How exactly could this work when CO2's effects are supposedly radiative? The IPCC attempts to overcome this dilemma (and the usual leading/lagging issues of ΔCO2 and ΔT not correlating) by imagining up mysterious heat 'pipelines', like the oceans.
??
How can it possibly be "mysterious" that it takes a while to heat the oceans or that surface temps will be related to ocean temps.
. But how does the energy get from the CO2 deep into the ocean?
Er, the atmosphere warms and conducts heat to the ocean, which then overturns slowly (they key to the lag) and transfers that heat lower down.
As Maggie points out, to have a complete theory for CO2 acting as the main control knob, it needs to function at all times, past, present and future.
Yes, but Maggie was rather obviously wrong once you realise that the oceans store much more heat than the atmosphere.
So in terms of error bars, who's winning, me, maggie or mikey's 1:27m chance of last year's warming being natural?
Hahahaha. Lying again. The not yet improved upon 1 in 27 million claim, refers to the unusual quantity of warm years we've had in the last few years, not just 2014.
Pagani may be licking Mann's arse where AGW is concerned but if his graph shows no correlations millions of years into the past then at some point he must reconcile the cognitive dissonance.
I am pointing out that academics will often make much mileage of earlier research to write papers for publication in peer-reviewed journals.
Your point eludes me. Is that part of the conspiracy, or not?
That major change was Antarctic glaciation.
What it isn't (and Pagani never claims that: you did) is an explanation for how climate and CO2 concentrations change over hundreds of millions of years.
No, I never claimed that his paper provided an explanation for all of Earth's climate history. I have simply pointed out that the deniers were misusing his research as part of a similar far-reaching claim themselves. I have also pointed out that Pagani's research is part of a much larger body of research demonstrating the importance of CO2 as a climate forcing agent. And it is this (together with his own work) that leads Pagani to say:
"In fact, not so long ago in Earth’s history, temperatures at the poles were so warm that climates on Antarctica and around the Arctic Ocean resembled near-tropical conditions with forests that included palm trees. And yes, this extreme global warmth, as well as the deep freeze of the ice ages, was determined by the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
You seemed to think his public statements conflicted with his research:
You copied some statements he had made, elsewhere, on his belief about AGW. I disagree with him on that particular issue (notice how we scientists will have genuine agreement/disagreement?)
Your point eludes me.
The point is that Pagani's papers, cited in this thread, do not show correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature, over millions of years.
I have simply pointed out that the deniers were misusing his research as part of a similar far-reaching claim themselves.
Actually they pieced together Pagani's and others works to show something that is true.
I'm surprised at you njp: you don't like separate reconstructions being patched together but seem very comfortable when instrumental records are patched onto reconstructions.
You copied some statements he had made, elsewhere, on his belief about AGW. I disagree with him on that particular issue (notice how we scientists will have genuine agreement/disagreement?)
But I'm sure you'll accept that there's a very big difference indeed between Pagani's level of climate science expertise and yours.
Imagine yourself as a working, published scientist in a field of study much discussed by the media and public. Would you accept the ignorant opinions of those with no science education (or some, but not in the same or even a related field of study) as having any relevance at all? I wouldn't, especially if they took my published work, cheekily copied the odd graph, while ignoring my detailed analysis and came up with their own daft opinions - and then claimed my data didn't support my conclusions!
The point is that Pagani's papers, cited in this thread, do not show correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature, over millions of years.
Actually they pieced together Pagani's and others works to show something that is true.
I'm surprised at you njp: you don't like separate reconstructions being patched together but seem very comfortable when instrumental records are patched onto reconstructions.
You copied some statements he had made, elsewhere, on his belief about AGW. I disagree with him on that particular issue (notice how we scientists will have genuine agreement/disagreement?)
What I notice is that Pagani (a scientist whose primary research focuses on factors driving climate during the Cenozoic era - a period starting 65 million years ago, and extending to the present) knows how important CO2 is as a climate driver in Earth's ancient history. I notice that he runs courses on paleoclimate and on contemporary climate change. I notice that he is in agreement with mainstream climate science, and is the director of the Yale Climate & Energy Institute, which is very much concerned with the need to respond to the threat posed by global warming.
And I notice that you - a man with very little knowledge of the subject, let alone any publications, but who has a strange ability to find dodgy graphs of dubious provenance in a variety of amusing places - disagrees with mainstream science, for reasons which do not withstand scrutiny. I notice that you approvingly described Pagani as an "independent researcher", until I pointed out that neither he nor his research agrees with your preferred beliefs, at which point you accused him of "licking Mann's arse".
The point is that Pagani's papers, cited in this thread, do not show correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature, over millions of years.
You still don't get what you did wrong, do you?
Actually they pieced together Pagani's and others works to show something that is true.
No, they stitched together a quilt made out of various pieces of work to tell you the story you wanted to hear.
I'm surprised at you njp: you don't like separate reconstructions being patched together but seem very comfortable when instrumental records are patched onto reconstructions.
The problem comes with the way the Pagani paper is being misused by the deniers. Their work is of course neither genuine nor peer-reviewed, which is why you like it so much. I find it hilarious that a man who thought it was somehow shameful for scientists to append the best available data concerning recent temperatures (the instrumental record) to the best available data concerning older temperatures (the multi-proxy reconstructions), in a very straightforward way, is himself blissfully unconcerned by graphs which superimpose data whose provenance and limitations he isn't even aware of, in order to "prove" a point which is otherwise unsupported in the scientific literature.
That would be climate change: the global temperatures are apparently increasing, despite the temperature records saying otherwise for the last 18 years.
Some climate scientists are desperately trying to convince governments to implement punishing Green policies: they are the modern day equivalents of the craniologists: those men purporting to show distinctions of race from skull measurements that didn't actually tell us anything of the kind.
History shows us that to persist with an idea out of popularity may lead to some undesirables running the show with some unpallatable policies.
I thought I'd go back to the OP to try to understand where people are coming from, because it seems that people are basically saying the same thing but in different ways.
To summarise my current understanding:
1. There is indisputable evidence that global temperatures have risen over the past 100 years
2. There is indisputable evidence that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over the past 100 years
3. There is a well understood mechanism that shows increasing CO2 results in increased temperatures.
4. There has been an apparent slowdown in the rise of global temperatures for the past 18 years
5. However http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30852588
2014 was the warmest year on record, with global temperatures 0.68C (1.24F) above the long-term average, US government scientists have said.
The results mean that 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since the turn of the century.
6. The OP seems to want Green taxes cut because either
a) they are ineffective or
b) thy don't like them because they are a bit lefty.
Where I'm struggling is why there is a dispute over the science. Are the "climate change deniers" saying that:
a) there has not been any climate change
b) there has been climate change but it is not anthropogenic or
c) there has been anthropogenic climate change but there's nothing we can do about it, so we shouldn't be trying to prevent it by imposing limits or "green" taxes?
The not yet improved upon 1 in 27 million claim, refers to the unusual quantity of warm years we've had in the last few years, not just 2014.
Read the Briggs article (and some of the links included) to discover why and how statistics are used and abused. Or just got plain wrong as with the 1:27m claim.
and this one. Looks like after the initial hype-shot from NASA's G.Schmidt, they revised their release to include error bars and are now only 38% certain 2014 was the hottest evah!
Also remember all probability is conditional. So that 38% chance (or whatever) they’re quoting relies on a set of assumptions that aren’t particularly meaningful to us. I leave it as a reader exercise to identify the premises used by NASA is coming up with that 38%, and then you finding better, more relevant ones.
And have you figured out why this new 'record' means the pause isn't necessarily over yet?
Er, the atmosphere warms and conducts heat to the ocean, which then overturns slowly (they key to the lag) and transfers that heat lower down.
Yes, but Maggie was rather obviously wrong once you realise that the oceans store much more heat than the atmosphere.
What the hell are you talking about? Have you got some new theory about how the climate operates/ You had better publish it if so?
In the meantime I thought you were a believer in the pronouncements of the IPCC and the climate models.
Don't try and obfuscate, the IPCC and the models did not show any huge delay in the Earth's reaction to an increase in forcings, mainly because there is no evidence for such a thing. They projected immediate and ongoing increases and are currently way out.
If the IPCC and the models had indicated that the increased energy was mainly going into and being distributed amongst the oceans then they wouldn't have been able to create some sort of crisis. Increases in tropospheric temperatures would take centuries to emerge if this was true.
You have probably heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics and they show entropy only goes one way, it increases. Energy that enters the oceans in an intense and organised fashion becomes diffuse and disorganised due to entropy. There is no way this energy can reorganise itself and reemerge as intense pulses of energy. It can only get back out very gradually in a diffuse fashion. it would take centuries or millenia to get all this energy back out.
So you are talking rubbish and going right against the models and IPCC you profess to trust.
So answer the question, do you believe that the Earth would be currently colder than the Little Ice Age and getting colder as we speak if Man had not emitted any CO2?
I thought I'd go back to the OP to try to understand where people are coming from, because it seems that people are basically saying the same thing but in different ways.
To summarise my current understanding:
Correlation != causation, and you wouldn't want a climate scientist to diagnose your medical condition and recommend a course of treatment. They aren't qualified to prescribe (or proscribe) cures.
Where I'm struggling is why there is a dispute over the science. Are the "climate change deniers" saying that:
a) there has not been any climate change
b) there has been climate change but it is not anthropogenic or
c) there has been anthropogenic climate change but there's nothing we can do about it, so we shouldn't be trying to prevent it by imposing limits or "green" taxes?
You've missed..
d) Climate change is normal, natural although their are anthropogenic effects, those have been greatly exagerated, often for political reasons.
Which kinda boils down to the question nlp can't answer. What exactly is CO2's effect on climate. The science says it can contribute around 3.7W or 1.2C/doubling. This is undisputed by practically everyone except nlp because it's based on some pretty solid and simple physics.
Where nlp, and most other reality deniers go wrong is with various theories about the power of CO2 to trigger other effects that amplify it, ie all the positive feedbacks that then give us >1.2C/doubling warming. Those then get fed through the IPCC's torture devices to produce various warming rates by 2100 based on various emissions scenarios. The most extreme being this one-
Based on our modeling framework, we find it technically possible to limit forcing from RCP8.5 to lower levels comparable to the other RCPs (2.6 to 6 W/m2).
If you read that and find the assumptions used for rate of fossil fuel burning, you should realise quite quickly that we'd need several technical advances to find and extract enough fossil fuels fast enough to burn. We'd have between now and 2100 to do this, but then we'd also potentially have viable fusion, or GenIV/V reactors displacing fossil fuels. Assuming the Greens would allow those.
So basically it's still all about the real climate sensitivity vs simulated. Reality is giving strong indications that CO2 doesn't lead to positive feedbacks and Thermageddon. If they did, there would have been no Pause, Plateau or Hiatus. There would be no divergence between simulation and reality to keep pointing out, and no need for the alarmist climate scientists to keep trying to find natural negative feedbacks, which previously they'd denied having any serious influence over climate.
Then on the political side, our masters have taken what the 'scientists' have told them and turned it into policy like the EU Renewables obligations, or our very own Climate Change Act. That's generated lots of money for the renewables lobby, but sadly far less useful electricity.
As usual, it's winter, it's cold, there's a high pressure system over the UK and no wind.. So our 'investment' in wind power is proving rather useless. And given our peak demand is from 1800 onwards, solar won't help.
And Greens want us to do even more to decarbonise our economy, so ban all fossil fuels to meet emissions reduction targets.. Which would mean electrifying pretty much all transport (air being a bit.. tricky) and heating (no gas for domestic heating/cooking). Which would mean we'd need 2-3x more generation than we have now. Naturally the renewables lobby is salivating at the prospect of billions more being thrown their way, and their paid lobbyists the Greens are helping promote the meme.
And we're just expected to pay for it, and watch our energy bill rocket..
Read the Briggs article (and some of the links included) to discover why and how statistics are used and abused. Or just got plain wrong as with the 1:27m claim.
One long, poorly written, republican strawman rant largely predicated on the two desperate notions that there is both a reason CO2 magically doesn't cause warming AND that something else "natural" is.
and this one. Looks like after the initial hype-shot from NASA's G.Schmidt, they revised their release to include error bars and are now only 38% certain 2014 was the hottest evah!
Also remember all probability is conditional. So that 38% chance (or whatever) they’re quoting relies on a set of assumptions that aren’t particularly meaningful to us. I leave it as a reader exercise to identify the premises used by NASA is coming up with that 38%, and then you finding better, more relevant ones.
And have you figured out why this new 'record' means the pause isn't necessarily over yet?
One long, poorly written, republican strawman rant largely predicated on the two desperate notions that there is both a reason CO2 magically doesn't cause warming AND that something else "natural" is.
You mean you're incapable of considering multiple factors are involved? You can only consider a single variable as being responsible?
I don't care, Einstein, remember?
Yep, he knew a bit about energy. So excuse to link this-
showing one way that nature can do abrupt climate change bigger, louder and faster than a billion obese people opening coke bottles. And that was only a lil bitty 500kt rock.
What the hell are you talking about? Have you got some new theory about how the climate operates/ You had better publish it if so?
I don't need to, others have sadly got there before me.
Quite why you can't understand this basic physics is a bit odd, the oceans take a lot more heating that the atmosphere so temperatures will always lag increased heat input.
In the meantime I thought you were a believer in the pronouncements of the IPCC and the climate models.
Don't try and obfuscate, the IPCC and the models did not show any huge delay in the Earth's reaction to an increase in forcings, mainly because there is no evidence for such a thing. They projected immediate and ongoing increases and are currently way out.
Nothing in that paragraph is true. Sad.
If the IPCC and the models had indicated that the increased energy was mainly going into and being distributed amongst the oceans then they wouldn't have been able to create some sort of crisis. Increases in tropospheric temperatures would take centuries to emerge if this was true.
You have probably heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics and they show entropy only goes one way, it increases. Energy that enters the oceans in an intense and organised fashion becomes diffuse and disorganised due to entropy. There is no way this energy can reorganise itself and reemerge as intense pulses of energy. It can only get back out very gradually in a diffuse fashion. it would take centuries or millenia to get all this energy back out.
So you are talking rubbish and going right against the models and IPCC you profess to trust.
So answer the question, do you believe that the Earth would be currently colder than the Little Ice Age and getting colder as we speak if Man had not emitted any CO2?
I can only repeat, it takes time to heat our mighty oceans. Why you deny this or think all the world's scientists are too stupid to realise that is beyond me.
If CO2 levels stopped rising right now temps would continue to rise for something like the next 50 years as the oceans warm.
Here's the IPCC telling you:
"The slow transport of heat into the oceans and slow response of ice sheets means that long periods are required to reach a new climate system equilibrium."
You mean you're incapable of considering multiple factors are involved? You can only consider a single variable as being responsible?
No, it means none of those people whose arguments rely on CO2 magically not causing warming and some other variable causing the warming seen can never actually come up with that mystery other variable to account for the warming. Let alone explaining why CO2 isn't responsible.
It seem like every time you try you come up with yet another amplifying feedback.
Yep, he knew a bit about energy. So excuse to link this-
showing one way that nature can do abrupt climate change bigger, louder and faster than a billion obese people opening coke bottles. And that was only a lil bitty 500kt rock.
It seem like every time you try you come up with yet another amplifying feedback.
I don't need to come up with any. The IPCC's done that. But nature is denying them. No warming, no positive feedbacks, or negative feedbacks are dominating.
It can, but currently isn't.
More may be coming, stay tuned! But asteroids have always been a potential cause of abrupt climate change.
Interesting maybe, but not relevant.
Sure it is. More CO2 in the atmosphere, denser atmosphere, rocks bounce off. Simples!
I don't need to come up with any. The IPCC's done that. But nature is denying them. No warming, no positive feedbacks, or negative feedbacks are dominating.
I pricked your meme balloon and it exploded in your face.
You were annoyed that some people combined a number of graphs from peer-reviewed journals for plotting a CO2 concentration curve and included another plot (of temperature) which - when used by anyone other than the author is a "schematic."
Remember folks that a "schematic" is valid scientific visual device when used by the original peer-reviewed author.
But if someone else uses it the "schematic" becomes a charlatan's visual aid in a conspiracy to deny.
I pricked your meme balloon and it exploded in your face.
You were annoyed that some people combined a number of graphs from peer-reviewed journals for plotting a CO2 concentration curve and included another plot (of temperature) which - when used by anyone other than the author is a "schematic."
Remember folks that a "schematic" is valid scientific visual device when used by the original peer-reviewed author.
But if someone else uses it the "schematic" becomes a charlatan's visual aid in a conspiracy to deny.
Coming from the bloke who tried to tell us there weren't any proxy studies going back over a thousand years that's a bit hypocritical.
Coming from the bloke who tried to tell us there weren't any proxy studies going back over a thousand years that's a bit hypocritical.
And wrong anyway.
That's just plain wrong: your meme memory is hiccuping. I never claimed that at all. I did, however, say that some climate scientists focussed on two millennia to push an agenda.
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. Yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all
Never mind the uncertainties.. Look at the headlines!
Which would be a nuisance, but if it was a nuclear station...
Depends on the scale of the impact. A Chicxulub-sized one, the stations would be the least of our worries. A smaller one, with enough warning reactors could be shut down, or would just automatically shut down. Stuff in cooling ponds might be affected but such is life, Greens won't let us bury that.
As people on the WUWT thread point out, cAGW is very uncertain, meteor impacts are far more certain. Perhaps NASA should spend more time watching out for those and less time torturing temperature records.
I don't need to, others have sadly got there before me.
Quite why you can't understand this basic physics is a bit odd, the oceans take a lot more heating that the atmosphere so temperatures will always lag increased heat input.
Nothing in that paragraph is true. Sad.
I can only repeat, it takes time to heat our mighty oceans. Why you deny this or think all the world's scientists are too stupid to realise that is beyond me.
If CO2 levels stopped rising right now temps would continue to rise for something like the next 50 years as the oceans warm.
Here's the IPCC telling you:
"The slow transport of heat into the oceans and slow response of ice sheets means that long periods are required to reach a new climate system equilibrium."
Do you think they wrote this then forgot to put it in their models? Silly them.
You are flat out talking bollocks or lying or both.
Address the question you are desperately trying to avoid.
The IPCC and the models did not say we were not going to see immediate and strong warning. You are lying.
They said we would see immediate and ongoing sharp rises in temperatures and produced projections to show that based on the output of the Global Climate Models. These projections are way out.
They didn't show some sort of moderate warming followed by huge pulses of energy emerging from the oceans in 50 or 100 or a 1000 years to rapidly warm the planet to reach their alleged warming.
They didn't do that because they would have been laughed out of town as that would breach the Laws of Thermodynamics.
If it was true that a big proportion of the energy is going into the oceans to be distributed amongst its huge volume rather than being reflected or radiated or convected immediately then there is no problem. The distributed energy can only reemerge in a diffuse pattern and would take hundreds or thousands of years to fully reemerge. Just the laws of physics that's all!
You will no doubt continue to try and deflect and obfuscate. You don't have the nouse to think for yourself.
You repeat the meme that if the Earth receives an overall increase in radiative forcing then it must warm, no matter what. The fact that they have not proven this doesn't seem to impact on you.
The facts are that the Earth has received massively more radiative forcing from the Sun over geological time and hasn't warmed indeed it has cooled.
We have an example every year right before us. Due to its elliptical orbit at perihelion the Earth receives 7% more radiative forcing than at aphelion.That is equivalent to seven doublings of CO2, enough to make the modern warmists faint you would think.
The Earth warms by how much when this happens?
Ohh............. it doesn't! In fact global temperatures are cooler at perihelion.
We have no proof why this is so, we hypothesise that it is due to the distribution of land on the planet. Could be due to increased ocean cloud cover caused by greater evaporation during the period of increased solar energy receipt causing greater albedo effect. Could be other things. We haven't proven it either way.
Whatever, it shows that our knowledge of all the Earth's climate systems is so patchy at the moment that to just make the assertion that increased radiative forcing leads automatically to increased global temperatures is pretty ludicrous at this stage of our knowledge.
I pricked your meme balloon and it exploded in your face.
Well, no. You made up some nonsense, as you always do, because you couldn't be arsed to read or understand any of the science you despise.
You were annoyed that some people combined a number of graphs from peer-reviewed journals for plotting a CO2 concentration curve and included another plot (of temperature) which - when used by anyone other than the author is a "schematic."
I was annoyed that the deniers had cobbled together a graph from other people's work with the sole intent of deceiving the gullible. And in you, they found a most willing victim.
Remember folks that a "schematic" is valid scientific visual device when used by the original peer-reviewed author.
Actually, that schematic wasn't from a peer-reviewed paper. It was from a website, as I showed you at the time. One of your denier websites repeating the flawed graph invented a non-existent paper to cite, and you (with your critical faculties still suspended) failed to notice. Hiebe simply turned the Scotese graphic on its side, and added some dates.
As far as its utility is concerned: I asked you if you thought it likely that (for example) the global mean temperature had been rock solid constant for 150 million years, throughout all of the Cambrian, and a large part of the Ordovician
You didn't answer. Do you want to answer now?
In the context in which it appeared, that schematic was a perfectly valid visual device. But it was not suited to being overlaid onto data derived from a CO2 model prediction in order to "prove" (to your evident satisfaction) the lack of a correlation between CO2 and temperature, for reasons I have already explained to you.
But if someone else uses it the "schematic" becomes a charlatan's visual aid in a conspiracy to deny.
Data misused is data misused. That's why you didn't find that graph, or the accompanying claim, in the peer-reviewed literature, but on a cannabis activist's website.
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. Yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all
Never mind the uncertainties.. Look at the headlines!
Or the decadal trend, up-up-up.
Depends on the scale of the impact. A Chicxulub-sized one, the stations would be the least of our worries.
No, wind turbines would be the least of your worries, nuclear stations considerably more.
A smaller one, with enough warning reactors could be shut down, or would just automatically shut down. Stuff in cooling ponds might be affected but such is life, Greens won't let us bury that.
As people on the WUWT thread point out, cAGW is very uncertain, meteor impacts are far more certain. Perhaps NASA should spend more time watching out for those and less time torturing temperature records.
People on WUWT, like you, point out a lot of things.
Comments
How can it possibly be "mysterious" that it takes a while to heat the oceans or that surface temps will be related to ocean temps. Er, the atmosphere warms and conducts heat to the ocean, which then overturns slowly (they key to the lag) and transfers that heat lower down. Yes, but Maggie was rather obviously wrong once you realise that the oceans store much more heat than the atmosphere.
Hahahaha. Lying again. The not yet improved upon 1 in 27 million claim, refers to the unusual quantity of warm years we've had in the last few years, not just 2014.
You seemed to think his public statements conflicted with his research:
And that he was part of the Mannian conspiracy, despite it conflicting with his own research:
Your point eludes me. Is that part of the conspiracy, or not?
No, I never claimed that his paper provided an explanation for all of Earth's climate history. I have simply pointed out that the deniers were misusing his research as part of a similar far-reaching claim themselves. I have also pointed out that Pagani's research is part of a much larger body of research demonstrating the importance of CO2 as a climate forcing agent. And it is this (together with his own work) that leads Pagani to say:
"In fact, not so long ago in Earth’s history, temperatures at the poles were so warm that climates on Antarctica and around the Arctic Ocean resembled near-tropical conditions with forests that included palm trees. And yes, this extreme global warmth, as well as the deep freeze of the ice ages, was determined by the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
I'm surprised at you njp: you don't like separate reconstructions being patched together but seem very comfortable when instrumental records are patched onto reconstructions.
Imagine yourself as a working, published scientist in a field of study much discussed by the media and public. Would you accept the ignorant opinions of those with no science education (or some, but not in the same or even a related field of study) as having any relevance at all? I wouldn't, especially if they took my published work, cheekily copied the odd graph, while ignoring my detailed analysis and came up with their own daft opinions - and then claimed my data didn't support my conclusions!
And I notice that you - a man with very little knowledge of the subject, let alone any publications, but who has a strange ability to find dodgy graphs of dubious provenance in a variety of amusing places - disagrees with mainstream science, for reasons which do not withstand scrutiny. I notice that you approvingly described Pagani as an "independent researcher", until I pointed out that neither he nor his research agrees with your preferred beliefs, at which point you accused him of "licking Mann's arse".
You still don't get what you did wrong, do you?
No, they stitched together a quilt made out of various pieces of work to tell you the story you wanted to hear.
I have already told you what I think about that:
To summarise my current understanding:
1. There is indisputable evidence that global temperatures have risen over the past 100 years
2. There is indisputable evidence that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over the past 100 years
3. There is a well understood mechanism that shows increasing CO2 results in increased temperatures.
4. There has been an apparent slowdown in the rise of global temperatures for the past 18 years
5. However http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30852588 6. The OP seems to want Green taxes cut because either
b) thy don't like them because they are a bit lefty.
Where I'm struggling is why there is a dispute over the science. Are the "climate change deniers" saying that:
a) there has not been any climate change
b) there has been climate change but it is not anthropogenic or
c) there has been anthropogenic climate change but there's nothing we can do about it, so we shouldn't be trying to prevent it by imposing limits or "green" taxes?
Read the Briggs article (and some of the links included) to discover why and how statistics are used and abused. Or just got plain wrong as with the 1:27m claim.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=15264
and this one. Looks like after the initial hype-shot from NASA's G.Schmidt, they revised their release to include error bars and are now only 38% certain 2014 was the hottest evah!
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=15269
Also remember all probability is conditional. So that 38% chance (or whatever) they’re quoting relies on a set of assumptions that aren’t particularly meaningful to us. I leave it as a reader exercise to identify the premises used by NASA is coming up with that 38%, and then you finding better, more relevant ones.
And have you figured out why this new 'record' means the pause isn't necessarily over yet?
What the hell are you talking about? Have you got some new theory about how the climate operates/ You had better publish it if so?
In the meantime I thought you were a believer in the pronouncements of the IPCC and the climate models.
Don't try and obfuscate, the IPCC and the models did not show any huge delay in the Earth's reaction to an increase in forcings, mainly because there is no evidence for such a thing. They projected immediate and ongoing increases and are currently way out.
If the IPCC and the models had indicated that the increased energy was mainly going into and being distributed amongst the oceans then they wouldn't have been able to create some sort of crisis. Increases in tropospheric temperatures would take centuries to emerge if this was true.
You have probably heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics and they show entropy only goes one way, it increases. Energy that enters the oceans in an intense and organised fashion becomes diffuse and disorganised due to entropy. There is no way this energy can reorganise itself and reemerge as intense pulses of energy. It can only get back out very gradually in a diffuse fashion. it would take centuries or millenia to get all this energy back out.
So you are talking rubbish and going right against the models and IPCC you profess to trust.
So answer the question, do you believe that the Earth would be currently colder than the Little Ice Age and getting colder as we speak if Man had not emitted any CO2?
Maggie
Correlation != causation, and you wouldn't want a climate scientist to diagnose your medical condition and recommend a course of treatment. They aren't qualified to prescribe (or proscribe) cures.
You've missed..
d) Climate change is normal, natural although their are anthropogenic effects, those have been greatly exagerated, often for political reasons.
Which kinda boils down to the question nlp can't answer. What exactly is CO2's effect on climate. The science says it can contribute around 3.7W or 1.2C/doubling. This is undisputed by practically everyone except nlp because it's based on some pretty solid and simple physics.
Where nlp, and most other reality deniers go wrong is with various theories about the power of CO2 to trigger other effects that amplify it, ie all the positive feedbacks that then give us >1.2C/doubling warming. Those then get fed through the IPCC's torture devices to produce various warming rates by 2100 based on various emissions scenarios. The most extreme being this one-
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-011-0149-y
Based on our modeling framework, we find it technically possible to limit forcing from RCP8.5 to lower levels comparable to the other RCPs (2.6 to 6 W/m2).
If you read that and find the assumptions used for rate of fossil fuel burning, you should realise quite quickly that we'd need several technical advances to find and extract enough fossil fuels fast enough to burn. We'd have between now and 2100 to do this, but then we'd also potentially have viable fusion, or GenIV/V reactors displacing fossil fuels. Assuming the Greens would allow those.
So basically it's still all about the real climate sensitivity vs simulated. Reality is giving strong indications that CO2 doesn't lead to positive feedbacks and Thermageddon. If they did, there would have been no Pause, Plateau or Hiatus. There would be no divergence between simulation and reality to keep pointing out, and no need for the alarmist climate scientists to keep trying to find natural negative feedbacks, which previously they'd denied having any serious influence over climate.
Then on the political side, our masters have taken what the 'scientists' have told them and turned it into policy like the EU Renewables obligations, or our very own Climate Change Act. That's generated lots of money for the renewables lobby, but sadly far less useful electricity.
As usual, it's winter, it's cold, there's a high pressure system over the UK and no wind.. So our 'investment' in wind power is proving rather useless. And given our peak demand is from 1800 onwards, solar won't help.
And Greens want us to do even more to decarbonise our economy, so ban all fossil fuels to meet emissions reduction targets.. Which would mean electrifying pretty much all transport (air being a bit.. tricky) and heating (no gas for domestic heating/cooking). Which would mean we'd need 2-3x more generation than we have now. Naturally the renewables lobby is salivating at the prospect of billions more being thrown their way, and their paid lobbyists the Greens are helping promote the meme.
And we're just expected to pay for it, and watch our energy bill rocket..
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics10.gif
You mean you're incapable of considering multiple factors are involved? You can only consider a single variable as being responsible?
Yep, he knew a bit about energy. So excuse to link this-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpmXyJrs7iU
showing one way that nature can do abrupt climate change bigger, louder and faster than a billion obese people opening coke bottles. And that was only a lil bitty 500kt rock.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/19/bigger-problems-than-global-warming-nasa-discovers-8-new-dangerous-near-earth-asteroids/
Quite why you can't understand this basic physics is a bit odd, the oceans take a lot more heating that the atmosphere so temperatures will always lag increased heat input. Nothing in that paragraph is true. Sad. I can only repeat, it takes time to heat our mighty oceans. Why you deny this or think all the world's scientists are too stupid to realise that is beyond me.
If CO2 levels stopped rising right now temps would continue to rise for something like the next 50 years as the oceans warm.
Here's the IPCC telling you:
"The slow transport of heat into the oceans and slow response of ice sheets means that long periods are required to reach a new climate system equilibrium."
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/011.htm
Do you think they wrote this then forgot to put it in their models? Silly them.
It seem like every time you try you come up with yet another amplifying feedback. It can, but currently isn't. Interesting maybe, but not relevant.
I don't need to come up with any. The IPCC's done that. But nature is denying them. No warming, no positive feedbacks, or negative feedbacks are dominating.
More may be coming, stay tuned! But asteroids have always been a potential cause of abrupt climate change.
Sure it is. More CO2 in the atmosphere, denser atmosphere, rocks bounce off. Simples!
But not enough. That divergence problem again. You want real warming, or just rapid CO2 emissions, you want one of these-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
Or not, because it'd knock over all the windmills..
You were annoyed that some people combined a number of graphs from peer-reviewed journals for plotting a CO2 concentration curve and included another plot (of temperature) which - when used by anyone other than the author is a "schematic."
Remember folks that a "schematic" is valid scientific visual device when used by the original peer-reviewed author.
But if someone else uses it the "schematic" becomes a charlatan's visual aid in a conspiracy to deny.
Coming from the bloke who tried to tell us there weren't any proxy studies going back over a thousand years that's a bit hypocritical.
And wrong anyway.
That's just plain wrong: your meme memory is hiccuping. I never claimed that at all. I did, however, say that some climate scientists focussed on two millennia to push an agenda.
Nope, that would seem to be a problem with NASA and dear Gavin having carried on his old bosses ways-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/20/2014-the-most-dishonest-year-on-record/
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. Yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all
Never mind the uncertainties.. Look at the headlines!
Depends on the scale of the impact. A Chicxulub-sized one, the stations would be the least of our worries. A smaller one, with enough warning reactors could be shut down, or would just automatically shut down. Stuff in cooling ponds might be affected but such is life, Greens won't let us bury that.
As people on the WUWT thread point out, cAGW is very uncertain, meteor impacts are far more certain. Perhaps NASA should spend more time watching out for those and less time torturing temperature records.
You are flat out talking bollocks or lying or both.
Address the question you are desperately trying to avoid.
The IPCC and the models did not say we were not going to see immediate and strong warning. You are lying.
They said we would see immediate and ongoing sharp rises in temperatures and produced projections to show that based on the output of the Global Climate Models. These projections are way out.
They didn't show some sort of moderate warming followed by huge pulses of energy emerging from the oceans in 50 or 100 or a 1000 years to rapidly warm the planet to reach their alleged warming.
They didn't do that because they would have been laughed out of town as that would breach the Laws of Thermodynamics.
If it was true that a big proportion of the energy is going into the oceans to be distributed amongst its huge volume rather than being reflected or radiated or convected immediately then there is no problem. The distributed energy can only reemerge in a diffuse pattern and would take hundreds or thousands of years to fully reemerge. Just the laws of physics that's all!
You will no doubt continue to try and deflect and obfuscate. You don't have the nouse to think for yourself.
You repeat the meme that if the Earth receives an overall increase in radiative forcing then it must warm, no matter what. The fact that they have not proven this doesn't seem to impact on you.
The facts are that the Earth has received massively more radiative forcing from the Sun over geological time and hasn't warmed indeed it has cooled.
We have an example every year right before us. Due to its elliptical orbit at perihelion the Earth receives 7% more radiative forcing than at aphelion.That is equivalent to seven doublings of CO2, enough to make the modern warmists faint you would think.
The Earth warms by how much when this happens?
Ohh............. it doesn't! In fact global temperatures are cooler at perihelion.
We have no proof why this is so, we hypothesise that it is due to the distribution of land on the planet. Could be due to increased ocean cloud cover caused by greater evaporation during the period of increased solar energy receipt causing greater albedo effect. Could be other things. We haven't proven it either way.
Whatever, it shows that our knowledge of all the Earth's climate systems is so patchy at the moment that to just make the assertion that increased radiative forcing leads automatically to increased global temperatures is pretty ludicrous at this stage of our knowledge.
Maggie
Well, no. You made up some nonsense, as you always do, because you couldn't be arsed to read or understand any of the science you despise.
I was annoyed that the deniers had cobbled together a graph from other people's work with the sole intent of deceiving the gullible. And in you, they found a most willing victim.
Actually, that schematic wasn't from a peer-reviewed paper. It was from a website, as I showed you at the time. One of your denier websites repeating the flawed graph invented a non-existent paper to cite, and you (with your critical faculties still suspended) failed to notice. Hiebe simply turned the Scotese graphic on its side, and added some dates.
As far as its utility is concerned: I asked you if you thought it likely that (for example) the global mean temperature had been rock solid constant for 150 million years, throughout all of the Cambrian, and a large part of the Ordovician
You didn't answer. Do you want to answer now?
In the context in which it appeared, that schematic was a perfectly valid visual device. But it was not suited to being overlaid onto data derived from a CO2 model prediction in order to "prove" (to your evident satisfaction) the lack of a correlation between CO2 and temperature, for reasons I have already explained to you.
Data misused is data misused. That's why you didn't find that graph, or the accompanying claim, in the peer-reviewed literature, but on a cannabis activist's website.
People on WUWT, like you, point out a lot of things.
Usually made up.