What a load of crap, sorry. Did you completely miss the "decades" and "centuries" part of my post? We've grown crops in Sweden before that aren't supported now even - and migration of species happens constantly and always have (except species that earlier _couldn't_ migrate and we now help them with ships/containers etc, like Black Widows).
The models that predicted that storms would increase due to global warming are falsified btw - no such increase has been seen. You need to get off the sensationalist evening media.
It's interesting that you seem to believe the "science has been settled". It's not true though. We still do not know the influence the sun can have on earth's climate besides TSI - which is what your link refers to. As soon as you mix in the clouds all bets are currently off - we lack both the data and the algorithms at the moment.
There's interesting correlation between the ocean cycles and the climate cycles, on the order of decades, however. Let's see how that plays out.
The best way for a climate scientist to get fame and money today would be to disprove global warming
Interesting hypothesis, but I'd claim that it's falsified. On the contrary, the money is in supporting AGW.
ExxonâMobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skepticsâ"less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one fiveâthousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
During those periods of high CO2 you mention, the temperature has been about 15 degrees C warmer worldwide
I have not verified this myself, but Scotese seems to be the same source:
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today
No, basically nothing in your post is "true" in any scientific version of that word:) We do not have excellent data (gas diffusion in ice cores is a bitch!) and current models lack incredible amounts of algorithmic data which is instead made up as we see politically fit at the moment:) (for example, the influence of clouds)
We do not have an unusual trend of global warming at all. On the contrary, there might not be a trend to speak of when removing measurement uncertainties. (http://surfacestations.org should scare anyone who believes the tempereature data we're soon basing our whole economy on)
The best fit for the temperature changes over the last century is not with CO2 levels but with ocean cycles btw.
We're currently in a very CO2-starved climate, if we go through the geological record. Plant life seems optimised (evolution does that) for much higher CO2-levels, and we've had more than a magnitude higher levels without the earth having gone into any self-feedback loops before.
(Please let me know where I can get some of that mythical fossil-fuel-funds for all the posts I do on this subject.. )
I live in the northern latitudes (Sweden). There's absolutely nothing unusual about the weather/climate today, if you're prepared to go decades and centuries back in time when comparing. And why shouldn't we? Who on earth came up with the crazy idea of some sort of stable weather-utopia where the climate of 1988 (or whatever) is the "true" climate of the world?
The sun drives the clouds and the winds, and the ocan cycles. Those have wavelengths of 30-60 years, it seems. That coincides really well with the decades of cooling, warming, cooling and warming we've seen the last century.
Now, F10.7 might be picking up - and that might tell us how long this minimum really was and might indicate how quickly we'll reach the next maximum. Too early to tell though.
You seem to be confused as to what you've linked to (image files). Please go back, look at your links and then re-post what you apparently meant to post from the beginning (papers):)
The rest of your post contains nothing new. You still haven't looked into the topics you're debating.
I did not comment on noctilucent clouds - I commented on the subject of the strength of this minima (or should that be, lack of?). The original poster was correct in pointing out that it is unusually deep. (Yes, "is". It's too early to say that we're climbing out of it just yet).
With regards to if something really is changing at a longer scale than sunspot cycles, I'd defer to Livingston-Penn.
I apologise for mixing up ACs (although I can understand you, simply talking about AGW-related subjects using non-religious words causes "troll" and "flamebait" moderations). As to the rest of your post above, it does not contain anything new and you're just repeating your (sorry) lack of knowledge on the subject.
(You might want to go back and see what you've actually linked to btw)
1) GISTEMP source and algorithms are not open. Feel free to contact people tracking this if you still believe otherwise.
2) The CRN123 study you believe you've cited contained factual errors.
I suggest you look into things you want to debate, before debating them.
1) GISTEMP is closed-source and closed-algorith. You will understand that when you've looked at it - currently you simply haven't. Start with the long list of all the algorithm-corrections.
2) You didn't cite a study. When you do, I'll disprove it - since it doesn't actually compare CRN123 stations but uses modified data without disclosing that "little" fact. There's currently no study with correct data available, but one (peer-reviewed) will be shortly.
3) There's no such thing as a "global" temperature (read up on your fluid dynamics). My point was simply to prove that referencing GISTEMP isn't the best thing to do when talking about climate variability due to the many modifications being done to the data.
Remember, you used the words "cold, hard numbers"- which Hansen's GISTEMP most definitely aren't:)
1) GISTEMP is closed source, closed algorithm. If you don't agree, you haven't looked at it, or you didn't follow the debacle that caused corrections and finally the release of code in 2007. Code that wouldn't be considered functional by open source standards.
2) CRN123 stations do look different than all put together. I know which study you're going to cite, and you might want to read up on how that was done. In short, watch out for "corrections" to the data - i.e, what are they really comparing?
3) GISTEMP and UAH are "all that different";) One is used to prove a political agenda, one measures variable climate fluctuations. You're interested in African UHI, amongs other things.
Bascially, GISTEMP is worthless - as my first reply pointed out. When debating climate variability, we should at least try to use data we can believe in.
Let me know when you've got that code up and running;)
I never claimed the regular solar driven cycles of warming and cold disappears when we look at satellite measurements (we've only got such data from the latest positive PDO+AMO phase) - I said it's different to the tainted GISS temperature series.
Please read my original reply again if you've forgotten the contents. 2009 is not a warm year according to UAH.
There are climate _models_ that claim we should see an increase, but so far it hasn't happened and it's likely the models does not contain enough data to be able to model reality just quite yet.
I'm sorry. You still not seem to understand the actual topic of the discussion. It has nothing whatseover to do with climate - but everything to do with greenhouses.
Why do you insist on posting your own fantasies as if they had anything to do with the truth?
I live in "cooler climates". No, growers do not add CO2 to increase temperatures. Greenhouses being closed environments trap all the temp they need through sunlight on its own - if anything you ventilate the extra heat since you don't want to damage the plants.
Slashdot Mirror
What a load of crap, sorry. Did you completely miss the "decades" and "centuries" part of my post? We've grown crops in Sweden before that aren't supported now even - and migration of species happens constantly and always have (except species that earlier _couldn't_ migrate and we now help them with ships/containers etc, like Black Widows).
The models that predicted that storms would increase due to global warming are falsified btw - no such increase has been seen. You need to get off the sensationalist evening media.
It's interesting that you seem to believe the "science has been settled". It's not true though. We still do not know the influence the sun can have on earth's climate besides TSI - which is what your link refers to. As soon as you mix in the clouds all bets are currently off - we lack both the data and the algorithms at the moment.
There's interesting correlation between the ocean cycles and the climate cycles, on the order of decades, however. Let's see how that plays out.
The best way for a climate scientist to get fame and money today would be to disprove global warming
Interesting hypothesis, but I'd claim that it's falsified. On the contrary, the money is in supporting AGW.
ExxonâMobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skepticsâ"less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one fiveâthousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
source: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
(via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/climate-science-follow-the-money/ )
The analysis of the surfacestations.org project data is currently underway. Feel free to reply when that peer reviewed report has surfaced ;)
(PS: You might want to check your NOAA source in it - it doesn't hold up to scrutiny)
During those periods of high CO2 you mention, the temperature has been about 15 degrees C warmer worldwide
I have not verified this myself, but Scotese seems to be the same source:
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today
from: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
No, basically nothing in your post is "true" in any scientific version of that word :) We do not have excellent data (gas diffusion in ice cores is a bitch!) and current models lack incredible amounts of algorithmic data which is instead made up as we see politically fit at the moment :) (for example, the influence of clouds)
We do not have an unusual trend of global warming at all. On the contrary, there might not be a trend to speak of when removing measurement uncertainties. (http://surfacestations.org should scare anyone who believes the tempereature data we're soon basing our whole economy on)
The best fit for the temperature changes over the last century is not with CO2 levels but with ocean cycles btw.
On gas diffusion: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2008/00000054/00000187/art00012
On ocean cycles: http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/05/14/timescale-of-the-pdo-nao-and-amo/
Why are you not interested in doing actual science? We simply don't have data to support Hansen's and Gore's wild accusations.
We're currently in a very CO2-starved climate, if we go through the geological record. Plant life seems optimised (evolution does that) for much higher CO2-levels, and we've had more than a magnitude higher levels without the earth having gone into any self-feedback loops before.
Peer-reviewed source for the above, see fig 8: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
(Please let me know where I can get some of that mythical fossil-fuel-funds for all the posts I do on this subject .. )
I live in the northern latitudes (Sweden). There's absolutely nothing unusual about the weather/climate today, if you're prepared to go decades and centuries back in time when comparing. And why shouldn't we? Who on earth came up with the crazy idea of some sort of stable weather-utopia where the climate of 1988 (or whatever) is the "true" climate of the world?
The sun drives the clouds and the winds, and the ocan cycles. Those have wavelengths of 30-60 years, it seems. That coincides really well with the decades of cooling, warming, cooling and warming we've seen the last century.
Hi and welcome to the scientific process. Without it, there's no science.
Sorry, but that (single sunspots of the new polarity) is not how we define the length of minimums.
http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/
Now, F10.7 might be picking up - and that might tell us how long this minimum really was and might indicate how quickly we'll reach the next maximum. Too early to tell though.
1) No - by any random standard of measurement neither the source nor the (continuing) algorithm modifications are open.
2) No - http://i480.photobucket.com/albums/rr165/magellansc24/uahvsrssvsgiss03-09.jpg
(See how fun it is to link to images! ;)
Again. Why do you want to hide actual facts from the discussion?
You seem to be confused as to what you've linked to (image files). Please go back, look at your links and then re-post what you apparently meant to post from the beginning (papers) :)
The rest of your post contains nothing new. You still haven't looked into the topics you're debating.
I did not comment on noctilucent clouds - I commented on the subject of the strength of this minima (or should that be, lack of?). The original poster was correct in pointing out that it is unusually deep. (Yes, "is". It's too early to say that we're climbing out of it just yet).
With regards to if something really is changing at a longer scale than sunspot cycles, I'd defer to Livingston-Penn.
I apologise for mixing up ACs (although I can understand you, simply talking about AGW-related subjects using non-religious words causes "troll" and "flamebait" moderations). As to the rest of your post above, it does not contain anything new and you're just repeating your (sorry) lack of knowledge on the subject.
(You might want to go back and see what you've actually linked to btw)
1) GISTEMP source and algorithms are not open. Feel free to contact people tracking this if you still believe otherwise.
2) The CRN123 study you believe you've cited contained factual errors.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/05/pielk-sr-responds-to-ncdcs-talking-points-about-surfacesations-org/
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/12/comments-on-the-new-paper-the-united-states-historical-climatology-network-monthly-temperature-data-%E2%80%93-version-2-by-menne-et-al-2009/
I think we need to wait for the surfacestations.org project's paper, soon to be released, for a conclusion on this subject.
3) Buckets of water. Ice. Hot. Scientist, feet.
4) Umm no. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/giss-for-june-way-out-there/
Why is it important for you to disregard facts when it comes to the subject of AGW?
I'm sorry. Please re-read my post again - "century" and "decade" are two different units of time.
I suggest you look into things you want to debate, before debating them.
1) GISTEMP is closed-source and closed-algorith. You will understand that when you've looked at it - currently you simply haven't. Start with the long list of all the algorithm-corrections.
2) You didn't cite a study. When you do, I'll disprove it - since it doesn't actually compare CRN123 stations but uses modified data without disclosing that "little" fact. There's currently no study with correct data available, but one (peer-reviewed) will be shortly.
3) There's no such thing as a "global" temperature (read up on your fluid dynamics). My point was simply to prove that referencing GISTEMP isn't the best thing to do when talking about climate variability due to the many modifications being done to the data.
Remember, you used the words "cold, hard numbers"- which Hansen's GISTEMP most definitely aren't :)
I can't? Why not - since it's the truth?
1) GISTEMP is closed source, closed algorithm. If you don't agree, you haven't looked at it, or you didn't follow the debacle that caused corrections and finally the release of code in 2007. Code that wouldn't be considered functional by open source standards.
http://cdquarles.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/fun-with-gistemp/
Now, that might change due to efforts like http://clearclimatecode.org/ - but we're not there yet.
2) CRN123 stations do look different than all put together. I know which study you're going to cite, and you might want to read up on how that was done. In short, watch out for "corrections" to the data - i.e, what are they really comparing?
3) GISTEMP and UAH are "all that different" ;) One is used to prove a political agenda, one measures variable climate fluctuations. You're interested in African UHI, amongs other things.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-1-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-2-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-3-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
Bascially, GISTEMP is worthless - as my first reply pointed out. When debating climate variability, we should at least try to use data we can believe in.
Let me know when you've got that code up and running ;)
I never claimed the regular solar driven cycles of warming and cold disappears when we look at satellite measurements (we've only got such data from the latest positive PDO+AMO phase) - I said it's different to the tainted GISS temperature series.
Please read my original reply again if you've forgotten the contents. 2009 is not a warm year according to UAH.
When you can't respond to data - attack the messenger.
Sorry, but that says something about you, not my link :)
PS: The sun being the largest influenser of earth's climate isn't "well-debunked" at all. On the contrary actually.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115207&org=OLPA&from=news
No, his facts are correct. It seems you're the one that needs to study before posting. We're in the deepest minimum for (at least) a century.
Try that again, now with real data instead of Hansen's pet project (closed source, closed algorithm) temperature data modifications.
I'd suggest using UAH. Surface stations are a joke due to no one (until now) checking their surroundings and thus the induced UHI effect.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/
There are climate _models_ that claim we should see an increase, but so far it hasn't happened and it's likely the models does not contain enough data to be able to model reality just quite yet.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090517/article/905171028?Title=Scientist-says-climate-change-isn-t-fueling-hurricanes
Next time you want to discuss climate, I suggest you do that instead of making claims around gardening :)
I'm sorry. You still not seem to understand the actual topic of the discussion. It has nothing whatseover to do with climate - but everything to do with greenhouses.
Please retry, from the beginning.
Why do you insist on posting your own fantasies as if they had anything to do with the truth?
I live in "cooler climates". No, growers do not add CO2 to increase temperatures. Greenhouses being closed environments trap all the temp they need through sunlight on its own - if anything you ventilate the extra heat since you don't want to damage the plants.
http://www.umass.edu/umext/floriculture/fact_sheets/greenhouse_management/jb_ventilation.htm
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
Most people like to engage in debates on forums to learn something new. I'm not really sure why you're here.