No it does not, though I made the same mistake when I first read it. It may below the mean at the present time, it is show a recovery.
Answered in another comment to you here. Again, I'm saying your conclusions don't flow from these cherry-picked examples, I'm NOT disputing the AMSR-E ice minima record.
I do not know at this point who's website dumbscientist.com is, but it excludes, very typically, Maurder Solar minimum / Little Ice age data. I am still going through it.
It's mine, and this point was also answered in another comment to you here.
And are you refuting the fact that water vapor makes up %95 of the greenhouse effect on earth? If so, what percentage does it make up?
I've been strenuously trying to say that it's the conclusions you're reaching that are wrong, not necessarily these details. As a matter of fact, CO2 makes up 66% to 85% of the greenhouse effect in our current atmosphere. But that's not the point. As I've repeatedly explained to you, water vapor reaches equilibrium with the oceans in a matter of weeks, so we can't really change its concentration except by changing Earth's average temperature. Water vapor is also not present in the top level of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is most important. CO2, on the other hand, is well-mixed even to the highest level of the atmosphere, and it stays in the atmosphere for many decades which is why it's so dangerous.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any point to having a conversation where all my words hit a brick wall, requiring me to immediately repeat them. Have a nice day.
Yeah I read it wrong the first time as well. It actually shows growth for the last three years.
More importantly, it shows a trend where recent years have a lower minimum than later years. Remember not to confuse weather with climate like Fieldings is. The long-term trend simply has irrelevant noise due to ENSO events, etc imposed on top of it. As I said before, the real problem scientists face is here
I see the statistics on your web site removed the Maurader Solar Minimum / Little ice age; most CO2 proponents do.
You might be referring to this paragraph: Abrupt climate change is a long-term warming trend imposed on top of natural variations which tend to swing wildly in both directions. If you mean that the temperatures remain inexplicably high after subtracting all those natural variations, you're almost right.
But that reference removed the ENSO events, and figure 2 shows a warming trend even before this subtraction.
Also, contrary to popular belief, climatologists aren't denying the fact that natural variations such as changes in the Sun's brightness affect the climate. Climatologists aren't saying that our emissions are completely responsible for everything that's happening to the climate. It's just that once we account for all known natural variations, an artificial signal remains which is best explained by accounting for greenhouse gas emissions.
If we do not get some cycle 24 sunspots soon, we might be hoping for some global warming. I thought we where on the way but a cycle 23 spot showed up the the sun went quiet now for over a month; not good.
The scientific articles referenced all over this article, which is what the whole issue is about... and with all due respect you still haven't said exactly which point I've made that you think is wrong.
Certainly no evidence of consensus.
As I said in a comment: First of all, I've repeatedly stressed that science isn't democratic, so I don't give "consensus" any weight. For example, I once said "... I don't see how the popularity of an idea has anything to do with its veracity."
And later: "Uniformity of opinion is neither expected nor desired. Consensus is irrelevant; evidence is all that matters."
So if you have some credible evidence, please let me know.
Does the phrase "cherry picking" mean anything to you?
That's why they can't predict the past, much less the future.
Hindcast validations are one of the standard ways to validate dynamical climate models. They've been tested against instrumental records and proxy data like borehole measurements, tree rings and ice cores. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo showed that climate models can predict climate response very accurately.
Even if they did, the best they could produce is probabilities with wide multimodal distributions. They'd be useless for decision making.
Yes, the error bars are large, but the separation between the future scenarios is larger still. The models are plenty good enough to see that we need a new industrial revolution, or risk further damaging the climate.
Don't be precious. The issue isn't the specific facts you're referencing, but rather the bizarre conclusions you're using them to support. As SilverEyes said, the first graph shows Arctic sea ice is decreasing. I'm not surprised; I use AMSR-E data in my hydrology research, and they've got high quality data. I've already shown that the second link about water vapor is wrong in a previous comment to you. The third link was addressed in that same previous comment.
You probably dislike giving source sites because none of the sources you've used are reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. See 7(a) in the index to see why this bothers scientists.
Production of concrete is vastly outweighed by coal plants and gasoline use. And the high CO2 levels have only been around for 50-100 years, which is far too brief for any significant evolution.
As I've explained, ENSO events are irrelevant to the long term climate.
Satellite images show arctic ice cap growing the last three years...
In the same link as above, I referenced this paper titled "Arctic sea ice decline: faster than forecast."
... lack of sunspots is pointing to a scary minimum.
Again in the same link, I explain that this means the Sun is unusually dim, which (if anything) would tend to cool the Earth slightly.
The CO2 increase contributes to less than a than 1/2 of a percent increase in green house gasses...
As I explain in the fifth paragraph of that article, CO2 has jumped 26% above the highest value it's reached in the last 650,000 years. And this staggering increase occurred in the span of several decades due to human emissions, which is 35x faster than at any point in the last 400,000 years.
... (do not exclude the largest green house gas, water vapor)
As I've explained, water vapor reaches equilibrium in a matter of weeks, so we can't change its concentration except by changing Earth's average temperature. Water vapor is also not present in the top level of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is most important. CO2, on the other hand, is well-mixed even to the highest level of the atmosphere, and it stays in the atmosphere for many decades which is why it's so dangerous.
Now, you are not trying to tell me that the tuning of adjustable numerical parameters, grid size, time steps, simplifications, linearisation techniques, and choosing of unknown physical parameters in the simplified mathematical models are not of the utmost importance, are you?
No, just that these parameterizations are only performed for the mean climate, and shouldn't change over a timespan measured in decades. Over geological time shifting continents and increasing solar brightness will matter, but not from the period 1900 to 2010.
The validations I have seen for those models (single curve fitting over small period) are not convincing enough, too much local errors for such a model to be reliable imho.
I presume you're referring to the model validations via the Pinatubo eruption. There are other validations, chief among them being comparisons to proxy data which extends over hundreds of thousands of years. Initial conditions ensembles are taken to average out the weather, and models with completely different parameterizations are averaged in a bigger ensemble to produce the IPCC results (see chapter 8).
Actually, all models take clouds into account. Which journal article led you to this conclusion? I've discussed this issue in the comments and linked to a new paper describing recent improvements to models of clouds.
I do not have seen any attempt of applying models to past conditions where CO2 concentration was higher than today... I have read your article, and it is not convincing. Especially, the way you insist that the model should be applyied to recent time only is not sound: a numerical model should be tested in as much conditions as possible, especially for other input that the ones that have been used to calibrate it!!!
Because, as I state in a popup on the words "very slightly" in the third paragraph of the article, there are so many changes to the Earth over such long periods of geological time (you have to go back tens of millions of years to see higher CO2 concentrations) that the dynamical models wouldn't be expected to apply. Plus, proxy data are unreliable at such timescales, so we're stuck with "recent" data like the last 650,000 years from EPICA.
models predictions seems much better in the 1990-2000 region than in 2000-2010, but adjustable parameters were tuned to fit 1990-2000 data...not a good sign for a numerical model...
Huh? You're not under the impression that climate models are empirical models, are you?
... cyclic variation of solar power is taken into account, but other effects on cloud formations are not (not surprising, as cloud are not taken into account anyway). But recent studies suggest that the main effect of solar cycles is linked to magnetic effects, not incoming solar radiation.
That's because those other effects have been shown to be very small. See 7 (b) in the index: "Cosmic rays are responsible for global warming." If you've found evidence contradicting these papers, please let us know.
much more emphasis (as in your article) to positive feedback effects than negative one. In fact, positive feedback is set at the stability limit: a little bit more and the system would be instable and the climate we had before industrialisation would simply not have been possible, you would have had a runaway warming or cooling.
I've explicitly addressed this point. The point is that feedback effects act on different time scales, and our forcing is geologically very rapid.
And man produced CO2 is just the same as natural CO2, any attempt to spearate the two (one have a greater effect that the other???) is highly suspect.
I didn't mean that man-made CO2 has a greater effect, just that feedback CO2 appears after the temperature rises, not before. Therefore the recent CO2 rise is anthropogenic, and we should expect the natural feedback CO2 (observed in Vostok) to add to it.
In fact, I think many reader objections in your article are valid, and you seem to agree as you do not really debunk the well formulated ones...
For instance? (I've got my own research distracting me, so I don't always have time to answer each and every question, but I've tried really hard to answer all the scientific questions that people have posed. I'd l
It may have been beyond reasonable doubts until about 2005. I do not think it is anymore, the recent scientific advances and newest global data are not so supportive of the idea that man-produced CO2 is responsible for the bulk of global warming, and even less of the more catastrophic predictions for future climate change...
Please link to legitimately peer-reviewed scientific articles that back up these claims, because what you're saying contradicts all the evidence I've ever seen.
Indeed, I think the consensus is shifting right now, and I guess that at one point it may become funny and some heads could start to roll...A few more years of flat or decreasing global temperatures, a few more theoretical and experimental blows to IPCC models, a few more scientists resigning from IPCC or publicly expressing doubts, and it's done.
Really? That's the impression you got from reading the legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals? I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is well-supported by a mountain of credible evidence. If you've examined the IPCC models and found flaws that I haven't debunked in that article, by all means leave a comment describing these flaws and I'll look into them.
Throughout the Earth's history, the periods substantially warmer than today correlate with the most prolific life. The extra energy seems to make the ecosystem flourish.
Yeah, and if we could resurrect those biospheres instead of living with our own, we'd probably be just fine. But we can't. In reality, scientists are concerned with the rapid rate of the changes in our climate. It's not that these changes have dangerous magnitudes, it's that the derivative is dangerously high.
The amount of carbon dioxide that's in the greenhouse gases is very fractional and the actual human contributed amount of CO2 is a small fraction of that. In fact, its dwarfed by rotting vegitation and animal releases of it. That, in turn, is even dwarfed by the amount of CO2 the oceans give off. So, what makes you green whackos think we have any impact on this? Well, unfortunately, we've entered a cooling off period. The Earth hasn't warmed since 1998 and actually slightly cooled off the last 2 years....
I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. For example, several of your claims are answered here and here.
I do not believe CO2 is causing any problems at all...
What scientific evidence led you to that conclusion? I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern.
The human produced carbon is not causing a warming, and even if it was, admittedly we're talking about a 1/20th of a degree in change/preventive change.... We would be much better off it seems if we cut back on water vapor... but then it might not rain as much... and don't clouds reflect light anyway?... Almost too many variables to account for, especially in a model that is inherently not stable.
Wrong. I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern.
If there was a preferred reference frame such that the laws of physics only had to apply to it, but causality could be broken elsewhere, then the Theory of Relativity would be very different.
Yes, but like Newtonian mechanics, modern relativity would still be a useful first order approximation. Plus, to the best of my knowledge relativity has only rarely been tested to more than first order effects.
I'm also going to wait until we have some reason to actually prefer the many world interpretation over others before I agree with that. Just because it would be convenient for solving time travel paradoxes in a universe where FTL travel is possible doesn't mean its actually true.
I agree; at the moment there's no watertight reason to prefer one interpretation over another. But the alternatives are hidden variables (local variables are ruled out by Bell inequality experiments and nonlocal variables would violate relativity), or the literal Copenhagen interpretation. (There are others, but these are the most popular.)
The Copenhagen interpretation is almost certainly wrong. (My only correction to his list is that #6 also applies to the No Hair theorem.)
Causality-wise, going faster than c by any method is impossible.
I've already responded to the parent agreeing with most of your position. However, I think this statement goes a little far. FTL travel almost certainly implies time travel, but relativity only makes a preferred frame seemingly unnecessary given current observations. It doesn't rule out a preferred frame altogether.
Also, violating causality is a good reason to be suspicious of a phenomenon, but I don't think it deserves the "impossible" label. Grandfather paradoxes are (IMHO) the only reason to doubt the possibility of breaking causality, and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics eliminates these paradoxes.
Ah, turtle. I used to prank my classmates by surreptitiously typing commands into their keyboards that sent the turtle into an infinite loop. It would cover the screen with tracks until the confused teacher decided to reboot the machine. Good times...
Slashdot Mirror
EM waves have electric and magnetic components, and there are three physical dimensions.
Second correction: "later years" should read "earlier years."
I meant to say that H2O makes up 66-85% of the greenhouse effect, not CO2. Sorry for the confusion that this typo could have caused.
Answered in another comment to you here. Again, I'm saying your conclusions don't flow from these cherry-picked examples, I'm NOT disputing the AMSR-E ice minima record.
It's mine, and this point was also answered in another comment to you here.
I've been strenuously trying to say that it's the conclusions you're reaching that are wrong, not necessarily these details. As a matter of fact, CO2 makes up 66% to 85% of the greenhouse effect in our current atmosphere. But that's not the point. As I've repeatedly explained to you, water vapor reaches equilibrium with the oceans in a matter of weeks, so we can't really change its concentration except by changing Earth's average temperature. Water vapor is also not present in the top level of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is most important. CO2, on the other hand, is well-mixed even to the highest level of the atmosphere, and it stays in the atmosphere for many decades which is why it's so dangerous.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any point to having a conversation where all my words hit a brick wall, requiring me to immediately repeat them. Have a nice day.
More importantly, it shows a trend where recent years have a lower minimum than later years. Remember not to confuse weather with climate like Fieldings is. The long-term trend simply has irrelevant noise due to ENSO events, etc imposed on top of it. As I said before, the real problem scientists face is here
You might be referring to this paragraph: Abrupt climate change is a long-term warming trend imposed on top of natural variations which tend to swing wildly in both directions. If you mean that the temperatures remain inexplicably high after subtracting all those natural variations, you're almost right.
But that reference removed the ENSO events, and figure 2 shows a warming trend even before this subtraction.
Also, contrary to popular belief, climatologists aren't denying the fact that natural variations such as changes in the Sun's brightness affect the climate. Climatologists aren't saying that our emissions are completely responsible for everything that's happening to the climate. It's just that once we account for all known natural variations, an artificial signal remains which is best explained by accounting for greenhouse gas emissions.
No, solar variability is smaller than greenhouse effects.
The scientific articles referenced all over this article, which is what the whole issue is about... and with all due respect you still haven't said exactly which point I've made that you think is wrong.
As I said in a comment: First of all, I've repeatedly stressed that science isn't democratic, so I don't give "consensus" any weight. For example, I once said "... I don't see how the popularity of an idea has anything to do with its veracity."
And later: "Uniformity of opinion is neither expected nor desired. Consensus is irrelevant; evidence is all that matters."
So if you have some credible evidence, please let me know.
Where- exactly- in the article did I do that?
A good place to start is chapter 8 of the IPCC report. I've also previously discussed this general issue.
Hindcast validations are one of the standard ways to validate dynamical climate models. They've been tested against instrumental records and proxy data like borehole measurements, tree rings and ice cores. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo showed that climate models can predict climate response very accurately.
Yes, the error bars are large, but the separation between the future scenarios is larger still. The models are plenty good enough to see that we need a new industrial revolution, or risk further damaging the climate.
Don't be precious. The issue isn't the specific facts you're referencing, but rather the bizarre conclusions you're using them to support. As SilverEyes said, the first graph shows Arctic sea ice is decreasing. I'm not surprised; I use AMSR-E data in my hydrology research, and they've got high quality data. I've already shown that the second link about water vapor is wrong in a previous comment to you. The third link was addressed in that same previous comment.
You probably dislike giving source sites because none of the sources you've used are reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. See 7(a) in the index to see why this bothers scientists.
I know you were joking, but some people genuinely do confuse local weather and global climate.
Production of concrete is vastly outweighed by coal plants and gasoline use. And the high CO2 levels have only been around for 50-100 years, which is far too brief for any significant evolution.
In science, it's a good idea to focus on evidence rather than conspiracy theories. What evidence in my article are you disputing?
This "tend to cool the Earth slightly." should have read "tend to cool the Earth very slightly."
As I've explained, ENSO events are irrelevant to the long term climate.
In the same link as above, I referenced this paper titled "Arctic sea ice decline: faster than forecast."
Again in the same link, I explain that this means the Sun is unusually dim, which (if anything) would tend to cool the Earth slightly.
As I explain in the fifth paragraph of that article, CO2 has jumped 26% above the highest value it's reached in the last 650,000 years. And this staggering increase occurred in the span of several decades due to human emissions, which is 35x faster than at any point in the last 400,000 years.
As I've explained, water vapor reaches equilibrium in a matter of weeks, so we can't change its concentration except by changing Earth's average temperature. Water vapor is also not present in the top level of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is most important. CO2, on the other hand, is well-mixed even to the highest level of the atmosphere, and it stays in the atmosphere for many decades which is why it's so dangerous.
No, just that these parameterizations are only performed for the mean climate, and shouldn't change over a timespan measured in decades. Over geological time shifting continents and increasing solar brightness will matter, but not from the period 1900 to 2010.
I presume you're referring to the model validations via the Pinatubo eruption. There are other validations, chief among them being comparisons to proxy data which extends over hundreds of thousands of years. Initial conditions ensembles are taken to average out the weather, and models with completely different parameterizations are averaged in a bigger ensemble to produce the IPCC results (see chapter 8).
Actually, all models take clouds into account. Which journal article led you to this conclusion? I've discussed this issue in the comments and linked to a new paper describing recent improvements to models of clouds.
Because, as I state in a popup on the words "very slightly" in the third paragraph of the article, there are so many changes to the Earth over such long periods of geological time (you have to go back tens of millions of years to see higher CO2 concentrations) that the dynamical models wouldn't be expected to apply. Plus, proxy data are unreliable at such timescales, so we're stuck with "recent" data like the last 650,000 years from EPICA.
Huh? You're not under the impression that climate models are empirical models, are you?
That's because those other effects have been shown to be very small. See 7 (b) in the index: "Cosmic rays are responsible for global warming." If you've found evidence contradicting these papers, please let us know.
I've explicitly addressed this point. The point is that feedback effects act on different time scales, and our forcing is geologically very rapid.
I didn't mean that man-made CO2 has a greater effect, just that feedback CO2 appears after the temperature rises, not before. Therefore the recent CO2 rise is anthropogenic, and we should expect the natural feedback CO2 (observed in Vostok) to add to it.
For instance? (I've got my own research distracting me, so I don't always have time to answer each and every question, but I've tried really hard to answer all the scientific questions that people have posed. I'd l
Please link to legitimately peer-reviewed scientific articles that back up these claims, because what you're saying contradicts all the evidence I've ever seen.
Really? That's the impression you got from reading the legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals? I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is well-supported by a mountain of credible evidence. If you've examined the IPCC models and found flaws that I haven't debunked in that article, by all means leave a comment describing these flaws and I'll look into them.
Yeah, and if we could resurrect those biospheres instead of living with our own, we'd probably be just fine. But we can't. In reality, scientists are concerned with the rapid rate of the changes in our climate. It's not that these changes have dangerous magnitudes, it's that the derivative is dangerously high.
I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. For example, several of your claims are answered here and here.
What scientific evidence led you to that conclusion? I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern.
Wrong. I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern.
Yes, but like Newtonian mechanics, modern relativity would still be a useful first order approximation. Plus, to the best of my knowledge relativity has only rarely been tested to more than first order effects.
I agree; at the moment there's no watertight reason to prefer one interpretation over another. But the alternatives are hidden variables (local variables are ruled out by Bell inequality experiments and nonlocal variables would violate relativity), or the literal Copenhagen interpretation. (There are others, but these are the most popular.)
The Copenhagen interpretation is almost certainly wrong. (My only correction to his list is that #6 also applies to the No Hair theorem.)
I've already responded to the parent agreeing with most of your position. However, I think this statement goes a little far. FTL travel almost certainly implies time travel, but relativity only makes a preferred frame seemingly unnecessary given current observations. It doesn't rule out a preferred frame altogether.
Also, violating causality is a good reason to be suspicious of a phenomenon, but I don't think it deserves the "impossible" label. Grandfather paradoxes are (IMHO) the only reason to doubt the possibility of breaking causality, and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics eliminates these paradoxes.
No, he's actually right- any FTL drive combined with a mundane conventional drive can be used to travel back in time.
Entanglement isn't a causal phenomenon.
Ah, turtle. I used to prank my classmates by surreptitiously typing commands into their keyboards that sent the turtle into an infinite loop. It would cover the screen with tracks until the confused teacher decided to reboot the machine. Good times...