The statement you quoted was mine, not Oeschger's.
Well, it isn't possible because human activity cannot possibly be construed as overwhelming natural variation - the physics simply don't fit. And the idea that the world should have been *cooling* while coming out of a little ice age is well, an odd supposition at best.
Why not? I don't see that the physics don't fit. Of course there are the natural effects like insolation and the Earth's orbit and physical nature (atmosphere, oceans, etc.) that set a baseline. CO2 is one of the more significant factors in that and the fact that we have increased it by 40% is bound to have an effect even if you don't believe it. The natural cooling trend I was talking about is just from around the 1970's. insolation has been slightly dropping since then.
You know, all of science is models of one sort or another.
Sort of. The wind generally blows toward the Willamette Valley and Portland which is the most populated part of Oregon. Once you get east of there then yes, it's largely unpopulated.
CO2 may not be as well mixed as I assumed. Here is some more information about that. But climate scientists are no doubt aware of this and take it into account as best they can. You'll have to provide a lot more solid evidence to convince me it significantly affects what they are saying.
Well, actually, they do ignore it:
Have you done a comprehensive review of the literature and confirmed that or is that just your supposition? (And no I haven't either but if Jaworski had something other scientists would pay more attention to him.)
The estimates I've seen lately mostly say that human contributions are responsible for more than 100% of the warming in the past several decades.
That's not remotely possible, but furthermore, like Obama's "jobs saved or created", it's not falsifiable:)
Why isn't it possible? If natural forcings would lead to cooling but it's still warming then you can say human contributions are responsible for more than 100% of the warming. Here is an article on a paper that indicates natural forcings may actually be negative. The actual paper is here.
I think the location had more to do with the fact that blimps were used for coastal patrolling during WW II so a blimp from Tillamook would have the range to patrol from the Canadian border to Northern California. It's usually somewhat windy there so I'm not sure it's the ideal place for lighter-than-air craft.
The Tillamook airport also has on old blimp hangar that's big enough to inflate (at least partially) the balloon in. Also, being located on the west coast the prevailing winds will blow a balloon to the east and over the continent rather than over the ocean. Pictures here.
I live in Oregon which doesn't have grizzly bears but I whitewater raft in Idaho and Montana which does. Wolves are smart enough to be wary of humans and aren't likely to attack you unless you are alone and they are extremely hungry. Grizzly bears aren't afraid of anything and sometimes attack you because you don't smell right.
The Iranians don't have enough of a military to seriously challenge the US military. They might be able to launch a few missiles at Israel and cause a few random acts of terrorism but as soon as they do we'll come down on them like a ton of bricks. And they're smart enough to know that so there's no need for a preemptive strike.
The average wolf is more interested in avoiding you than eating you unless you're doing something stupid that makes the wolf pack think it's worth trying to take you on. When I'm out in the wilderness I'm far more concerned about grizzly bears than wolves.
Part of it may be that when you're poor you depend more on other people to help you get by. You are aware of how easily others can harm you and deplete your resources if you get on their wrong side. When you're rich you can just pay someone to do most of the things you need to get done and you have enough resources to not worry so much about a relatively small hit to them.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. What are you talking about when you're saying "hundreds of thousands of years"? Rainfall never contributes to sea level because the sea is the source of nearly all of the water vapor anyway. I was never saying all of the land mass in the world could become saturated. Most of the drop in sea level over the last two years can be attributed to the heavy rainfall in Packistan, Northeast Australia and the Northern Amazon basin. The GRACE satellites showed and increase in the gravity in those regions attributable to retained rainfall. Most of that water will return to the oceans within a few decades. Some of it may replenish aquifers that store the water long term but most aquifers like that are being tapped by humans for irrigation.
My point was that the words "climate change" have been used since at least the 1950's. It's not some sudden change. The Bush II administration was counseled by Frank Luntz that climate change was less severe than global warming. Global warming is a subset of climate change.
You didn't read that article you cited very well, did you. If you had you would have noted that Phil Jones said that those trends were not statistically significant.
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
I don't have a quantification for that but "tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years" sounds wildly off base to me. I would think decades at most would be more realistic. Also, you seem to assume the rainfall will eventually hit all of the landmass of the world but that doesn't seem realistic to me either.
What sources and sinks would you find near an ice core drilled into 2 miles of ice in the middle of Antarctica or a mile of ice in the middle of Greenland? Possibly volcanoes but they don't run steady for thousands of years and I would think the anomaly caused by such a thing would be obvious in the data.
Jaworski doesn't have much credibility in the ice core community. A letter to ESPR from Hans Oeschger in 1995 addresses Jaworski's points. A quote from it:
The project to reconstruct the history of the greenhouse gases was conducted; it was, and is, very successful – much above expectation. The CO2 concentrations measured on the SIPLE core, Antarctica, serve as a measure of that success. They illustrate (JAWOROWSKI, Fig. 5 a, p. 168) the history of atmospheric CO2 increase since the middle of the 18th century. Another important result was the observation of low CO2 concentrations of the gases extracted from ice-age ice. The low glacial CO2 concentrations have been confirmed in ice cores with different physical and chemical properties both from Greenland and Antarctica and independently from (carbon 13) measurements on carbonate of foraminifera shells in ocean cores and, yet again, more recently in moss samples.
The scientists studying this are well aware of the points Jaworski raises and don't ignore the difficulties involved in their measurements.
The trend in CO2 levels is not linear. If you look at the full Mauna Loa CO2 record there is an upward curve to to it. Current estimates for the BAU scenario show a CO2 level of 560 ppm in about 2070.
The estimates I've seen lately mostly say that human contributions are responsible for more than 100% of the warming in the past several decades. The 0.8C of warming you keep mentioning is not the full warming that will be caused by the increase in CO2. The thermal inertia of the oceans causes a 20-40 year lag in temperature increases so even if we instantly stopped increasing CO2 it would be that long before warming slowed down.
I merely point out that Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph was not a prediction but a reconstruction of temperatures for the past 1000 years based on paleoclimate proxies with actual measured temperatures tacked on at the end. And that if the supposed change from Global Warming to Climate Change is so significant how did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change get named that in 1988?
Some ACORN workers were convicted of voter fraud but I think you'll find that ACORN, the organization, turned most of them in to the DA in the first place.
Heavy rainfall may continue but there is a limit to how much rainfall the land will absorb once it becomes saturated. Then the rainfall just runs off. At some point the effect loses the ability to continue to lower sea levels as the ocean continues to warm and land ice continues to melt. But I don't expect that we will see rainfall like the past two years in every year. There is still natural variation and there will be dry and wet years. Two years of sea level drop is pretty meaningless. If it continues for another 8 years then I'll take it more seriously.
I had to look up the "Miskolczi theory of a ‘saturated greenhouse effect’". I'd never heard about it before. But if even Dr. Roy Spencer is debunking it I have to think there is not much validity to it. Other debunkings here.
With the assumption that the CO2 level in a single ice core represents the global average accurately. Given the regional and temporal variation of CO2 in the atmosphere, I'd argue this is unlikely to be very accurate.
I have to take that as a supposition on your part with little science to actually back it up. While there may be some local variations in CO2 because of local sources/sinks CO2 in general is well mixed in the atmosphere once you get away from those. The locations that ice cores are taken are all well away from any local sources and sinks. I trust that scientists know what they're talking about in this case.
At the rate we are currently going we'll hit 590 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere well before 2100. The warming from doubling of CO2 is more likely to be around 3C when you take feedbacks into account. I don't get what you mean by "AFAIK, human CO2 emissions have only been asserted to by > 50% by even the most alarmist people".
Lindzen is well known for cherry picking and has been debunked over and over again by others in the field. I just can't give him much credibility although I do pay attention to what he says since he has some knowledge.
Reading your comment made me think of Isaac Azimov's essay The Relativity of Wrong. To quote from it:
My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, as we agreed before, lets see where sea level is in 2020.
The statement you quoted was mine, not Oeschger's.
Well, it isn't possible because human activity cannot possibly be construed as overwhelming natural variation - the physics simply don't fit. And the idea that the world should have been *cooling* while coming out of a little ice age is well, an odd supposition at best.
Why not? I don't see that the physics don't fit. Of course there are the natural effects like insolation and the Earth's orbit and physical nature (atmosphere, oceans, etc.) that set a baseline. CO2 is one of the more significant factors in that and the fact that we have increased it by 40% is bound to have an effect even if you don't believe it. The natural cooling trend I was talking about is just from around the 1970's. insolation has been slightly dropping since then.
You know, all of science is models of one sort or another.
Well, I live in Salem but I'm too old to be a hipster douchebag. Now get off my lawn! :)
Don't forget Tom Delay.
Sort of. The wind generally blows toward the Willamette Valley and Portland which is the most populated part of Oregon. Once you get east of there then yes, it's largely unpopulated.
CO2 may not be as well mixed as I assumed. Here is some more information about that. But climate scientists are no doubt aware of this and take it into account as best they can. You'll have to provide a lot more solid evidence to convince me it significantly affects what they are saying.
Well, actually, they do ignore it:
Have you done a comprehensive review of the literature and confirmed that or is that just your supposition? (And no I haven't either but if Jaworski had something other scientists would pay more attention to him.)
The estimates I've seen lately mostly say that human contributions are responsible for more than 100% of the warming in the past several decades.
That's not remotely possible, but furthermore, like Obama's "jobs saved or created", it's not falsifiable :)
Why isn't it possible? If natural forcings would lead to cooling but it's still warming then you can say human contributions are responsible for more than 100% of the warming. Here is an article on a paper that indicates natural forcings may actually be negative. The actual paper is here.
I should have said rainfall never contributes to a rise in sea level but it can contribute to a temporary drop in sea level.
I think the location had more to do with the fact that blimps were used for coastal patrolling during WW II so a blimp from Tillamook would have the range to patrol from the Canadian border to Northern California. It's usually somewhat windy there so I'm not sure it's the ideal place for lighter-than-air craft.
The Tillamook airport also has on old blimp hangar that's big enough to inflate (at least partially) the balloon in. Also, being located on the west coast the prevailing winds will blow a balloon to the east and over the continent rather than over the ocean. Pictures here.
I live in Oregon which doesn't have grizzly bears but I whitewater raft in Idaho and Montana which does. Wolves are smart enough to be wary of humans and aren't likely to attack you unless you are alone and they are extremely hungry. Grizzly bears aren't afraid of anything and sometimes attack you because you don't smell right.
Santorum's views on religion in government are pretty similar to the Taliban's views. Maybe we should call him Santaliban.
The Iranians don't have enough of a military to seriously challenge the US military. They might be able to launch a few missiles at Israel and cause a few random acts of terrorism but as soon as they do we'll come down on them like a ton of bricks. And they're smart enough to know that so there's no need for a preemptive strike.
The average wolf is more interested in avoiding you than eating you unless you're doing something stupid that makes the wolf pack think it's worth trying to take you on. When I'm out in the wilderness I'm far more concerned about grizzly bears than wolves.
Conservatives* support the troops until they come home and become veterans. After that they're on their own.
*Not all conservatives are this way but I've met plenty who are.
Part of it may be that when you're poor you depend more on other people to help you get by. You are aware of how easily others can harm you and deplete your resources if you get on their wrong side. When you're rich you can just pay someone to do most of the things you need to get done and you have enough resources to not worry so much about a relatively small hit to them.
Maybe it's related to partially to Prosperity Theology. "If I'm blessed by God with all this prosperity then what I want to do must be morally right."
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. What are you talking about when you're saying "hundreds of thousands of years"? Rainfall never contributes to sea level because the sea is the source of nearly all of the water vapor anyway. I was never saying all of the land mass in the world could become saturated. Most of the drop in sea level over the last two years can be attributed to the heavy rainfall in Packistan, Northeast Australia and the Northern Amazon basin. The GRACE satellites showed and increase in the gravity in those regions attributable to retained rainfall. Most of that water will return to the oceans within a few decades. Some of it may replenish aquifers that store the water long term but most aquifers like that are being tapped by humans for irrigation.
My point was that the words "climate change" have been used since at least the 1950's. It's not some sudden change. The Bush II administration was counseled by Frank Luntz that climate change was less severe than global warming. Global warming is a subset of climate change.
You didn't read that article you cited very well, did you. If you had you would have noted that Phil Jones said that those trends were not statistically significant.
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
I don't have a quantification for that but "tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years" sounds wildly off base to me. I would think decades at most would be more realistic. Also, you seem to assume the rainfall will eventually hit all of the landmass of the world but that doesn't seem realistic to me either.
What sources and sinks would you find near an ice core drilled into 2 miles of ice in the middle of Antarctica or a mile of ice in the middle of Greenland? Possibly volcanoes but they don't run steady for thousands of years and I would think the anomaly caused by such a thing would be obvious in the data.
Jaworski doesn't have much credibility in the ice core community. A letter to ESPR from Hans Oeschger in 1995 addresses Jaworski's points. A quote from it:
The project to reconstruct the history of the greenhouse gases was conducted; it was, and is, very successful – much above expectation. The CO2 concentrations measured on the SIPLE core, Antarctica, serve as a measure of that success. They illustrate (JAWOROWSKI, Fig. 5 a, p. 168) the history of atmospheric CO2 increase since the middle of the 18th century. Another important result was the observation of low CO2 concentrations of the gases extracted from ice-age ice. The low glacial CO2 concentrations have been confirmed in ice cores with different physical and chemical properties both from Greenland and Antarctica and independently from (carbon 13) measurements on carbonate of foraminifera shells in ocean cores and, yet again, more recently in moss samples.
The scientists studying this are well aware of the points Jaworski raises and don't ignore the difficulties involved in their measurements.
The trend in CO2 levels is not linear. If you look at the full Mauna Loa CO2 record there is an upward curve to to it. Current estimates for the BAU scenario show a CO2 level of 560 ppm in about 2070.
The estimates I've seen lately mostly say that human contributions are responsible for more than 100% of the warming in the past several decades. The 0.8C of warming you keep mentioning is not the full warming that will be caused by the increase in CO2. The thermal inertia of the oceans causes a 20-40 year lag in temperature increases so even if we instantly stopped increasing CO2 it would be that long before warming slowed down.
I merely point out that Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph was not a prediction but a reconstruction of temperatures for the past 1000 years based on paleoclimate proxies with actual measured temperatures tacked on at the end. And that if the supposed change from Global Warming to Climate Change is so significant how did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change get named that in 1988?
Some ACORN workers were convicted of voter fraud but I think you'll find that ACORN, the organization, turned most of them in to the DA in the first place.
Heavy rainfall may continue but there is a limit to how much rainfall the land will absorb once it becomes saturated. Then the rainfall just runs off. At some point the effect loses the ability to continue to lower sea levels as the ocean continues to warm and land ice continues to melt. But I don't expect that we will see rainfall like the past two years in every year. There is still natural variation and there will be dry and wet years. Two years of sea level drop is pretty meaningless. If it continues for another 8 years then I'll take it more seriously.
I had to look up the "Miskolczi theory of a ‘saturated greenhouse effect’". I'd never heard about it before. But if even Dr. Roy Spencer is debunking it I have to think there is not much validity to it. Other debunkings here.
With the assumption that the CO2 level in a single ice core represents the global average accurately. Given the regional and temporal variation of CO2 in the atmosphere, I'd argue this is unlikely to be very accurate.
I have to take that as a supposition on your part with little science to actually back it up. While there may be some local variations in CO2 because of local sources/sinks CO2 in general is well mixed in the atmosphere once you get away from those. The locations that ice cores are taken are all well away from any local sources and sinks. I trust that scientists know what they're talking about in this case.
At the rate we are currently going we'll hit 590 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere well before 2100. The warming from doubling of CO2 is more likely to be around 3C when you take feedbacks into account. I don't get what you mean by "AFAIK, human CO2 emissions have only been asserted to by > 50% by even the most alarmist people".
Lindzen is well known for cherry picking and has been debunked over and over again by others in the field. I just can't give him much credibility although I do pay attention to what he says since he has some knowledge.
Reading your comment made me think of Isaac Azimov's essay The Relativity of Wrong. To quote from it:
My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."