You will find a link to Mann et al (1998/1999) which has the data and code that Michael Mann and his coauthors used in the original "Hockey Stick" graph. If you want the original raw data I think you'll have to go to the original papers that Mann got his data from.
Looking past even economics, the 'debate' is also a sociological one, since at its core AGW comes down to this: how do we reverse humanity’s relentless pursuit of comfort.
Oh bullshit! The question comes down to how can we assure our great grandchildren a similar level of comfort to the one we enjoy now rather than depleting the world of all of the resources necessary to achieve that comfort.
"Hide the decline" is another out of context quote and "models that output hockey-stick graphs" is an oversimplification of what's going on. If you dig into either of those subjects in depth you'll find they aren't what climateaudit says they are.
Well, it's not apparent that global warming has changed the ENSO cycle at all. So far it has continued a similar pattern to in the past.
Regarding the computer models, they're using different models in the two reports. Models are written for different scales depending on what you're after. The GCM's (General Circulation Models or Global Climate Models) cover the globe but you could also write a model that just covers a specific region for specific effects.
The WG2 on the effects of climate change is by its nature more speculative than the WG1 report. It's reporting on things that there is no good analog for in the historical record.
I have to say, I think you're the one with the bullshit argument.
The total water evaporated into the atmosphere each year is about 121,000 cubic miles of water (409 billion acre-feet). That's at least a couple of orders of magnitude greater than all the water vapor coming from human activities. All the rivers of the world combined only discharge about 30 billion acre-feet per year (the Amazon River which is about 1/5th of the total is about 5.4 billion acre-feet).
In the face of that much water being evaporated human caused water vapor is insignificant globally. It can be significant locally such as in the Phoenix, AZ area but go 30 miles or so out of town and humidity is back to normal. Otherwise you'd see greening of the desert downwind.
I'm perfectly aware that the atmosphere is seldom 100% saturated. But water added to the atmosphere by human activities doesn't accumulate like CO2 can.
I just don't see that human activities can make a significant difference in the level of water vapor in the atmosphere globally, either adding it or removing it. The natural water cycle is just too huge compared to human releases.
BTW, technically I don't think the water vapor level in the atmosphere actually ever reaches zero, although it gets close is places like the Atacama Desert.
(I got my numbers from the Wikipedia articles on the Water Cycle and the Amazon River).
If you want to read climate scientists explain things you can't do better than RealClimate. I know it has a certain reputation among some people but if you want to hear it straight from the horses mouth from a number of eminent scientists in the field it's where they are.
Well, I would call coal a poison as well. The pollution from it (not CO2) has been responsible for a lot of early death's over the years. As one of the preeminent scientists in the field I pay attention to what he says. Some of it seems a bit over the top but I can't discount it completely.
BTW, I took a look at your Snopes thing on Romney. I've known some Mormons over the years and my brother-in-law is an ex-Mormon. It sounds like a very Mormon thing to do.
He wrote a book called Storms of My Grandchildren that will tell you what he thinks. Also you could read the papers he's published over the years. I doubt he would say that CO2 is poison, just a major factor in the Earth's energy balance.
Solar and wind do use fossil fuel energy for production and transport but it's conceivable to use solar and wind for that. But after the solar and wind plants are in place they require no fuel to be delivered to them unlike coal, natural gas and nuclear and they don't produce toxic waste in their operations.
I'm not sure I'd call it a stable position. The lower elevation ice is still melting while more accumulates at higher elevations. There's a limit to how long that continues and it's worth saying that the area of land underlying the ice gets less and less as you rise in elevation. As has been noted 8 years is pretty meaningless in the long run.
The two new nuclear plants they are building in Georgia have a projected cost of $14 billion to produce 2.2 GW or power. That's a cost of $7/watt just to build them. Solar PV is well under $4/watt. Of course nuclear can run 24/7 which solar can't but if solar prices continue to fall like they have the last few years it'll be no contest before the Georgia plants are completed.
Anytime someone is more worried about the money than the science I can tell it's their ideology (often libertarian) driving their views rather than science. If you think the CO2 you exhale when breathing is in any way part of the problem then you don't have a clue what you're talking about scientifically.
The Sun has been monitored in detail for over 30 years since the first satellites were put up to monitor it. Ground based monitoring goes back to the 1950's or earlier. Detailed sunspot records which serve as a proxy for solar activity go back 400 years. The Sun hasn't varied enough to account for the temperature changes in the past 30+ years.
Hansen is smart enough to know it's going to take a lot longer than 5 years to eliminate net emissions of CO2. But the sooner we get started the sooner we achieve the goal.
You can't "fix" the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. As someone above pointed out the water vapor evaporated daily from the surface of the oceans is orders of magnitude greater than any human outputs. The level of water vapor is strictly limited by temperature. In a thought experiment a few years ago an atmospheric scientist asked what would happen if you removed 100% of the water vapor from the atmosphere. He calculated it would take about 60 days for water vapor levels to return to normal.
It's not because of water vapor. Please show me the evidence that water vapor levels are higher in cities than it is in the surrounding countryside. I had a good laugh at your condenser idea. When over 70% of the Earth's surface is water I don't think humans have much effect on the total water vapor in the atmosphere.
Tropospheric warming at the elevation of those glaciers doesn't necessarily bring the temperature above freezing but it does allow the air to carry more water vapor which means there may be greater snowfall at higher elevations than is typical in the past. So maybe it's not such a weak response after all.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 Insightful
If you go here: Data Sources
You will find a link to Mann et al (1998/1999) which has the data and code that Michael Mann and his coauthors used in the original "Hockey Stick" graph. If you want the original raw data I think you'll have to go to the original papers that Mann got his data from.
Looking past even economics, the 'debate' is also a sociological one, since at its core AGW comes down to this: how do we reverse humanity’s relentless pursuit of comfort.
Oh bullshit! The question comes down to how can we assure our great grandchildren a similar level of comfort to the one we enjoy now rather than depleting the world of all of the resources necessary to achieve that comfort.
"Hide the decline" is another out of context quote and "models that output hockey-stick graphs" is an oversimplification of what's going on. If you dig into either of those subjects in depth you'll find they aren't what climateaudit says they are.
Well, it's not apparent that global warming has changed the ENSO cycle at all. So far it has continued a similar pattern to in the past.
Regarding the computer models, they're using different models in the two reports. Models are written for different scales depending on what you're after. The GCM's (General Circulation Models or Global Climate Models) cover the globe but you could also write a model that just covers a specific region for specific effects.
The WG2 on the effects of climate change is by its nature more speculative than the WG1 report. It's reporting on things that there is no good analog for in the historical record.
I have to say, I think you're the one with the bullshit argument.
The total water evaporated into the atmosphere each year is about 121,000 cubic miles of water (409 billion acre-feet). That's at least a couple of orders of magnitude greater than all the water vapor coming from human activities. All the rivers of the world combined only discharge about 30 billion acre-feet per year (the Amazon River which is about 1/5th of the total is about 5.4 billion acre-feet).
In the face of that much water being evaporated human caused water vapor is insignificant globally. It can be significant locally such as in the Phoenix, AZ area but go 30 miles or so out of town and humidity is back to normal. Otherwise you'd see greening of the desert downwind.
I'm perfectly aware that the atmosphere is seldom 100% saturated. But water added to the atmosphere by human activities doesn't accumulate like CO2 can.
I just don't see that human activities can make a significant difference in the level of water vapor in the atmosphere globally, either adding it or removing it. The natural water cycle is just too huge compared to human releases.
BTW, technically I don't think the water vapor level in the atmosphere actually ever reaches zero, although it gets close is places like the Atacama Desert.
(I got my numbers from the Wikipedia articles on the Water Cycle and the Amazon River).
If you want to read climate scientists explain things you can't do better than RealClimate. I know it has a certain reputation among some people but if you want to hear it straight from the horses mouth from a number of eminent scientists in the field it's where they are.
Well, I would call coal a poison as well. The pollution from it (not CO2) has been responsible for a lot of early death's over the years. As one of the preeminent scientists in the field I pay attention to what he says. Some of it seems a bit over the top but I can't discount it completely.
BTW, I took a look at your Snopes thing on Romney. I've known some Mormons over the years and my brother-in-law is an ex-Mormon. It sounds like a very Mormon thing to do.
He wrote a book called Storms of My Grandchildren that will tell you what he thinks. Also you could read the papers he's published over the years. I doubt he would say that CO2 is poison, just a major factor in the Earth's energy balance.
How about we make changes that mean you have less trash to dispose of in the first place.
Solar and wind do use fossil fuel energy for production and transport but it's conceivable to use solar and wind for that. But after the solar and wind plants are in place they require no fuel to be delivered to them unlike coal, natural gas and nuclear and they don't produce toxic waste in their operations.
I'm not sure I'd call it a stable position. The lower elevation ice is still melting while more accumulates at higher elevations. There's a limit to how long that continues and it's worth saying that the area of land underlying the ice gets less and less as you rise in elevation. As has been noted 8 years is pretty meaningless in the long run.
The two new nuclear plants they are building in Georgia have a projected cost of $14 billion to produce 2.2 GW or power. That's a cost of $7/watt just to build them. Solar PV is well under $4/watt. Of course nuclear can run 24/7 which solar can't but if solar prices continue to fall like they have the last few years it'll be no contest before the Georgia plants are completed.
Anytime someone is more worried about the money than the science I can tell it's their ideology (often libertarian) driving their views rather than science. If you think the CO2 you exhale when breathing is in any way part of the problem then you don't have a clue what you're talking about scientifically.
Do you have actual scientifically valid evidence that they are not a statistically representative sample or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Yep, and when things change there is a reason. Discovering those reasons is what science is all about.
If you think scientists are projecting future temperatures just based on past temperature trends it's obvious you have no idea what they are doing.
Bad timing? It's happened to me too.
Science is nearly always wrong. It's just that over time it becomes less wrong as we learn more.
The Sun has been monitored in detail for over 30 years since the first satellites were put up to monitor it. Ground based monitoring goes back to the 1950's or earlier. Detailed sunspot records which serve as a proxy for solar activity go back 400 years. The Sun hasn't varied enough to account for the temperature changes in the past 30+ years.
Hansen is smart enough to know it's going to take a lot longer than 5 years to eliminate net emissions of CO2. But the sooner we get started the sooner we achieve the goal.
You can't "fix" the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. As someone above pointed out the water vapor evaporated daily from the surface of the oceans is orders of magnitude greater than any human outputs. The level of water vapor is strictly limited by temperature. In a thought experiment a few years ago an atmospheric scientist asked what would happen if you removed 100% of the water vapor from the atmosphere. He calculated it would take about 60 days for water vapor levels to return to normal.
It's not because of water vapor. Please show me the evidence that water vapor levels are higher in cities than it is in the surrounding countryside. I had a good laugh at your condenser idea. When over 70% of the Earth's surface is water I don't think humans have much effect on the total water vapor in the atmosphere.
Tropospheric warming at the elevation of those glaciers doesn't necessarily bring the temperature above freezing but it does allow the air to carry more water vapor which means there may be greater snowfall at higher elevations than is typical in the past. So maybe it's not such a weak response after all.