Take the ever-changing value over the CO2 forcing value. Is it 1.1 W/m^2? Is it 8.5 W/m^2?
The first order forcing of CO2 is 5.35*ln(C/C0)Wm^-2 . Not a lot of controversy there. You've given it as a constant without regard to relative C. Are you sure you understood what you were looking at?
I'm not sure that one data point is a great way to understand the trend over time. This animation shows sea ice evolution since the 1980s. It's quite dramatic: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4510
For what it's worth the summer arctic sea ice extent did fall to half of the 1981 to 2010 average in 2012.
Good point. Here's a graph of Arctic summer ice extent: Fairly stable until 1995 and then it seems to have fallen off a cliff. 2016 isn't shown here but it was the second lowest value on record after 2012. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/n...
(Middle of the road models may have been spot on...)
Wrongo bongo. Here's the Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement. It begins: The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.
The Great Barrier Reef has been monitored by AIMS since 1980. The first mass bleaching event occurred in (then) record warm year 1998 when 50 per cent of the reefs suffered bleaching. The next in 2002 where 60 per cent of reefs were affected. In both events, about five per cent of the Great Barrier Reef's coral reefs were severely damaged. (compared to 22% now)
No. Since the last interglacial 120000 years ago (the Eemian, warmer than the current) and the one we're living in (the Holocene) there has only been a glacial period (cold... ).
My mistake. Thanks for correcting.
"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history."
XKCD would have done well to include the error bars. They do illustrate this additional variability towards the right side between 16,000 and 15,500. If you include the error bars you can see that there is no contradiction. Even still, Marcotte was published in 2013. We're about 0.3C hotter now than the hottest observed temperature at that time: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . That may very well exceed even the error bars and cover that last 25%.
The fact that it will not annihilate all life on Earth is a rather low bar. Is there any negative or costly behaviour that could not be justified with that logic? It's the Alfred E Neuman cost/benefit analysis: "It's not going to end life on Earth, so what's the big deal?"
I took away from her study that, as far as she could extrapolate from the available data on climate/temperature cycles going back 2 million years, that we were pretty much smack at the point of the two curves one would expect during this point in time
Not quite. We reached the peak of the current interglacial about 8000 years ago. That peak is the result of Milankovitch cycles and the carbon, albedo, and other feedbacks - just as the peaks that came before. Temperatures have been falling slowly since then until the last 150 years when we increased atmospheric CO2 by about 70% by burning fossil fuels. Temperatures have risen along with the recent CO2 increase, just as you'd expect. The question she's trying to answer is, if we stopped releasing CO2 today, how much more warming would we observe just due to the CO2 we've already released. She uses the CO2 and temperature correlation over the previous glacial/interglacial periods to estimate the impact of CO2 on temperatures.
Gavin Schmidt shows why this is flawed and, given our current circumstances, likely to overestimate the impact. Here is a snippet: "In the previous post, I outlined how the combination of carbon cycle feedbacks to the Milankovitch forcing and the climate system response to CO2 gives rise to this correlation and that – by itself – it can’t be used to define the latter term. Furthermore, because the regression is being defined over ice age cycles where the biggest changes are related to the (now disappeared) North American and Fenno-Scandanavian ice sheets, the regression might well be much less for situations where only Greenland and West Antarctica are 'in play'."
There have been several glacial/interglacial periods over the last 120,000 years. The peak of the current interglacial occurred about 8000 years ago. Since then temperatures have been slowly falling... up until about 150 years ago when something happened and temperatures dramatically reversed course.. Here's just the last 20,000 years by XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1732/
I think the XKCD comic is rather more clever as he uses peer reviewed science. Your other perspective presumes that temperatures in Greenland represent temperatures around the world. That's not going to work. It looks like he snipped only certain parts though as using the whole core wouldn't fool "even the dimmest denier at WUWT" as Sue explains here: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...
James Hanson, the previous director of NASA GISS and Gavin's former boss, weighs in with his own perspective. In a comment to the post he says in part: There are various technical issues with both Schmittner and Snyder approaches that lead them toward their low and high values. Suffice it to say that I expect the true answer lie between the two, but closer to Snyder’s. The evidence favors a temperature change in the range ~4-5C for LGM-Holocene, and thus a fast-feedback climate sensitivity close to 3C or a bit larger. This then leads to an ESS sensitivity ~6C or somewhat higher as discussed in our 2013 paper.http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
According to Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies: "The paper claims that ESS is ~9C and that this implies that the long term committed warming from today’s CO2 levels is a further 3-7C. This is simply wrong." He goes on to show why: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
There was a time in the satellite record when you could show that there has been little warming since 1997, and no warming prior to 1997, but significant warming over the whole period: http://phosphorus.github.io/ap...
You're way in over your head and you don't even know it.
XD
Looks like they're removing stuff now.
What, every single group that does temperature reconstructions is "removing stuff" and just happen to end up with the exact same answer? That's one hell of a conspiracy theory! It's item 4 on the conspiracy theory detector.
In my humble opinion, his successor is lying a lot more. That's why every month this year has been a "record."
Because you're losing our bet so badly and because of how cocky and condescending you were when you entered it and because you're not particularly fond of the taste of crow?
Did you look at their last graph from 1880 on? That doesn't line up with the CO2 levels worth a damn.
The cyclical variations from PDO/ENSO/etc on top of the secular warming from CO2 explain each peak and valley in the temperature record quite well. It is naive to think that you would have a monotonic rise in temperatures that matched the monotonic rise in CO2. This is certainly not what the models show.
Slashdot Mirror
All the models include a CO2/Water vapor positive feedback coefficient.
Wrong. This is an emergent property in models, not a built-in assumption. It is also confirmed by real world observations today (e.g., here and here).
Take the ever-changing value over the CO2 forcing value. Is it 1.1 W/m^2? Is it 8.5 W/m^2?
The first order forcing of CO2 is 5.35*ln(C/C0)Wm^-2 . Not a lot of controversy there. You've given it as a constant without regard to relative C. Are you sure you understood what you were looking at?
I'm not sure that one data point is a great way to understand the trend over time. This animation shows sea ice evolution since the 1980s. It's quite dramatic: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4510
For what it's worth the summer arctic sea ice extent did fall to half of the 1981 to 2010 average in 2012.
Good point. Here's a graph of Arctic summer ice extent: Fairly stable until 1995 and then it seems to have fallen off a cliff. 2016 isn't shown here but it was the second lowest value on record after 2012. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/n...
(Middle of the road models may have been spot on...)
In fact the IPCC report projected much less arctic ice loss than has occurred.
no US agency has said anything of the kind
Wrongo bongo. Here's the Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement. It begins: The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.
U.S. agencies say they are "confident" that Moscow orchestrated the attacks.
it's entirely possible that - in geological spans - the GBR is an ephemeral thing,
I suppose we may find that many things are ephemeral during periods of rapid climate change.
It does appear as though the hotter the world gets the worse things get for the coral. The bleaching events coincide with the hottest years on record.
The Great Barrier Reef has been monitored by AIMS since 1980. The first mass bleaching event occurred in (then) record warm year 1998 when 50 per cent of the reefs suffered bleaching. The next in 2002 where 60 per cent of reefs were affected. In both events, about five per cent of the Great Barrier Reef's coral reefs were severely damaged. (compared to 22% now)
The impact from this most recent bleaching event, the most widespread and severe ever recorded on the Great Barrier Reef, is still unfolding.
Pretty sure no one is going to follow you down the rabbit hole.
Hotter years typically have more forest fires.Years are getting increasingly more hot.
A slower spin would result in cooler temperatures: http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...
No. Since the last interglacial 120000 years ago (the Eemian, warmer than the current) and the one we're living in (the Holocene) there has only been a glacial period (cold ... ).
My mistake. Thanks for correcting.
"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history."
XKCD would have done well to include the error bars. They do illustrate this additional variability towards the right side between 16,000 and 15,500. If you include the error bars you can see that there is no contradiction. Even still, Marcotte was published in 2013. We're about 0.3C hotter now than the hottest observed temperature at that time: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . That may very well exceed even the error bars and cover that last 25%.
The fact that it will not annihilate all life on Earth is a rather low bar. Is there any negative or costly behaviour that could not be justified with that logic? It's the Alfred E Neuman cost/benefit analysis: "It's not going to end life on Earth, so what's the big deal?"
I took away from her study that, as far as she could extrapolate from the available data on climate/temperature cycles going back 2 million years, that we were pretty much smack at the point of the two curves one would expect during this point in time
Not quite. We reached the peak of the current interglacial about 8000 years ago. That peak is the result of Milankovitch cycles and the carbon, albedo, and other feedbacks - just as the peaks that came before. Temperatures have been falling slowly since then until the last 150 years when we increased atmospheric CO2 by about 70% by burning fossil fuels. Temperatures have risen along with the recent CO2 increase, just as you'd expect. The question she's trying to answer is, if we stopped releasing CO2 today, how much more warming would we observe just due to the CO2 we've already released. She uses the CO2 and temperature correlation over the previous glacial/interglacial periods to estimate the impact of CO2 on temperatures.
Gavin Schmidt shows why this is flawed and, given our current circumstances, likely to overestimate the impact. Here is a snippet: "In the previous post, I outlined how the combination of carbon cycle feedbacks to the Milankovitch forcing and the climate system response to CO2 gives rise to this correlation and that – by itself – it can’t be used to define the latter term. Furthermore, because the regression is being defined over ice age cycles where the biggest changes are related to the (now disappeared) North American and Fenno-Scandanavian ice sheets, the regression might well be much less for situations where only Greenland and West Antarctica are 'in play'."
Yes, but physics.
There have been several glacial/interglacial periods over the last 120,000 years. The peak of the current interglacial occurred about 8000 years ago. Since then temperatures have been slowly falling... up until about 150 years ago when something happened and temperatures dramatically reversed course.. Here's just the last 20,000 years by XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1732/
I hope not...
I think the XKCD comic is rather more clever as he uses peer reviewed science. Your other perspective presumes that temperatures in Greenland represent temperatures around the world. That's not going to work. It looks like he snipped only certain parts though as using the whole core wouldn't fool "even the dimmest denier at WUWT" as Sue explains here: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...
James Hanson, the previous director of NASA GISS and Gavin's former boss, weighs in with his own perspective. In a comment to the post he says in part: There are various technical issues with both Schmittner and Snyder approaches that lead them toward their low and high values. Suffice it to say that I expect the true answer lie between the two, but closer to Snyder’s. The evidence favors a temperature change in the range ~4-5C for LGM-Holocene, and thus a fast-feedback climate sensitivity close to 3C or a bit larger. This then leads to an ESS sensitivity ~6C or somewhat higher as discussed in our 2013 paper. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
According to Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies: "The paper claims that ESS is ~9C and that this implies that the long term committed warming from today’s CO2 levels is a further 3-7C. This is simply wrong." He goes on to show why: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
There was a time in the satellite record when you could show that there has been little warming since 1997, and no warming prior to 1997, but significant warming over the whole period: http://phosphorus.github.io/ap...
You're way in over your head and you don't even know it.
XD
Looks like they're removing stuff now.
What, every single group that does temperature reconstructions is "removing stuff" and just happen to end up with the exact same answer? That's one hell of a conspiracy theory! It's item 4 on the conspiracy theory detector.
In my humble opinion, his successor is lying a lot more. That's why every month this year has been a "record."
So, nothing to do with the El Nino? That's item 10 on the conspiracy theory detector.
Even featured here on slashdot it's so suspicious,
That one's off the chart.
This site has actual photos of newspaper articles.
But isn't discussing global temperatures so is not really relevant to our discussion...
Those stubborn facts again-
Well, yeah :)
Yet another analysis:
Also not discussing global temperatures...
I understand you're not a scientist. However for God sakes, look at the data! Go into the distant past to present! Analyze it! Come up with a theory!
We've already got one, and as I've shown, the data fits quite well!
Another clue is they want to put people in jail that disagree with man made GW.
Yes. Clue #7
What's very frustrating to me is I've predicted this for 20 years that their models wouldn't hold up
Yes. That's got to be frustrating given how well they have!
Wonder why I haven't been responding? I
Because you're losing our bet so badly and because of how cocky and condescending you were when you entered it and because you're not particularly fond of the taste of crow?
we're really returning to where we were about 1000 years ago.
We've blown past where we were even 6000 years ago at the peak of the current inter-glacial. And FAST! It's all occurred since industrialization.
There is the fact that the 1930s was the hottest decade of the 20th century
Not even close.
Did you look at their last graph from 1880 on? That doesn't line up with the CO2 levels worth a damn.
The cyclical variations from PDO/ENSO/etc on top of the secular warming from CO2 explain each peak and valley in the temperature record quite well. It is naive to think that you would have a monotonic rise in temperatures that matched the monotonic rise in CO2. This is certainly not what the models show.
Here's a neat tool you can use to explore this. Set CO2 to 2.4 and PDO to 0.13 and you already have a pretty good match to the temperature record.
Here's the latest evidence that the latest evidence that Russia was behind the DNC hack.