
Julio (Comment#51765) September 3rd, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I am sorry you think that. I don’t think pointing to the geologic record is unreasonable. The truth is without it, you wouldn’t know that the climate changes on earth at all.
It says up top Where Climate Talk Gets Hot! I suppose that means the science/discussions gets settled toward HOT World no matter what; and doesn’t mean “A passionate debate about the climate” like I thought it did? 😉
kim, I found online that NASA has a new program called “Living with a Star” because of a cool sun spot picture I saw. Apparently NASA thinks there is a lot more we need to know about the sun “and it’s role in Earth’s climate”. 🙂
Actually, I learned in this thread that I want to eat hot pepper jelly on crackers with sour cream! Excellent idea, whomever is responsible for submitting that comment! 🙂
Andrew
SteveF,
Thanks for the detailed response! Clearly, you have put a lot of work into this (and probably gotten everything one can get from the surface temperature record alone).
I agree that the fact we see the solar cycle in the global temperature anomaly record is a good indication that the time constant is less than 11 years, probably even less than 5 years. I also do not think multiple-time-constant models are the answer, having also played with them a bit.
The IPCC’s best estimates of the transient climate response (Fig. 9.21 of AR4) seem to cluster around 2 C per doubling. The equilibrium sensitivity seems to be up for grabs (Fig. 9.20, Table 9.3). The American Physical Society, in their revised statement on climate change ( http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm ), points to a 1 to 3 C per doubling range “with very long tails out to much larger temperature changes.” They consulted a large number of experts and apparently felt they could not do better than that…
As I have said before, the problem, one might even say the tragedy, of climate science is that being a discipline with intrinsically large uncertainties, it has been thrust in the spotlight where everybody demands from it a certainty it just cannot give. Work that is intrinsically inconclusive and “in progress”–like much work in many other sciences–is presented as conclusive, by advocates of a particular course of action; and people eventually end up feeling forced to defend the indefensible…
But where in the geological record do you have billions of humans doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere?
SteveF and Julio… if you’re getting R up to .9 after ENSO is included (I believe you included NAO as well… I’m just too tired n lazy right now to read up again) then you’re catching the effects of upwelling that no one thought to include… But Perdue did start looking at it a couple of years ago after we brought it up to them… not sure where they’re at with it but I recall some sighs of relief that they didn’t have to bother with the whole aerosols problem (problem as in everyone knows it’s BS)
Bugs: “But where in the geological record do you have billions of humans doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere?”
Right now? 🙂 Ugh…gonna be long winded again.
I think that human lifespans have increased 30 yrs or so along with the rise in C02 content of the atmosphere bugs! Should I make a correlation chart? If that works out, it is good news right? Or no? 😉
Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence…we can not go back in time and look at small snap shot timescales of 100 yrs, 50 yrs, 1,000 yrs with such detail and good resolution as we need to know that this climate hasn’t happened before for whatever reason and the content hasn’t risen in such small amounts like 100ppm before either for whatever reason… we say it goes from 180 ppm to 280 ppm in a general sense between glacials and interglacials in the recent past because of the data we do have. That’s why scientists can say the MWP had climate similar or as warm as today and be correct-we are talking about FRACTIONS of a degree of temp here. We were, like now, coming out of an ice age and barely into an interglacial period during the MWP too just like now..even though it seems like far away past in some people’s heads. It is not; it is barely few seconds of time on geologic scales. Just like now. So is the last million years!
100ppm is such a small amount. Deep into the last interglacial, ie: warm period with hardly any ice; (125,000 yrs or so ago??) sea level was a few FEET higher then what you would call “normal” now and the “global average temperature” back then still could have had a saw tooth up and down fraction of a degree look to it . But we say things like” C02 concentrations and temperatures were relatively stable” then and now AGW keeps saying the climate and the atmosphere state is un-normal. The evidence? A bunch of charts and projections with huge margins for error (and talking about fractions!). Here’s a question: How many ppm reduction of C02 would stop that interglacial period sea level rise from happening?..because its been rising before all those billions of humans emitting C02 got here.
Liza, get with the program, don’t exhale and you won’t be part of the problem
You completely changed the topic.
Your claim was that there is no example of CO2 leading climate change in the past. There is no record of billions of humans in geological time, either, doubling the CO2 concentration.
No one has ever claimed CO2 is the only forcing, nor that it is the strongest forcing. It just so happens that at present, it is. IIRC, there are examples of CO2 leading warming, it’s just not very common because a massive, sudden increase in CO2 concentration is a rare event. In geological terms the current increase is happening in the blink of an eye, releasing carbon that has been built up over hundreds of millions of years.
bugs (Comment#51796) September 4th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Except that the Little Ice Age ended around the same place “at present” the Hockey Stick shows the temps starting to go up and you wipe it away. The temperatures started to get warmer BEFORE all those billions of people were here. You have no proof “at present” whatever got us out of the Little Ice Age has no “force” now when talking about A FRACTION OF ONE degree on these timescales and you don’t know how much of that fraction of one degree has anything to do with the 100ppm change. You all are just guessing and making charts about those guesses!
The LIA lasted hundreds of years too!
MikeC (Comment#51794) September 4th, 2010 at 8:14 am
Ugh! 😉
“You all are just guessing and making charts about those guesses!”
Yep, that’s all science is: guessing, with charts. You cracked the code. 😉
Julio,
“As I have said before, the problem, one might even say the tragedy, of climate science is that being a discipline with intrinsically large uncertainties, it has been thrust in the spotlight where everybody demands from it a certainty it just cannot give.”
.
It is more than tragic for climate science, it is tragic for all of science and society in general. The extreme uncertainty in climate sensitivity, after many years of intense study and much controversy, remains essentially unchanged. I disagree with you that this high uncertainty is “intrinsic” to climate science. I do not think that lack of progress with uncertainty is a coincidence, nor due to the extreme difficulty of the task. Lack of progress is a major failure of climate science and climate scientists, and this failure should not be lightly excused. I can think of no other scientific field where huge uncertainty about the most basic of questions is so apparently immune to progress.
.
I think ARGO is a good example of the problem. When ARGO was proposed and internationally funded, it was supposed to determine, once and for all, the rate of heat accumulation in the ocean…. which has always been used to explain why the world has not warmed much more rapidly due to GHG forcing (along with high climate sensitivity). Pretty much everyone seemed to agree ARGO was crucially important to reduce uncertainty (and to verify high climate sensitivity!). Once ARGO began collecting data that showed very little of the expected accumulation of heat, suddenly the ARGO results became “very doubtful”, or perhaps the heat calculation methods are wrong, or perhaps the “missing” heat is accumulating under the ice caps, or perhaps…. you name it. The more data ARGO generates, the less climate scientists seem to believe the ocean heat results…. just the opposite of what is expected in science. There are already published papers claiming, on the basis of the most scant and questionable data, that the huge quantities of expected heat not seen by ARGO are accumulating in the very deep ocean, below the depth where ARGO can measure. Pure speculative rubbish, masquerading as science.
.
The response of climate science to conflicting ARGO data strikes me as nothing but a charade to maintain the climate science paradigm of high climate sensitivity. But ARGO is by no means the only example. Richard Lindzen has many times pointed out that any climate data which infers lower climate sensitivity is immediately questioned, and either discounted completely or “re-worked” until it is no longer in conflict with high climate sensitivity. At the same time, any data (no matter how doubtful) which support high climate sensitivity is accepted at face value.
.
The Douglass/Santer/McKintrick et al story is a perfect case of this process in action. Douglass et al made some statistical errors in their comparison of models and tropospheric data, which Santer et al pointed out, but in light of more recent data (McKintrick et al) it turns out Douglass et al’s conclusions… that the IPCC climate models models have tropospheric heating profiles very wrong…. turned out to be correct. Yet NOBODY in mainstream climate science seems willing to admit this is the case. NOBODY in mainstream climate science is saying “Holy shit! There is something terribly wrong with the models!” I find myself shaking my head in disbelief; this is nothing like any science I am familiar with.
I think the field of climate science generates a lot of very badly tilted science, strenuously resists fixing obvious errors, and so makes little or no progress on the most important questions. It is a very weak field. My personal view is that this all comes from being far too “politically informed”, which inevitably leads to very bad science. That really is tragic… and terribly destructive.
Well, I should look on the bright side, in 50 or 75 years historians of science will have a field day examining the many failures of climate science.
Thanks for a thoughtful exchange of ideas.
Steve
Robert (Comment#51802) September 4th, 2010 at 9:29 am
🙂 Worse! People with no scientific degrees are making guesses and making charts. We have an example here with the Cal Air Board-guy lies about his degree-gets a job on the Air Board -his research is used to create regulation (costing the trucking industry tons of money-putting people out of business) turns out he doesn’t have a real degree, the Board finds out; passes the legislation anyway,he still works there and a professor from UCLA who tried to replicate this fake guy’s work and can’t, finds out about the lack of degree too; and gets fired from his job he’s held for 30 yrs.
SteveF, thanks for those words.
Here is CO2 versus Temperature over the last 45 million years which should be a long enough period to see a correlation. Not that close.
http://a.imageshack.us/img227/9866/tempco245m.png
Bill Illis,
Did you also generate a log(CO2) versus temperature graph from that same data?
SteveF (Comment#51806)
September 4th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Yes, it is just a simple formula but it is not always received very well when charted up in that fashion. People can do their own math. Every climate paper that deals with the issue has charts that are as convoluted as possible so that it is not clear (see Royer, Berner 2007 for example).
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf
While here is the temperature data they used versus CO2 from GeoCarb III (which is slightly higher than the GeoCarbSulf CO2 estimates they used but have not been published-to-date in data form so I can’t chart it).
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7097/royerbernertempvsco2.png
Re: Bill Illis (Sep 4 11:25),
Bill Illis:
There is a sense in which the Royer article you cited is a kind of lukewarmist text in that it says the available evidence does not appreciably narrow the probable guesstimate CO2 sensitivity range of 1.5 to 6 but it is clearly not zero and very unlikely to be 1.5 or less.
I always thought that that was the part of the essence of lukewarmism — the notion that physics says that CO2 has to have a warming effect but that the higher end scenarios are far less probable than advertised.
The most interesting part of the paper is the ‘Methods’ section to see the list of highly complicated assumptions required to build the model. On the one hand I admire the depth of the work done. On the other hand, the extent to which these factors create a significant range of uncertainty necessarily lessens confidence in the result. Maybe that’s as much as we can ever expect to draw from the paleo-climate record. I dunno.
Bill Illis (Comment#51805) September 4th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Here is CO2 versus Temperature over the last 45 million years which should be a long enough period to see a correlation. Not that close.
#########
first you have to back out all the other forcings.
1. changes in solar forcings
2. changes in other GHG forcing
3. changes in aerosols etc
Basically, it’s why the science doesnt move from data to theory, but rather from theory to prediction. If you could disentagle all the forcings ( if you had a few hundred earth histories) then looking through that data for simple correlations would be a worthwile excercise. But you dont have multiple earths. You have one earth. and one history of changing forcings. A data driven analysis is almost doomed to fail from the start.
the best we can do is this.
Build a model of the climate. Incomplete by definition. Run that model starting at 1850 or so. Do two cases:
A. Include estimates of all know forcings.
B. Include estimates of all known forcings EXCEPT C02 forcing
Compare how well each case matches the known record.
Case B fails miserably. Case B fails to predict warming. case A does better. Put another way, if you stood in 1850 and I asked you to predict the temperature in 2010 and only told you that C02 would increase, what would you predict. A person who believes the science of AGW would predict warming. That prediction would be more accurate that a prediction that said:
A. it would be cooler
B. there would be no change
C. We dont know.
George Tobin
“Maybe that’s as much as we can ever expect to draw from the paleo-climate record. I dunno.”
Yup. It is just not possible to go back and sort everything out, so you can’t draw any solid conclusions from paleo data. Sure, more CO2 will cause some warming. (almost) Everybody agrees on that. But that doesn’t help determine the current climate sensitivity under current Earth conditions.
The only way to really know is to have rock solid ocean heat data and rock solid aerosol effect data. And we (unfortunately) are a long way from there.
steven mosher (Comment#51809)
September 4th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
2. CO2 can act a reasonable enough proxy for all the non-water-vapour GHGs. It is by far the biggest.
3. Aerosols is very hard to do. Maybe for periods when the Earth was dry (as it started to get 8 Mya or in the Permian 265 Mya) or for when there were greater forest fires from high Oxygen levels like in the Carboniferous or let’s say really large volcanic events like the Siberian Traps at the Permian Extinction event 251 Mya.
1. Solar forcing is supposed to be reasonably stable over the 45 Mya period (it declines by 29.7% as one goes back to 4.55 Bya in nearly a straight-line and I accounted for that in Royer and Berner temp correlation above).
1a. But Solar forcing has another term:
Solar = TSI * (1 – Albedo) /4
… so there is one really big term you left out which is also required in any reconstruction.
The only two factors which can really change Earth’s Albedo is Ice, Clouds, and, to a much smaller extent, Deserts and Tundra/Grassland (short-term volcanic aerosols as well but that is far too short to show up in the resolution of the paleodata). [Oceans might also play a role as in 95 Mya when the oceans flooded 25% of the continents].
We do have Milankovitch Cycle estimates going back 5 Mya (beyond that there is too much uncertainty) and Milankovitch does not change the Solar Irradiance by much (a few W/m2 only) but what the Cycles actually do, is change the Albedo. Generally we can estimate the degree of ice build-up, ice decline in high latitudes from that and from the paleomaps project for example which also includes tundra/grassland as well.
– Once you take that step and try to rebuild the planetary Albedo over time based on things we know about (like continental alignments and how much glacier and sea ice there is), you find that it already can explain the climate history almost good enough by itself (under the assumption that the average level of cloudiness does not change).
A little start down that road.
http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/695/tempgeog45m.png
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2697/albedomodel.png
http://a.imageshack.us/img96/8928/albedo45m.png
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7046/albedochangesbycontinen.png
I’ve got the Last Glacial Maximum Albedo at 0.333 while Hansen has it 0.307. There is almost no discussion of this important climate variable in paleoclimate science.
Steven Mosher,
“Basically, it’s why the science doesnt move from data to theory, but rather from theory to prediction.”
OK, but that still leaves us with a really crappy estimate of climate sensitivity. Only some really good data (ocean heat content and net aerosol effects) will define the climate sensitivcity accurately.
Mosher Comment#51809
“the best we can do is this.
Build a model of the climate. Incomplete by definition. Run that model starting at 1850 or so. Do two cases:
A. Include estimates of all know forcings.
B. Include estimates of all known forcings EXCEPT C02 forcing
Compare how well each case matches the known record.
Case B fails miserably. Case B fails to predict warming. case A does better. Put another way, if you stood in 1850 and I asked you to predict the temperature in 2010 and only told you that C02 would increase, what would you predict. A person who believes the science of AGW would predict warming. That prediction would be more accurate that a prediction that said:
A. it would be cooler
B. there would be no change
C. We dont know.”
Yes, but that could be a mere fluke. If “recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago” then a hindcast using estimates of all known forcings – case A – would fail as miserably as case B. Maybe prediction C – we don’t know – is in fact most right. The science of AGW would only be able to give us a very unreliable – all else being equal – prediction of warming. I’m sure we have a lot to learn about “all else” and I’m sure we will learn that it is not roughly equal – it wasn’t in medieval times if “recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago”.
Bill Illis (Comment#51805) September 4th, 2010 at 10:10 am
It is a pretty useless chart if it doesn’t include the other forcings. Fortunately we can analyse the current temperature record to a better extent, and tease apart the forcings, coming up with CO2 as the primary driver of warming.
“Every climate paper that deals with the issue has charts that are as convoluted as possible so that it is not clear”
CO2 vs temperature over the last 800k years:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/panorama/panorama11.html
Not convoluted at all.
“It is more than tragic for climate science, it is tragic for all of science and society in general. The extreme uncertainty in climate sensitivity, after many years of intense study and much controversy, remains essentially unchanged.”
Nonsense. Many fields suffer from significant uncertainty — medicine, military strategy, political science — the list is long. Science muddles through as best it can. Climate science works well enough to invariably humiliate the right-wing anti-science crusaders that have targeted it. The evidence in hand is perfectly adequate to prove the need for prevention.
It’s a common mistake among those ignorant of the scientific method to think that the presence of uncertainty invalidates science. If you want absolute truth, tomorrow is Sunday and there are many churches to accommodate you.
Robert,
.
Please.
.
I do not know who you are, but I am in fact a scientist, and have been working as one for 35+ years. I am quite familiar with the scientific method, and I am also quite sure that climate science is not at all typical of most physical sciences. The lack of progress on basic questions like the uncertainty in climate sensitivity is very atypical of any normal science. Having people who know absolutely nothing about science make hostile comments to people who do know something about it is another odd characteristic of climate science.
.
“Political science” is not science at all, but I think it is both humorous, and revealing of your mindset, that you imagine it is. Neither is military strategy, nor medicine, at least not any medicine outside of medical research. Which once again underlines your complete lack of understanding about what is and what is not science.
I suggest that you stick to comments on subjects you actually know something about. Science is clearly not one of them.
Robert,
i am also an atheist, so I won’t be attending church tomorrow. My experience is that only fools and children leap to conclusions without a bit of evidence.
Robert (Comment#51820)
September 4th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
“Every climate paper that deals with the issue has charts that are as convoluted as possible so that it is not clearâ€
CO2 vs temperature over the last 800k years:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss…..ama11.html
Not convoluted at all. ”
——
That is actually quite humourous because it fully demonstrates the point I was making.
It is a nicely laid-out chart (and whoever did it, is very good) but it does not do the math correctly and ignores the lag aspect.
Here is the “accurate chart” which also references the 800 to 2000 year lag issue.
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/5052/last800k.png
——–
bugs (Comment#51819)
September 4th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
“It is a pretty useless chart if it doesn’t include the other forcings. Fortunately we can analyse the current temperature record to a better extent, and tease apart the forcings, coming up with CO2 as the primary driver of warming.”
——
I understood you wouldn’t like it. I have also tried to estimate the “other forcings” as close as possible and the end result does more-or-less match “the current temperature record” which exhibits a low CO2 sensitivity (and I’m sure you don’t “like” that either).
—–
“Political science†is not science at all,”
then…
“I suggest that you stick to comments on subjects you actually know something about. Science is clearly not one of them.”
.
I suggest you heed your own advice
Bill Illis: “- Once you take that step and try to rebuild the planetary Albedo over time based on things we know about (like continental alignments and how much glacier and sea ice there is), you find that it already can explain the climate history almost good enough by itself (under the assumption that the average level of cloudiness does not change) [….] I’ve got the Last Glacial Maximum Albedo at 0.333 while Hansen has it 0.307. There is almost no discussion of this important climate variable in paleoclimate science.”
In your opinion, would a more intense focus on albedo in paleoclimate science lead to a more precise and reliable estimate of climate sensitivity? Or will uncertainties about cloud albedo perhaps prevent that?
Niels A Nielsen (Comment#51829)
September 5th, 2010 at 4:49 am
Why wouldn’t we want to take it into account.
Here is today’s Earth taken by Apollo 17 in 1972. Everything that is white in this picture is reflecting back 60% to 80% of the sunlight. The very white blob at the bottom is Antarctica and when it iced over 33.6M years ago, global temperatures dropped by 2.5C (exactly the amount predicted if the Albedo below 60S changed from 0.45 to 0.65 which is what it would do in that scenario).
http://a.imageshack.us/img826/4568/antarcticaas1714822727.jpg
—–
So, let’s go back to the 26 ice ages in the last 2.5 million years. Technically, the total solar irradiance received by the Earth over a full year was higher than today in most of the ice ages. How did global temperatures drop by 5C. (The CO2 didn’t initiate it, it lags behind).
Because the Earth looked like this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/IceAgeEarth.jpg/600px-IceAgeEarth.jpg
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/render/earthice.jpg
——-
Anything that can change Earth’s temperature by -2.5C or -5C (or -25C as in Snowball Earth) or +4C as in Pangea is clearly something that should be part of the CO2 sensitivity equation.
Cloud levels are probably pretty stable – they have a certain pattern by latitude. Clouds are highest at high-mid-latitudes and at the Equator and they are lowest just above the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn . It has probably always been that way.
MikeC (Comment#51826),
LOL
.
You are suggesting ‘political science’ is in fact a type of Science? How about painting, music, writing, sewing, and tennis; are those also ‘sciences’?
Have you ever heard it called political arts?
Thus far you have argued magnificently in this thread about climate and policy, then ya blow it with a statement like that.
“How about painting, music, writing, sewing, and tennis; are those also ‘sciences’?”
Yes.
Andrew
And I was thinking this morning of the science aspects of playing golf. The more science you apply to it, the better your score will eventually become. There is so much science that can be done on a golf course that is part of the game.
Andrew
MikeC,
.
Yes, I have heard it called “political arts and sciences”.
.
Political science, behavioral psychology, and economics are all useful fields of study, but they are very different from physical science in their basic nature, even if they all use some of the same tools as used in physical science, such as robust statistical analysis of data. Political science studies the normative beliefs, behaviors, and opinions of people; it is not the same as studying how a certain drug blocks an enzymatic pathway, even though in both cases the general subject might be called “the study of people.” Enzyme pathways are not normative, and aside from measurable genetic differences between people, an enzyme pathway is independent of the person. Normative beliefs do vary (a lot!) between people, and unless you are trying to determine a connection between a person’s physiological makeup or genetics and that person’s political views, the study of variation in beliefs and behaviors between people is nothing at all like a physical science.
.
This is not a new disagreement. Richard Feynman ticked off lots of people in the ‘soft science’ fields when he said he did not think those fields qualified as ‘science’. I think Feynman was correct, but I am sure you do not. So maybe it is best to just agree to disagree.
Adrew_KY,
.
Sure, it probably helps to apply scientific (physics, turbulence) principles to play golf well. But someone who knows a lot of physics is not going to always play well (and I know this from personal experience 😉 ). Lots of people who have not a clue about the physics involved in golf (listen to Johnny Miller talk about ‘top spin’ if you want a hoot) can play golf remarkably well. A musician may (or may not) understand the physics of a vibrating string or the propagation of pressure waves in a gas, but they can still be remarkably good musicians, even if they understand none of the physical science of sound.
.
But the real difference is that there is no substantive question about what is involved in the flight of a golf ball; I suspect you know what makes the ball hook or slice, but nobody ‘studies’ the flight of a golf ball to gain new scientific insights. And you probably do still slice the ball, in spite of your understanding of it’s cause! Science involves the study of physical phenomena which we do not fully understand.
SteveF,
I think golf ball manufacturers continually study the flights of golf balls and continually whack them over and over to improve their intellectual and practical understanding of golf balls and how they travel.
A person can’t just have an intellectual understanding of golf and claim they understand golf. Like any science, golf is a continual investigation of evidence and attempts at replication of what is observed. It’s also the participation of the scientist/golfer. You have to do the stuff yourself, or you don’t really understand it.
I’ve had this discussion before with one of the Nicks. 😉
Andrew
Re: bugs (Comment#51827)
I suspect Bill understands this, but it’s an important point, so allow me to clarify.
As you say, there are two different effects, so what quantity you choose to plot depends on which effect you are interested in.
If you are interested in CO2 as a forcing, then you may want to pick a reasonable value of the climate sensitivity and plot that times the logarithm of the CO2 concentration, side-by-side with the historical changes in temperature. The difference between the two curves will show you the magnitude (and sign) of all the other forcings. This is the sort of curve Bill showed us yesterday, and it is interesting because you can see that in the past (over geological time) CO2 has been mostly a relatively small warming force riding on top of a much larger negative feedback (probably, as Bill suggested, albedo related).
The other effect is what you call the “feedback.” The Reader’s Digest version of this is that, over time scales of hundreds of years, a sustained increase in temperature will cause the release of a significant amount of CO2 from the deep oceans. If this is the effect you want to highlight, then you should plot the concentration (no logarithm!) of CO2 side-by-side with the temperature (possibly with a time lag, but this would be virtually invisible in those graphs anyway). Then you get a very nice effect of CO2 and temperature marching nearly in lockstep over thousands of years. This is the kind of graph Gore showed in his movie, and Robert linked to yesterday.
This effect, however, is almost totally irrelevant to the discussion of the global warming we are experiencing today, first, because of the time scales involved (hundreds of years), and second, because even assuming a lot of warming, the total amount of CO2 that would be released would still be fairly small compared to what we have been accumulating in the atmosphere over the past century alone (a point, ironically, very clearly illustrated in Gore’s documentary!). So it is my considered opinion that it was profoundly deceptive of Gore to use that figure the way he did; and, in any case, it seems rather pointless to be trotting it out again at this late date.
P.S. I would have posted this earlier, but I was in church this morning.
Who cares if they’re not sciences in a strict sense. It’s a pretty trivial point – almost entirely semantic in fact.
They’re the most rigorous and structured ways we have of studying phenomena that probably aren’t amenable to being studied in the manner of physical sciences. On that basis I can’t see any problem, for the non-pedant at least, in referring to them as forms of science in a loose sense.
Julio,
Thanks for that clear explanation. Maybe you should drop quantum mechanics and go into climate science! 🙂 Regular church attendance might help you cope with the hostile environment of climate science.
Mark (Comment#51847) ,
“forms of science in a loose sense”.
Loose indeed.
Andrew_KY,
“I think golf ball manufacturers continually study the flights of golf balls and continually whack them over and over to improve their intellectual and practical understanding of golf balls and how they travel.”
.
Well, there is probably a bit of science involved in optimizing the design/manufacture of a golf ball, but that is unrelated to playing golf.
.
Judging from the number and content of television and print ads for golf balls, my guess is that the manufacturers make a lot more use of political science than physical science. 😉
Who cares. There’s no particular merit to a from of enquiry being a science. It is what it is; it’s purely descriptive. Likewise there’s no particular demerit to a from og enquiry not being a science. If something can’t be investigated scientifically then criticising its investigation as un or nonscientific – not that that is what you are doing – seems a mite stupid.
“Well, there is probably a bit of science involved in optimizing the design/manufacture of a golf ball, but that is unrelated to playing golf.”
Sorry, Steve F, I disagree again. lol
Golf manufacturers make lots of different kinds of balls that behave differently from each other and the really serious player frequently tries new brands or types that are soft, or travel farther or spin more or whatever, depending on what the ball to do.
The golfer likes to know how these balls behave and why, when playing golf, so the golfer and the manufacturer need to share the relevant information (what materials were used in constructing the ball, why it was made that way, analysis of testing, etc) about the ball and even cooperate in testing the ball.
Now, what’s just marketing and what’s good information about a ball could be the subject of a scientific study. 😉
Andrew
“It is a nicely laid-out chart (and whoever did it, is very good) but it does not do the math correctly and ignores the lag aspect.”
Prove it. You are making the extraordinary claim that hundreds of peer-reviewed papers are mistaken about the close correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the last several hundred thousand years. You are not offering any evidence other than a self-published graph and assertions. I’ll take the work of actual scientists, thanks.
“i am also an atheist, so I won’t be attending church tomorrow.”
That’s a shame. You’re obviously prone to attaching yourself to absurd fairy tales with no rational basis, so I’d think religion would be a natural fit for you. But then, their fairy tales encourage them to get out into the world and do something, while yours rationalize your desire to do nothing.
“My experience is that only fools and children leap to conclusions without a bit of evidence.”
My experience is that only deluded fanatics or self-conscious liars are capable of blinding themselves to the mountain of evidence supporting climate science. But given you’re totally incapable of countering the arguments or presenting your own evidence, I guess denial is your only option. That’s sad.
Mark,
“There’s no particular merit to a from of enquiry being a science.”
.
I must respectfully disagree. Some would argue that Machiavelli’s political insights are just as valid and applicable today as in the day of Machiavelli. Nobody argues that Galileo’s science is as valid and applicable today as when Galileo lived.
.
I do not intend criticize the soft sciences, or the people involved in them… they can be very useful, but they are just not the same as physical science.
Steve Goddard (Comment#51695) September 3rd, 2010 at 8:02 am
My June forecast is looking pretty good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..g&NR=1
As is my August forecast.
http://www.arcus.org/search/se…..010/august
.
Goddard keeps making false claims. let us look at some facts. here are the important numbers (AGAIN), for a start:
.
1) The extent will fall below Steve’s 5.5 million sq. km. forecast.
2) The extent will fall below Sept. 22, 2005′s low of 5,315, 156 sq. km.
3) The extent will fall below Sept. 13, 2009′s low of 5,249,844 sq. km.
4) The extent will begin to approach 5,000,000 sq. km. as we get into early September (causing Steve to perhaps get a bit nervous, as it is a statistical point of interest for him I should think).
.
now let us look at the latest extent number:
.
The latest value : 5,192,188 km2 (September 4, 2010)
.
as you can see, arctic sea ice extent is now the third lowest on record. the “recovery” is over. Goddard made a very conservative estimate for a recovery. (5.5) it did not materialize. now he is placing a bet on 5.1, which would be an extremely low arctic sea ice annual minimum!
.
yes, if you guess often and extremely conservative (regarding your message!), sometimes you get close.
Robert,
.
Your substitution of abuse and insult for reasoned argument is a common characteristic of people with extreme left political views… especially those who blog about climate science.
.
I sometimes wonder if folks like you appreciate how destructive to your political goals this kind of behaviors is. I suspect not. Bye.
“If you are interested in CO2 as a forcing, then you may want to pick a reasonable value of the climate sensitivity and plot that times the logarithm of the CO2 concentration, side-by-side with the historical changes in temperature. ”
If you are interested in CO2 as a forcing, you need to get beyond calculating correlations on a graph and do some actual science. One of the many fallacies the expert know-nothings at WUWT have spread across the interwebs is the notion that calculating the relations of one curve to another and trying to explain the past or predict the future is science. In fact, it’s about as scientific as reading entrails.
To isolate the effect of CO2 at equilibrium you need estimates for albedo, volcanic aerosols, solar activity, and levels of other greenhouse gases.
The correlation tell you there’s a strong association between the two, but it’s not going to give you a climate sensitivity. You really think it’s that easy? There’s a reason people devote their lives to the study of these things.
Julio,
Robert clearly does not know your background.
SteveF,
No, but you’d think that by now he could have picked a clue.
Then again he still writes things like
“You are making the extraordinary claim that hundreds of peer-reviewed papers are mistaken about the close correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the last several hundred thousand years.”
when the point, that I have tried to make painstakingly above, is that that particular correlation is irrelevant to the current debate.
So he does seem to be a bit slow on the uptake.
Lucia, if you are reading this, I realize this is your blog, but is there any reason why we have to keep putting up with this Robert person here?
julio,
“So he does seem to be a bit slow on the uptake.”
.
You are much more generous with this comment than most people would be.
“You’re obviously prone to attaching yourself to absurd fairy tales with no rational basis, so I’d think religion would be a natural fit for you.”
Theism (and more specifically, Christianity) has a rational basis.
http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=9780802863836&i=4
Andrew
Pretty much everyone seemed to agree ARGO was crucially important to reduce uncertainty (and to verify high climate sensitivity!). Once ARGO began collecting data that showed very little of the expected accumulation of heat, suddenly the ARGO results became “very doubtfulâ€, or perhaps the heat calculation methods are wrong, or perhaps the “missing†heat is accumulating under the ice caps, or perhaps…. you name it.
.
funny, but i have a completely different memory about this incident.
.
the argo data got massive support among “sceptics”, because it showed COOLING. then it was discovered, that this was simply an error, and the oceans were WARMING instead.
.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
.
sceptics do not like the ARGO data as much, since then.
.
i don t know what the most recent ARGO data says. but here is an analysis up to 2009. (and by a pretty extreme “sceptic”)
.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/02/argo-global-sea-temperatures-0-1900m.html
.
his conslusion is a funny one:
.
Digitization of this graph for trendline analysis shows a slight increase in temperature of 0.2°C per decade:
.
only warming by 0.2°C per decade?!? that sounds like cooling!
.
(note the short time period and he might have made serious errors. and el nino also might have had some effect..)
SteveF,
“You are much more generous with this comment than most people would be.”
Well, this is the Internet. I dare say all of us have made asses of ourselves out here at some point.
But, then again (precisely because I’m human), I can honestly say that if I never have to see another Robert post again, it’ll still be too soon.
By the way, I was impressed you figured out the quantum mechanics thing. It must have taken a bit of digging. I’m not considering switching to climate science, though; whatever Robert may believe, I do have too much respect for the honest workers in the field to think that I could just absorb in a few months all the knowledge that they have acquired in a lifetime.
But I certainly do not think it is disrespectful to use a bit of critical thinking and one’s own analytical skills to conclude, however tentatively, that a particular effect is more likely than not to be on the low end of the uncertainty interval that the scientists’ themselves quote. (It may be significant, in this connection, that the American Physical Society statement that I linked to yesterday does not even rule out the 1 C to 1.5 C range for the climate sensitivity. These were pretty sharp people, getting, and appraising, information directly from the climate scientists themselves.)
LOL Steve, You eventually got it. The difference between physical science and behavioral / social science. And Poli-Sci is the study of the pursuit of power. Of course, social sciences are important to how and why people pursue power where Poli-Sci is more observing history to confirm the how’s and why’s.
As for your examples, music, painting, writing and such are occasionally scientific, but are more often artistic, as in creating something to stimulate the senses or emotions… on the other hand, tennis is athletics. So, different from art where an audience is being stimulated… or athletics where skill, strength, endurance etc are used to entertain (normally), science is getting to the truth through an accepted process of observation, testing, etc.
.
When it comes to the science surrounding golf, I’d listen to what Andrew has to say… by the way Andrew, why did OJ get kicked off the golf course?
.
Too many slices
Julio–
I believe in light moderation. I think lots of people form a certain opinion of robert. Generally, those of us with Ph.D.s in physical sciences or engineering seem to think he doesn’t exhibit much of an understanding of how physical scientists do things, think or present arguments.
But that’s no reason to ban him.
I also agree that it could hardly be disrespectful of climate scientists to believe that the climate sensitivity falls inside the range they quote as a consensus estimate , even if one thinks it’s inside but on the lower end of the range. (If it was disrespectful to think this, it would be equally disrespectful to think it falls inside but on the high end. It would be even more disrespectful to think it falls outside and above the the consensus estimate, it it might well be disrespectful to think you should warm people to even consider the possibility sensitivity might be higher than the consensus estimate.
But I’ll go even further than you: I don’t think even it’s disrespectful to think scientists might be incorrect. It would be disrespectful to think they are intentionally fraudulent– but to think they might be wrong? Nah. Scientists have been wrong before.
sod,
You are simply mistaken, although in fairness to you, this same story has been told so many times that it is no surprise you tell it again.
.
There was a brief period in the first year or two of ARGO operation where some (physically) defective ARGO floats led to an understatement of ocean heat content. Josh Willis at NASA JPL discovered the problem, and since then the ARGO group has identified and removed all defective floats from the data set. Those defective floats are no longer used. My recollection (I am not absolutely certain of this) is that the problem was traced to a pressure sensor from one pressure sensor manufacturer (out of several). The ARGO group maintains quality control in a number of different ways, including comparisons of profiles for floats that happen (by chance) to be very close to each other.
.
Unfortunately, NASA published the story of Josh Willis’ discovery of the problem on there web site, but has never updated the story to explain what has happened after the problem with the floats was discovered. So anybody who reads the NASA story comes away with an incorrect impression of the current state of ARGO.
.
There is nobody (as far as I am aware) who claims the current fleet of thousands of floats suffers from this problem. Most recent published results of heat content based on ARGO data (all published after the problem was identified and fixed) are in reasonably close agreement, and show very little heat being accumulated in the top 750 meters of ocean since 2005.
Actually, I thought it was disrespectful to ask that anyone get kicked off the blog because they have a different view. In fact, since social / behavioral sciences have been discussed, Robert is a good case study since he is obviously in denial about the state of climate science since climategate.
You are simply mistaken, although in fairness to you, this same story has been told so many times that it is no surprise you tell it again.
.
your claim is garbage. the story happened exactly as i told it.
.
you are trying to reinvent history, and you have not provided data.
.
why not link to some research that show little heat?
Re: MikeC (Comment#51868)
“Actually, I thought it was disrespectful to ask that anyone get kicked off the blog because they have a different view.”
It was not “because he had a different view.” Everybody has a different view. It was his abusive attitude that got to me, and the fact that his posts seem to consist of nothing but abuse.
But, like I said above, I’m human, I was angry; I apologize.
Re: lucia (Comment#51866)
I like your comment. It’s true, I hadn’t thought about the possible arrogance (perhaps a better word than “disrespect” to describe what I had in mind) of suggesting that the effect might actually be towards the higher end of the uncertainty interval!
Still, as a scientist, which is to say an expert in my field, I am sensitive to the idea of outsiders coming at me with half-baked theories that purport to show that everything I believe is wrong. I would not want to encourage–or be guilty of–such an attitude towards climate science.
As is my August forecast.
http://www.arcus.org/search/se…..010/august
.
funny, and a rather typical Goddard moment. Phil writes on the Goddard Blog:
.
The SEARCH project is based on the NSIDC data which is currently 4.97 so it appears you’re out of the reckoning.
.
Goddard seems to have made a “forecast” based on the false dataset. so it is not “looking pretty good”, but is completely false already. sigh.
.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/september-5-sea-ice-news/#comment-320
.
ps: should remind us of his many errors during his long WuWt series on sea ice posts. he got the barrow sea ice situation wrong TWICE. the ice was gone already two times, even though he claimed “no change”.
sod,
.
My ‘claim’ is most certainly not garbage. Here are two papers that show little accumulate heat (there are others):
.
Cazenave et al. Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo. Global and Planetary Change, 2008; DOI:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.10.004
.
Willis J. K., D. P. Chambers, R. S. Nerem (2008), Assessing the globally averaged sea level budget on seasonal to interannual timescales, J. Geophys. Res., 113, C06015, doi:10.1029/2007JC004517.
.
The link you showed presents a graph of “temperature trend’ from ARGO, which doesn’t have any physical meaning (temperature at what depth?), and so doesn’t make a lot of sense. ARGO floats report an entire temperature profile from the surface down to 2000 meters each time they dive and re-surface. The only way to present the ARGO data in a way that is meaningful in terms of Earth’s energy balance is to calculate the integral of temperature versus depth (the heat content). That is what the papers I noted do.
Andrew_KY (Comment#51840)
September 5th, 2010 at 9:41 am
And I was thinking this morning of the science aspects of playing golf. The more science you apply to it, the better your score will eventually become. There is so much science that can be done on a golf course that is part of the game.
Andrew
Andrew
Having been a very poor golfer i have a theory from a different perspective than you, perhaps. I think that you are right in saying that the more physics ( i’m a physicist) you apply to your game ( so I applied a physicist to the ball) the better your score will become. My theory suggests that the resulting graph of score against physics applied will be asymptopic. Becoming so ( I can’t spell that damn word) at about 80 strokes a round for me. Better for you perhaps.
sod,
.
You can contact Josh Willis by email and ask him if he thinks his Willis, Chambers, Nerem paper is in error. He is really a very reasonable fellow.
sod (Comment#51862)
September 5th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
the most recent ARGO data says.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot……1900m.html
Digitization of this graph for trendline analysis shows a slight increase in temperature of 0.2°C per decade:
———–
I think there is a math error in this number.
The original data is (and the digitized data appears to be) monthly – the linear trend line formula says y = 5e-6x + 5.0537
0.000005 * 120 is only 0.0006C per decade.
In the digitization effort, some data points may have been lost and hence the X in the trendline may not be monthly but I counted the number of slope changes in the digitized chart and it is over 60 and should be (6 * 12 + 1) months so the trendline is probably built on monthly datapoints.
Sod
Get over Steve Goddard. You are becoming a bore and a drag on the blog.
He stuck his neck above the parapet and got it marginally wrong. You did nothing but moan. Get a life.
Julio,
“It was his abusive attitude that got to me, and the fact that his posts seem to consist of nothing but abuse.”
.
I thought his comments were quite gentle and rational for such a passionate crusader.
MikeC,
Can’t tell if that is tongue in cheek or not.
… the tongue and cheek did puff a bit as the belly laughed
Bill Illis (Comment#51876),
Your link seems dead. Can you fix it?
Steve, it was just copied from sod’s 12:54 pm link above. Sometimes copying from a comment works and sometimes it doesn’t.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/02/argo-global-sea-temperatures-0-1900m.html
Re: Bill Illis (Comment#51876)
Bill,
If the straight line they have drawn over the curve is in fact the trend, then it looks (eyeball) like 0.02 C/decade. That is consistent with the 5e-6 slope being C/yr.
oops. I meant “per *day*”. 5e-6 C/day = 0.02 C/decade.
I use a script to shorten really long urls so they don’t break the blog template. It also automatically turns them into links (so people dont have to add the html)
If the url is too long, you’ll see “…’ in the text. It’s live in the original comment, but Copying often just copies the characters that show, including the ‘….’. Those links will not be live when you copy because the script takes the text as written and turns that into the link. So…. if you see that, you need to click the link and paste the actual link in.
People can use their search tools on the browser to find the original though.
When I referred to a feedback, I meant a feedback, not what I call a feedback. CO2 acts as a feedback by being released from the oceans, and then contributing to further warming. Gored explanation is unclear, but to get into the depths of CO2 historical contribution to warming is just going to confuse a lot of people, unless he goes into depth, in which case he is probably just going to confuse things more. Maybe Gore himself doens’t understand it in depth, I don’t know.
CO2 is currently acting as a forcing. The climate has been stable, the solar contribution has been for a cooling trend if anything, yet the temperature has been rising. It is changing what balance of the climate.
Bills graphs are pointless. They don’t actually explain anything. They remind me of the chartists who plot stock prices.
I would suggest reading http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/ over two parts. it is difficult reading for me, but it does explain why a simple log response is not correct.
bugs,
“he climate has been stable… the temperature has been rising… It is changing what balance of the climate.”
Geez.
A fraction of a degree has changed the climate of the whole planet? (Freudian slip! “what balance”)
Do me a favor bugs. Go visit Mars. Much less complicated planet with no people, or water to speak of, or vegetation, or dynamic geology…on infinity. 95% C02 content in the atmosphere. Average temperature so cold (-80 F) that the C02 freezes. Add 100 ppm of C02 to that 95%, then “tease out” a way to raise its “global average temperature” .5 degrees with your “known forces and feedbacks” and report back to me on how the whole planet becomes all “unbalanced”.
Andrew’s Labor Day Tribute:
Hero…is the pride of purpose In the unrewarding job -Rush
“Labor Day is a special day. Even though it is not a religious celebration, Catholics happily celebrate it because it recognizes the value of an activity essential for human beings: work.
According to history, the idea of celebrating Labor Day in the United States came from Matthew Maguire, a machinist from Paterson, N. J., who wanted to recognize those “who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold.â€
http://www.satodayscatholic.com/090205_AB.aspx
Andrew
Andrew, the transition to robots has begun… pretty soon there will be 300 paid days off for robot days since they’ll be doing all of the work. … you have any hero robots in mind?
MikeC,
‘Data’ from ST:TNG? 😉
Anyway, the robots will feel great satisfaction fighting all the C02-driven floods, droughts, harsh and mild winters, extreme and not so summers, windy and not-windy days, clouds that aren’t poofy enough, ice cream-melting, and bad poetry that I imagine they’ll be working on.
Andrew
“But I certainly do not think it is disrespectful to use a bit of critical thinking and one’s own analytical skills to conclude, however tentatively, that a particular effect is more likely than not to be on the low end of the uncertainty interval that the scientists’ themselves quote.”
Certainly not. It may very well be. However, it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees; the uncertainty that matters outside the scientific journals in the uncertainty about whether or not the expected warming is dangerous to humanity. And that uncertainty is microscopic.
SteveF, above, argued that medicine is not a science, demonstrating a very limited idea of what science is, doubtless generalizing from his own field, very inappropriately. Few scientists have the luxury of working in an environment in which all of the relevant variables can be isolated and characterized via repeatable experiments. You can’t in medicine, or in biology generally. You can’t in climate science. You can’t in political science or in military strategy, although those fields certainly involve scientific analysis — hypotheses, tested by experiments.
(The chauvinism of the some of the people in the “hard” sciences is quite amusing. Apparently some scientists feel that the rigor of their fields is down to their own virtues, as opposed to the fact that, compared to a climatologist or an evidence-based physician , they have chosen vastly simpler and easier-to-study problems.)
When you work on the hard stuff, you quickly learn the difference between the knowledge necessary to satisfy your curiosity and that necessary to inform your actions. A patient has a cellulitis. Is it streptococcus or staphylococcus? Is it MRSA or MSSA? I don’t know and I have no way of finding out for certain for several days. Is that shocking? Does it mean I don’t know how to do my job? It does not. It means it’s a difficult thing to determine. (I might indeed have some idea — staph infections tend to be more localized, strep a little more diffuse — but I could never by confident enough to base a clinical decision on the appearance of the rash.)
So it’s not shocking that there is uncertainty about the bug involved. I deal with that uncertainty by prescribing an antibiotic that will kill either bacteria (usually clindamycin.)
Back to climate science. Climate sensitivity is highly likely to be between 1.5C and 4.5C per doubling. We haven’t yet narrowed it down further. Is that shocking? No, it reflects the nature of the problem. We have one planet, which we cannot run repeated experiments on. We have to piece together information from many disciplines from dendrology to organic chemistry to atmospheric physics.
And, very importantly, the “treatment” question: Do we need to better define the sensitivity in order to know what we need to do next? No. Even if we could place climate sensitivity with high confidence between, say, 1.5C-2.0C, we would still be looking at conditions by 2100 which have not been seen on earth for millions of years and are likely to be highly dangerous. Therefore the efforts to pinpoint climate sensitivity, while very interesting, have little relevance from a policy perspective.
See Andrew, there you ago again, avoiding the tough issues. I did not ask you about what robots will be doing, I asked you for a hero robot… and you avoided the question and only spread doubt and uncertainty… you… you… denialistic person you… you couldn’t even come up with a hero robot… like this one…
http://www.hero-1.com/broadband/
Don’t tell me… you refused to mention it because you hate academia and this is a training robot!
“we would still be looking at conditions by 2100 which have not been seen on earth for millions of years and are likely to be highly dangerous.”
Robert, I doubt we’ll be looking at earth conditions in 2100, unless you plan on freezing us a la Darth Vader froze Han Solo in a big ice cube tray in The Empire Strikes Back, and then having someone crack us out at the appropriate time.
And who was watching the earth ‘millions’ of years ago and recording the conditions? The Vogons?
Andrew
Re: bugs (Comment#51897)
And, as I tried to explain earlier, this is a minuscule effect today, however important it may have been over geological timescales. (See also SteveF’s comment #51646: “Takahashi et al (1993) said 1C change in ocean surface temperature changes atmospheric CO2 by 4.2%”)
I do not like the expression “CO2 acts as a feedback”, which is why I tried to rephrase what you said earlier. CO2 is always a forcing. A feedback is a process whereby a change in temperature changes the magnitude of a forcing. So these are two separate things, and you would describe them by two separate equations, expressing two different cause and effect relationships, as I tried to explain above. In one of these equations the CO2 concentration would come in, as a cause, logarithmically (forcing equation), and in the other one it would come in, as an effect, linearly (feedback equation).
Thanks for the RealClimate link. It may come in handy. But it does not say anywhere that the forcing isn’t logarithmic. In fact, it shows why it is (approximately) logarithmic–because the absorbing power of CO2 decreases (approximately) exponentially as the wavelength of the incident radiation deviates from resonance, as I said above (comment #51671), where I linked to basically the same curve ( http://www.realclimate.org/images/CO2Abs4x.jpg ) at the scienceofdoom website.
And, very importantly, the “treatment†question: Do we need to better define the sensitivity in order to know what we need to do next? No. Even if we could place climate sensitivity with high confidence between, say, 1.5C-2.0C, we would still be looking at conditions by 2100 which have not been seen on earth for millions of years and are likely to be highly dangerous. Therefore the efforts to pinpoint climate sensitivity, while very interesting, have little relevance from a policy perspective.
Not even wrong Eg Zaliapin M. Ghil2010
We revisit a recent claim that the Earth’s climate
system is characterized by sensitive dependence to parameters;
in particular, that the system exhibits an asymmetric,
large-amplitude response to normally distributed feedback
forcing. Such a response would imply irreducible uncertainty
in climate change predictions and thus have notable
implications for climate science and climate-related policy
making. We show that equilibrium climate sensitivity in
all generality does not support such an intrinsic indeterminacy;
the latter appears only in essentially linear systems.
The main flaw in the analysis that led to this claim is inappropriate
linearization of an intrinsically nonlinear model;
there is no room for physical interpretations or policy conclusions
based on this mathematical error.
Robert,
Ooohhh! A medical doctor. Now I understand.
.
“And, very importantly, the “treatment†question: Do we need to better define the sensitivity in order to know what we need to do next? No.”
.
An old chemical engineer (now long dead) who worked for me many years ago once said: “To the man who mostly works with a hammer, just about every problem resembles a nail.”
.
Clinical medicine, while for sure technically difficult (at least in some cases) is very different from climate science, and from physical sciences in general. In one case you are sometimes forced to base your actions on poor or incomplete information, and must act quickly, and as best you can, to save the patient from further harm, or even death. In the case of physical science, you often, at least in the early stages of a problem, have much the same situation: lots of incomplete and perhaps conflicting information. But in the case of physical science, you do not need to (and indeed should not try to) draw a conclusion based on incomplete understanding. Nor do you need to plan a long term course of action based on very uncertain data. You need to try to make sense out of the often noisy data to gain insight, and plan further tests, gather new data, and advance your understanding.
.
Which brings us to the real issue of the global warming controversy: urgency. I believe that the urgency for action does not depend only on scientific understanding, it also depends on personal values and priorities: perceived costs, risks, and benefits for any public action or actions taken. Public action is (and should be) a political choice, not a scientific one, even if it is informed by scientific understanding. Vast uncertainty in climate sensitivity simply makes many people want better data.
.
When you answer your own question: Do we need to better define the sensitivity in order to know what we need to do next? No.”, you have already applied your own personal values and priorities, and come to a conclusion. Other people may, and indeed do, come to the opposite conclusion. You can’t simply force your personal values on everyone else, much as you might like to.
.
Now you can (and it seems, altogether too often do) declare anyone who disagrees with your preferred coarse of action to be evil, ignorant, stupid, a liar, corrupt, delusional, etc., etc. (read back over your many posts for specific examples), but that just means that you are insisting your values are ‘correct’ and other peoples are ‘wrong’, so yours should take priority.
.
Many of the people who post at this blog are intelligent, educated, and experienced. And many (if not most) hold degrees in physical sciences or engineering. Most of all, the majority (if not all ) are most certainly well intentioned. It does you no good to insult these people and tell them they are stupid, evil, and corrupt. They are not.
“And, as I tried to explain earlier, this is a minuscule effect today, however important it may have been over geological timescales. (See also SteveF’s comment #51646: “Takahashi et al (1993) said 1C change in ocean surface temperature changes atmospheric CO2 by 4.2%â€)”
Takahashi et al looked at the instantaneous response to an isolated change in temperature. It did not examine all the other things that go along with a warmer ocean, such as changes in mixing and changes in biological productivity.
I agree, it’s important to keep the release of CO2 by the oceans in proportion. But the oceans’ solubility is also important as regards its role as a carbon sink. As I’m sure you know, the oceans currents absorb about a quarter of the CO2 emitted by humans. All of the factors above as well as decreased solubility brought on by warming and increased saturation will likely decrease that uptake and accelerate CO2 rise.
“Not even wrong”
Not even close. The part you cut out:
“Sensitive dependence nonetheless does exist in the climate system, …
[and again]
Sensitive dependence nonetheless does exist in the climate system, …
[one more time]
Sensitive dependence nonetheless does exist in the climate system, …
…as well as in climate models . . . EBMs exhibit two saddle-node bifurcations, more recently called “tipping points,” which give rise to three distinct steady-state climates, two of which are stable.”
Misrepresenting a source via that kind of selective quotation is lying, plain and simple. That’s the end of you as a credible voice in this discussion, I’m afraid. 😉
“When you answer your own question: Do we need to better define the sensitivity in order to know what we need to do next? No.â€, you have already applied your own personal values and priorities, and come to a conclusion. Other people may, and indeed do, come to the opposite conclusion. You can’t simply force your personal values on everyone else, much as you might like to.”
That’s gibberish. There is general agreement that we do do not want to see highly disruptive and destructive changes in our climate that would make the world poorer and kill or render homeless millions of people. If there weren’t, then the anti-science right-wing loons would not be arguing about the science of climate change. They’d simply say: “Florida underwater? Massive famines? A new Dust Bowl? We’re all for it! Them’s our values!”
The relevant question, if you would be so kind as to think about it rationally for a moment, is whether the lower bound for climate sensitivity renders those consequences unlikely under a business-as-usual emissions scenario. That’s the argument. Personal values don’t come into it.
You are also wrong in thinking I can’t force my values on you. If I can persuade enough of my fellow citizens, I most certainly can. Given what’s at stake, I most certainly will.
Robert,
“Misrepresenting a source via that kind of selective quotation is lying, plain and simple. That’s the end of you as a credible voice in this discussion, I’m afraid.”
You just don’t understand. This is does not help you cause.
Shame on you SteveF, you included a “what was” and excluded a miniscule “what if”… that makes you the boogie man!
Robert,
“You are also wrong in thinking I can’t force my values on you. If I can persuade enough of my fellow citizens, I most certainly can.”
.
As can everyone else force their values on you. It is, as I said, a political question, as well as a scientific one.
.
But enough said, you simply will not address other peoples arguments except with insults. Go back to the clinic and boss some nurses around; I suspect they loath you… bye.
Seriously, do you think that kind of personality disorder will be accepted by any medical board?
“If I can persuade enough of my fellow citizens”
And you’re doing a fabulous job, Robert. Somebody should really consider paying you for your skills. Yes, they are THAT good. 😉
Andrew
Andrew, I have to had it to him, he has a computer model like mine where Godzilla vented some firebreath and turned Oklahoma into a dust bowl again
… then jumped back into the gulf and caused a sunami which flooded Florida
… which of course killed off the citrus crops and caused mass famine
“Many of the people who post at this blog are intelligent, educated, and experienced. And many (if not most) hold degrees in physical sciences or engineering.”
Appeals to authority really don’t help your case, especially when you are trying to wave away the work of the actual experts in this area.
I’m quite aware there are scientists about. When they’re felling reasonable, I like to ask them questions and pick things up. When they go off the rails and start spout irrational garbage, I like to drop a helpful hint here or there, even if they are — gasp! — a trained engineer.
“Clinical medicine, while for sure technically difficult (at least in some cases) is very different from climate science, and from physical sciences in general.”
If you think climate science is more like engineering than medicine, then you lack a basic understand of at least two of the three fields.
In fact, medicine and climate science have a lot in common. Both are, in the final analysis, about the response of complex biological systems to stress. And both do indeed require action in the face of incomplete information — not just because such information can be hard to come by, but because disruptive process can develop unstoppable inertia if we wait.
As it happens, I hold a couple of other advanced degrees as well, so no luck putting me in a box just yet.:) In any case, as somebody who has admitted to not being a climatologist, I would think you would want to be careful declaiming about hammers and nails. As I alluded to above, all of this self-important credential-wagging ultimately leads no where but back to the people with their names on the IPCC report.
“It does you no good to insult these people and tell them they are stupid, evil, and corrupt. They are not.”
Oh, some are, some aren’t. If I wanted to poke a stick at stupid and evil people, there’s always WUWT. I come here because many times people here, posters and commenters both, have something interesting to say. If you would like me to presume goodness, intelligence and expertise, I would suggest to try extending that presumption to me, and engaging the argument rather than attacking the rhetoric.
MikeC,
I used to love watching Godzilla movies when I was a lad. I even rooted for him against King Kong.
I still have an affection for sci-fi stories, but I’m not a devotee, like I was back then.
* I grew out of it. * (ahem, Robert)
Andrew
“As can everyone else force their values on you. It is, as I said, a political question, as well as a scientific one.”
All the more reason not to try and bluff your way through with this “I’m a Scientist!” nonsense.
“But enough said, you simply will not address other peoples arguments except with insults.”
It’d be really ironic if you followed that comment up by not engaging my arguments and instead insulting me.
“Go back to the clinic and boss some nurses around; I suspect they loath you… bye.”
. . . and you do not disappoint. What a sad little hypocrite.
It shows why it’s more than logarithmic. Also of interest is http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm. In particular http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm , as to why what was thought a negligable effect is more important than it was first thought to be.
Robert,
Please, under no circumstances change your tactics. Please never engage peoples arguments, please keep insulting them, please continue to be obnoxious.
Andrew? How could you pollibly root for Godzilla over King Kong? That’s just absolutely, downright un-patriotic!
… besides, if the loser goes to the meat packing plant, Godzilla tastes like chicken and King Kong gives you ebola
“Andrew? How could you pollibly root for Godzilla over King Kong? That’s just absolutely, downright un-patriotic!”
MikeC,
I couldn’t help it. Godzilla had that cool Atomic Firebreath and KK was just… well… he was just a big ape. 😉
Andrew
Yeah, and if King Kong wins, we get rid of New York!
Robert,
If you don’t like Takahashi et al., you can try Frank et al, Nature, vol. 463, p. 527, (2010)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/frank2010/frank2010.html
“Here we quantify the median [CO2 release into the atmosphere] as 7.7 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C warming…”
To repeat: minuscule.
On the larger issue… individual values always matter at decision time. I will leave it at that, because I don’t have time to write a long essay, and I doubt if it would make a big difference anyway. If you read upthread, you can see my own position–I do advocate action, and have done so for the three semesters now that I have had a chance to lecture to large undergraduate classes on climate change. But risk assessment and management is one of those areas where even nominally sane people can have wildly different standpoints. Throw in the effectively insane :-), and you are not likely to reach a consensus any time soon.
“Please, under no circumstances change your tactics.”
So much for “bye.” I guess it was just too embarrassing to leave it like that, huh?
“Please never engage peoples arguments, please keep insulting them, please continue to be obnoxious.”
Projection issues much? I gave you a rational argument that the uncertainty in climate sensitivity was not relevant from a policy perspective. You failed to engage that argument, vaguely invoking “values.” I responded to your claim about the impact of warming on CO2 release from the oceans, citing lacunae in the paper cited and pointing out that reduction in uptake could create a dramtic change in CO2 regardless of the speed of release. You responded by saying, let me see:
““Go back to the clinic and boss some nurses around; I suspect they loath you”
Clearly the words of someone desperately trying to engage on the issues. [/sarcasm]
You are the party throwing insults and evading the argument. If you have nothing better than to accuse me of being insulting whilst you dish out insults, I suggest you stick to your original purpose as say “bye” for real this time. 😉
Re: bugs (Comment#51936)
“It shows why it’s more than logarithmic.”
What are you talking about? Where? References and a mathematical formula, please.
And what’s with the basic links? Are you trying to teach me radiative physics??
Robert,
“I responded to your claim about the impact of warming on CO2 release from the oceans, citing lacunae in the paper cited and pointing out that reduction in uptake could create a dramtic change in CO2 regardless of the speed of release.”
.
No. You are very confused, I never even made such an argument. Perhaps you should read more carefully.
Julio,
“effectively insane”. Good choice of words.
“If you don’t like Takahashi et al., you can try Frank et al, Nature, vol. 463, p. 527, (2010)”
From the paper: “Our results are incompatibly lower (P<0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C."
Sounds like it's pretty far from settled. Of course you could very well be right. On a related subject, what do you think is likely to happen with regards to the oceans absorbing a quarter of the anthropogenic carbon? The ocean need not really slam down the gas pedal of CO2 levels. If it simply lifts it foot off the brake, we have a big problem.
"On the larger issue… individual values always matter at decision time."
That seems vague to the point of meaninglessness. I'm really curious how you are going to tie that back to the need to determine climate sensitivity given the destructive potential implied by even the lower bound of 1.5C. How will you make that argument?
"I will leave it at that, because I don’t have time to write a long essay, and I doubt if it would make a big difference anyway."
Whew! Escaped by the skin of your teeth. This is better than an action movie.
"If you read upthread, you can see my own position–I do advocate action, and have done so for the three semesters now that I have had a chance to lecture to large undergraduate classes on climate change. But risk assessment and management is one of those areas where even nominally sane people can have wildly different standpoints. Throw in the effectively insane 🙂 , and you are not likely to reach a consensus any time soon."
I think the presence of the insane kind of simplifies matters. Because if the debate at the moment was something like — "Carbon taxes $40 per ton or $200 per ton?" — then perhaps climate sensitivity would really matter. If the question was not "Do we need to reduce emissions?" but rather "How fast do we need to reduce CO2 levels, and do we need to practice geoengineering in the meantime?" then I think a degree or two per doubling would be very meaningful. And I think by the time the discussion reaches that point, the sensitivity will be better characterized as well.
ummmm… is anyone gonna strap on a ihad vest and demand that we pray to Allah Gore any time soon?… cuz I’m almost outta popcorn.
I find the following not terribly surprising, but still informative
http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?&w=400&h=220&o=f&c=1&y=r&b=ffffff&n=666666&r=6m&u=theidiottracker.blogspot.com&&u=http://rankexploits.com/musings/&u=http://climateaudit.org/&
“Percent of global Internet users who visit theidiottracker.blogspot.com:
Reach Change
1 month 0.00001 -50% Change in Reach
3 month 0.00001 -20% Change in Reach
“MikeC (Comment#51948) September 6th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
ummmm… is anyone gonna strap on a ihad vest and demand that we pray to Allah Gore any time soon?… cuz I’m almost outta popcorn.”
I dunno, but with Robert’s seemingly magical powers of persuasion, I imagine something significant is going to happen.
I’m going to get some more salt and vinegar potatoe chips…
Andrew
“You are very confused, I never even made such an argument. Perhaps you should read more carefully.”
Right back at you, big guy. You asserted that I “never engage peoples arguments.” I don’t have to refer to your arguments to disprove that statement, showing that I engage “peoples[sic] arguments” is quite enough to show you’re wrong. Little lesson in basic logic for your Monday evening enjoyment.
Next time we’ll talk about how to use the possessive case correctly.
“I find the following not terribly surprising, but still informative”
You are hilarious. Do you even remember ranting about people who avoid rational arguments? And now you’re digging up web traffic numbers, since your big “I’ll bet the nurse hate you” line did not have the effect desired. Hey, if I’m not insecure as a physician, maybe I’m insecure as a blogger — worth a try.
Sorry to disappoint you. I’m cheerfully obscure.
Sad. Little. Hypocrite.
Robert,
“I responded to your claim about the impact of warming on CO2 release from the oceans, citing lacunae in the paper cited and pointing out that reduction in uptake could create a dramtic change in CO2 regardless of the speed of release.â€
.
Do say that I made such an argument? I did not.
.
“dramtic”. Perfect. Perhaps next time we can talk about your spelling… big guy… or perhaps we can agree that most typing at blogs is less than proof read.
Robert,
Right back at ya big guy.
.
Sad. Little. Obnoxious. (obscure) Blogger.
Robert,
.
I preferred to be accurately quoted. It was not ““I’ll bet the nurse (sic) hate youâ€.
.
It was, “I suspect they loath you..”
personally I think that the act of loathing is a bit worse than the act of hating… but then what do ya expect from a guy who forces himself on people
.
Andrew, I just ordered some BBQ… I wouldn’t miss that moment for the world… on the other hand, it’s much more amusing when it’s one of the girls who forgot their meds that day
“I preferred to be accurately quoted.”
Tough. You pathetic little hypocrite. As promised, let’s review some basic grammar. You said:
“never engage peoples arguments”
You meant:
“never engage people’s arguments”
When the “s” is used in a possessive sense, to make a noun into an adjective, you need the apostrophe.
Much enjoying your whiny little cheap shots . . . not a rational word in sight . . . I think we’ve all got the measure of you now.
“Do say that I made such an argument?”
Coming up next, sentence fragments and the confused semi-illiterates who love them.
… or maybe it’s negative side effects from the hormone treatments
“most typing at blogs is less than proof read.”
Proofread. One word. The wrong word, as a matter of fact, but we can get into that after we’ve tackled sentence fragments. One thing at a time, eh?
Robert,
“Much enjoying your whiny little cheap shots . . . not a rational word in sight . . . I think we’ve all got the measure of you now.”
.
Odd, it took only one of your obnoxious little cheap shots for me to get the measure of you. Julio was right, you are a little slow on the uptake.
ya know Andrew, this reminds me of the blonde who shot her finger off trying to committ suicide… she was affraid there would be a loud bang so she put her finger in her other ear
MikeC,
I suspect it is a lack of meds.
“Odd, it took only one of your obnoxious little cheap shots for me to get the measure of you.”
Sorry, big guy, but for the insults to sting, you’ve got to come up with something better than just repeating back what I’ve said to you. 😉 As it is, you’re achieving nothing except to add “unimaginative” to “sad, pathetic, hypocrite.”
OK, on to sentence fragments. A sentence minimally requires a subject (a noun) and a predicate (which will include a verb.) There may or may not be an object. Let’s look at what you did:
“Do say that I made such an argument?â€
You’ve left out the subject. You do of course have a couple of nouns following the “that,” but they are placed in such a way as to modify the verb “say.” There’s no subject at all.
Work on your grammar. Along with your total inability to engage in a rational argument, and your pathetic grasping for some kind of insult to divert attention from that fact, it’s one of the three major things that have rendered you a humiliating failure in your showing here. 😉
SteveF:
You may be right. There is something scary, almost bipolar, about the guy. For the space of one whole long post, he manages to make himself sound sensible, articulate, and, well, basically normal… and then, somebody dares to disagree with him and it’s like you can almost watch the facade fall apart, brick by brick, in slow motion, until you can practically see the spittle on his posts, and imagine him smiling an awful grin, a manic gleam in his eye…
I’m scaring myself. I’m out of here.
nah, I’m convinced it’s side effects from the hormone treatments… and if you disagree then you’re an obnoxious, pathetic hypocrite… hippo-crit if you’re overweight
Robert,
Work on your rage.
But most of all, work on engaging people in a constructive way.
Good night.
Julio,
“imagine him smiling an awful grin, a manic gleam in his eye…”
It doesn’t even take much imagination. But imagine having to work with the guy!
Bye bye, Julio. You are clearly somebody with some insight into these issue, so it’s sad to see you indulging in this kind of hypocrisy. I was not the one saying “I bet your co-workers hate you” or pathetically Googling page hits to try to scrap together another insult … sorry, that was your friend Steve.
The formula is simple. Speak to me with respect, and I’ll speak to you with respect. Talk to me about the science and policy and I’ll talk about the science and policy right back. But if the rational discussion isn’t going well, and you want to reach for some insults . . . well, be careful. Because I’m also probably better at that, too.
But I’d much rather have a polite discussion, when there’s one on offer.
“these issues”
“But imagine having to work with the guy!”
I don’t want to imagine people trying to chop off limbs just to get attention
“Robert,
Work on your rage.”
See my comment above. There’s no rage, Steve. You’re annoying in a two-year-old-having-a-tantrum sort of way, but I can’t say it’s anything more than that. What you misread as “rage” is simply me thoroughly pwning you and your pathetic efforts to divert the conversation with personal insults.
“But most of all, work on engaging people in a constructive way.”
Like Googling the blog hits of people who disagree with me? Saying “I bet your coworkers hate you”? Calling them mentally ill?
Do you want to know why you feel small right now, Steve? It’s because, unlike you, I don’t spew random insults at people. I confine myself to the truth. You are a hypocrite, and the evidence is all up and down the thread. It’s pathetic in the extreme. You passed up every invitation to engage in rational discussion. You wanted to pitch insults instead. That blew up in your face, and I hope it taught you something.
Night-night.
Wow– Don’t you guys celebrate Labor Day? I’ve been BBQing and eating with friends all day. Settle down. Get some chocolate, marshmallows graham crackers, start a fire and make some ‘smores!
“…Steve. You’re annoying in a two-year-old-having-a-tantrum sort of way,…”
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
OMG I just spit up BBQ sauce all over my screen
Lucia, don’t mess this up, it’s the most fun I had since… since… I can’t remember when
Lucia,
“Get some chocolate, marshmallows graham crackers, start a fire and make some ‘smores!”
.
Too warm in September in Florida for ‘smores. Maybe after Thanksgiving…
MikeC (Comment#51948) September 6th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
ummmm… is anyone gonna strap on a ihad vest and demand that we pray to Allah Gore any time soon?… cuz I’m almost outta popcorn.
= = = = = = = = = = – – –
Please clarify this, thanks in advance.
Robert
This is childish. Name calling is bad enough (i.e. pathetic hypocrite), but grammar lessons are idiotic. I might have patience with this if you wrote prose more splendid than that of others, but you don’t. So, if you want to discuss grammar, go to “Language Log” and post your treatises on grammar over there.
Lucia,
.
I have thought about this ugly and useless exchange with Robert, and for my part in it, I want to apologize for wasting people’s time. With some folks, I guess it is just not possible to carry on a constructive dialog. Lesson learned; I will not be commenting to Robert any more.
Steve
dorlomin… mocking Robert’s extreme AGW crusader behavior… which was quite the spectacle
Robert, Lucia,
I apologize for my post #51965.
For me, this is an indication that I need a little time offline. I’ll be back soon, I hope.
MikeC, your comment was nothing more than gauche Islamophobia. Instructive never the less.
dorlomin, perhaps R Lee Ermey would be a good therapist for you…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APwfZYO1di4
I’m closing this thread — mostly because it’s too long for one things. I’ll be opening another soon. On the new thread, try to avoid:
* giving grammar “lessons” about spelling, apostrophes, dangling participles, ending sentences with prepositions or splitting infinitives. (No, your “argument” doesn’t become logical or rational because you noticed someone with who you disagree committed typo and left of an apostrophe.
* call people names (including hypocrites, liars etc.)
BTW: Arguments about what words mean is permitted. That’s goes to understanding what someone is saying and can advance understanding. Correct usage of apostrophes? Not so much. 🙂