Current temperatures are always natural in that they occur as a result of all of different factors that combine to produce them. What is not natural (in the sense that humans produced the effect) is the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly CO2. There is no known event in the past where they have increased so drastically on such a short time scale. Of course the further back you go the more difficult it is to discern anything on such a short time scale so it's kind of fuzzy but still it doesn't appear to be normal.
You are right that consensus has nothing to do with determining what is true. I never said it did. The definition of consensus is a general agreement among such a large majority of participants on a particular point. In science it can be a useful indicator of what the practitioners in a particular field understand about it and what they don't. That doesn't necessarily mean they are right but they probably will be more often than not.
So increasing population and deforestation was the reason the temperature dropped from the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago to the Little Ice Age 400 years ago? Why hasn't that trend continued?
Not to be nitpicky but the oceans already absorb nearly 90% of the excess energy. Here is a brief on a recent study of Earth's energy imbalance. Figure 1 shows the distribution to the various heat sinks.
How much difference did the average of 1 degree of temperature drop during the Little Ice Age make? What if the same level of difference occurs with 1 degree of temperature rise?
No, the periods just didn't stand out the way you want them to. Here is a graph of a number of temperature reconstructions for the past 1000 years including Mann's hockey stick graph (the dark blue line). They pretty much all agree that it was warmer 1000 years ago than it was 400 years ago.
Nobody's ever denied the Little Ice Age. It was obvious from the historical records. What they are saying is that the Maunder Minimum made what was already a cooler era for other reasons that much worse.
I think people might look at the Little Ice Age and think that all we need to save us from rising temperatures are some volcanic eruptions or the geo-engineering equivalent [...] But when you see what happened when global temperatures dropped by just one degree and you look at current predictions of six or seven degree increases for the future, you realize how precarious things are for life as we know it.
That's an important point. If you consider the disruption that occurred with one degree of temperature drop in the Little Ice Age can you expect the same level of disruption with a one degree rise in temperature? How about two degrees or the 6-7 degrees mentioned?
Consensus is not when scientists get together and decide "We're going to have a consensus!" Consensus is what you have when (nearly all) scientists in a field no longer argue seriously about a particular subject except at the minute detail level because it isn't interesting any more.
Hmm... so they survived through the last glacial period. In Sweden. Was that area not covered in ice or did they go into deep sleep under ice for 40 or 50,000 years and sprout again when they were uncovered?
I'm not as sure of the 1/10th figure now as when I wrote that. It may be less. Heat flows into the ocean in many ways. Some is directly absorbed from sunlight, some is convected from the air, some comes from rivers and streams flowing into the ocean but I suspect a lot of it comes from rain falling into the ocean. The thermal inertia in the Earth system causes a delay of 20-40 years in temperature change from global warming. Most of the inertia comes from the ocean.
The energy for global warming comes from an external source, the Sun. The thermal energy in the core is internal to the Earth so converting from mass to energy doesn't change the total mass of the Earth.
1988 is the warmest year on record in the HADCRUT record. That's the one that comes from the vilified Phil Jones' group. I guess it's ok for the denialists to use his data when it suits their prejudices. In the NOAA and NASA/GISS records 2005 and 2010 are tied for the warmest year. The reason for the difference is that HADCRUT doesn't cover the polar regions as well as the others.
Global warming has not ceased. 2005 and 2010 were tied for the hottest year in record in 2 of the 3 major temperature records (NOAA & NASA/GISS). Most global warming energy is captured by the oceans and some goes into the land as well. The oceans have thousands of times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.
Most of the warmth from global warming goes into the oceans. Considering the heat capacity of water compared to air it doesn't take that much ocean warming to make a 160 tonne difference.
Most of the heat goes into the ocean. The top 10 feet of ocean contain as much heat energy as the whole atmosphere and the average depth of the ocean is over 12,000 feet.
Approximately 1/10th of the energy the Earth is gaining from global warming remains in the atmosphere and most of the rest goes into the oceans which has vastly more heat capacity than the air. I'm thinking 160 tonnes is probably in the right ballpark.
So now burning (hint, just a chemical action) some dead dinosaur is releasing the energy equivilent of 160 TONNES? Eh?
The heat energy released by burning fossil fuels is trivial. The source of heat that is causing global warming is the Sun and the fact that increased greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) capture more of that energy before it gets re-radiated to space. So that 160 tonnes is directly from the Sun and the energy it adds to the Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
LIndzen withdrew the paper on his own once the errors were pointed out to him.
Current temperatures are always natural in that they occur as a result of all of different factors that combine to produce them. What is not natural (in the sense that humans produced the effect) is the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly CO2. There is no known event in the past where they have increased so drastically on such a short time scale. Of course the further back you go the more difficult it is to discern anything on such a short time scale so it's kind of fuzzy but still it doesn't appear to be normal.
You are right that consensus has nothing to do with determining what is true. I never said it did. The definition of consensus is a general agreement among such a large majority of participants on a particular point. In science it can be a useful indicator of what the practitioners in a particular field understand about it and what they don't. That doesn't necessarily mean they are right but they probably will be more often than not.
So increasing population and deforestation was the reason the temperature dropped from the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago to the Little Ice Age 400 years ago? Why hasn't that trend continued?
Not to be nitpicky but the oceans already absorb nearly 90% of the excess energy. Here is a brief on a recent study of Earth's energy imbalance. Figure 1 shows the distribution to the various heat sinks.
I love that straw man you set up there.
ceoyoyo was obviously talking about the meteorological spring, not the orbital spring. Check it out.
How much difference did the average of 1 degree of temperature drop during the Little Ice Age make? What if the same level of difference occurs with 1 degree of temperature rise?
No, the periods just didn't stand out the way you want them to. Here is a graph of a number of temperature reconstructions for the past 1000 years including Mann's hockey stick graph (the dark blue line). They pretty much all agree that it was warmer 1000 years ago than it was 400 years ago.
Nobody's ever denied the Little Ice Age. It was obvious from the historical records. What they are saying is that the Maunder Minimum made what was already a cooler era for other reasons that much worse.
From the post:
I think people might look at the Little Ice Age and think that all we need to save us from rising temperatures are some volcanic eruptions or the geo-engineering equivalent [...] But when you see what happened when global temperatures dropped by just one degree and you look at current predictions of six or seven degree increases for the future, you realize how precarious things are for life as we know it.
That's an important point. If you consider the disruption that occurred with one degree of temperature drop in the Little Ice Age can you expect the same level of disruption with a one degree rise in temperature? How about two degrees or the 6-7 degrees mentioned?
Consensus is not when scientists get together and decide "We're going to have a consensus!" Consensus is what you have when (nearly all) scientists in a field no longer argue seriously about a particular subject except at the minute detail level because it isn't interesting any more.
Also, Roy Spencer has enough credibility to get a serious response from others in the field.
Yes, I did some research after that and found it was in Utah. I was misreading and implying it was in Sweden from the previous comment.
Hmm... so they survived through the last glacial period. In Sweden. Was that area not covered in ice or did they go into deep sleep under ice for 40 or 50,000 years and sprout again when they were uncovered?
I'm not as sure of the 1/10th figure now as when I wrote that. It may be less. Heat flows into the ocean in many ways. Some is directly absorbed from sunlight, some is convected from the air, some comes from rivers and streams flowing into the ocean but I suspect a lot of it comes from rain falling into the ocean. The thermal inertia in the Earth system causes a delay of 20-40 years in temperature change from global warming. Most of the inertia comes from the ocean.
The energy for global warming comes from an external source, the Sun. The thermal energy in the core is internal to the Earth so converting from mass to energy doesn't change the total mass of the Earth.
1988 is the warmest year on record in the HADCRUT record. That's the one that comes from the vilified Phil Jones' group. I guess it's ok for the denialists to use his data when it suits their prejudices. In the NOAA and NASA/GISS records 2005 and 2010 are tied for the warmest year. The reason for the difference is that HADCRUT doesn't cover the polar regions as well as the others.
Global warming has not ceased. 2005 and 2010 were tied for the hottest year in record in 2 of the 3 major temperature records (NOAA & NASA/GISS). Most global warming energy is captured by the oceans and some goes into the land as well. The oceans have thousands of times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.
Most of the warmth from global warming goes into the oceans. Considering the heat capacity of water compared to air it doesn't take that much ocean warming to make a 160 tonne difference.
m = E/c^2 I believe energy creates gravity equivalent to its mass.
Most of the heat goes into the ocean. The top 10 feet of ocean contain as much heat energy as the whole atmosphere and the average depth of the ocean is over 12,000 feet.
- so they are really off by 3 orders of magnitude.
Probably not if you consider the heat being gained by the oceans as well.
Approximately 1/10th of the energy the Earth is gaining from global warming remains in the atmosphere and most of the rest goes into the oceans which has vastly more heat capacity than the air. I'm thinking 160 tonnes is probably in the right ballpark.
So now burning (hint, just a chemical action) some dead dinosaur is releasing the energy equivilent of 160 TONNES? Eh?
The heat energy released by burning fossil fuels is trivial. The source of heat that is causing global warming is the Sun and the fact that increased greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) capture more of that energy before it gets re-radiated to space. So that 160 tonnes is directly from the Sun and the energy it adds to the Earth.