RealClimate logo


The Bore Hole

Filed under: — group @ 6 December 2004

A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.

1,948 Responses to “The Bore Hole”

  1. 801
    Slabadang says:

    Well!!
    Murry Salbys lecture on video!

    Here is something for you guys att realclimate to chew on.Maby Salby is working for “Big Oil” ? :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts–9I&feature=youtu.be

  2. 802
    Douglas Cotton says:

    The publications at Principia Scientific International show why carbon dioxide has absolutely no effect on climate, so sensitivity is zero. See, for example, my peer-reviewed paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics on the site.

    I am proud to be an active member of PSI and, as such, I am in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics. The numbers are approaching 40, including well known new members just announced.

    What I write are not just my theories. We are all in agreement that standard physics and empirical results back us up.

  3. 803
    Dan H. says:

    SA,
    That is not a clear connection, but rather a possible explanation. You seem to be too eager to claim a link. Let the science play out, and determine if their is an established link. My original statement still holds.

  4. 804
    Dan H. says:

    John,
    I have checked up on the scientific literature. That is why I made the post. I have no idea what is popular on denialist blogs.

  5. 805
    Dan H. says:

    Daniel,

    Unfortunately, a direct link to the graph is not available, you need to enter the noaa site, and maneuver to the appropriate graphs. Since all the graphs are already monthly adjusted, the individual month is not as critical. However, if you wish to directly compare March to March, then check out the year 1910. March, 2012 broke the record set in 1910 by a mere 0.5F. In fact; many of the states that set record temperatures for the month, broke their 1910 readings. Additionally, in 1910, the warmth spread from coast to coast, with more heat in the West; Wash and Ore. were 6F warmer than this year, while most of New England was 6F cooler.

    Overall, 1910 was not an exceptionally warm year, in fact, it was only slightly above average (+0.4F). The same is true for other warm March’s, like 1907, 1946, 1986, and 2004. Particularly hot years, like 1934, 1998, and 2006, had relatively average March temperatures. The only hot years with a similarly warm March in the entire US records were 1921 and 2007.

  6. 806
    Jens Pettersen says:

    Of course, this doesn’t really imply anything about the “accuracy” of climate “science” unless it can also be shown that no other less accurate temperature models were made by climate scientists in the 20-year period in question.

    The only thing the survey really predicts that corresponds with what has happened since then is “temperatures will rise”. Now that temperatures have risen it’s very tempting to go back in time and say “Look, this was predicted!”. You can do exactly the same with stock prices or anything else.

    The only interesting things are either if it can be proved that the model is objectively very well constructed, which would speak to the author’s credit (but to do that you need knowledge of reality rather than just new models) or if it can be shown that no other and less inaccurate models were created in the past, which would speak to the favour of climate “science” in general.

  7. 807
    Gabriel says:

    To: Lynn Vincentnathan of 3 April (#26)

    You may well want to look at the literature of the period before implying that no legitimate scientists were proclaiming a possible global cooling. Just look at the work of Reid Bryson. As Michael MacCracken (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) remarked the same year this Hansen article was published, “there is certainly not clear evidence that CO2 has warmed the climate at the present time.” (Anyone may look up his talk of 1981 on Youtube). Given that carbon dioxide emissions had been increasing since the 1880s, let’s us not get too invested in using history to bolster the present and thus reducing history to merely those who turn out to be “winners.” Indeed, there were some atmospheric scientists of the period who admonished the exclusion of error bars when making these kinds of projections, as one comment suggested.

  8. 808
    Chris says:

    “Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed.”
    That is almost a statement that the agreement is a random coincidence rather than a good prediction. Where are the error bars on their projection?

    The debate does not centre around whether or not CO2 causes some warming, or even how much warming it could cause. Even if everybody agrees to the IPCC figures, the question is what is the benefit to life on the planet of slightly higher temperatures in 50 years time and how much would it cost to mitigate. The other question is, how likely is it that natural variability would cause such an increase in any event.

    As far as I can tell, there is no problem. We derive great benefit from fossil fuels and any global warming would be extremely slight, it certainly is small so far.

    Certainly the amount by which we could “stop” the warming by devolving humanity to pre-industrial energy consumption is tiny and the costs are huge. Let’s not even mention that China is the largest emitter and has no intention of halting its increase. China IS interested in “renewable technology”, but only in so far as it can manufacture it using slave labor and energy derived from fossil fuels and sell it to us using money we borrow from them – all the while we tax ourselves into oblivion in a pointless effort to reduce global CO2 levels!

    I mean, what are you proposing to do about China and India? Seriously. Please say what you plan to do about them. All of the western countries combined will pale into insignificance in 50 years time when it comes to CO2 emissions but they will be even higher than they are now. But it does not matter anyway – because CO2 and global warming is a non-issue and in 50 years time nobody will even remember what all the fuss was about.

  9. 809
    Norman says:

    Tokodave @206

    Where would the super warm air come from in August? The March warmth in the US came from way down South. In Cuba 87F is normal for March. In Chicago it is over 30F above normal.

    This is a good article on the March heat wave and its cause.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2012/marchheatwave/physical.html

    Phoenix has a high average of 107F in August. Chicago has a high average of 85F in August. That differnece is only 22F. The hot air has to come from somewhere and it is just not available. Chicago could get into the 100’s (Hottest temperature ever recorded in Chicago was 109F in 1934). But to get 30F above average high would require a temp of 115F.

  10. 810
    Norman says:

    Daniel Bailey @205

    Sorry the links do not work. You may be correct that I should not compare March data to October. It is possible that the heat waves are not connected in these two cases. My understanding of heat waves (or cold ones) is that a blocking event is the cause. Not so much because it stops normal weather patterns, but because the block is responsible for moving large air masses from one location where this temperature would be normal to another location where this is far from normal or extreme. Still on the learning curve.

  11. 811
    Norman says:

    Ray Ladbury @204

    “Google Extreme Value Theory”

    I have done this. “Extreme value distributions are the limiting distributions for the minimum or the maximum of a very large collection of independent random variables from the same arbitrary distribution.”

    The idea of the OT is that global warming will shift the normal distribution and make extreme heat events more likely. My counter is that heat waves are not random fluctuations of the data set. They are caused by a blocking event that actually moves much warmer or colder air into an area producing extremes. Because of this, my point was that to actually determine if heat waves would increase would then be to determine the probability of blocking events in response to global warming.

    Am I wrong?

  12. 812
    Dan H. says:

    Daniel,

    Unfortunately, I was not able to direct link directly to the graphs either. You need to enter the noaa site, and maneuver to the appropriate graphs. Since all the graphs are already monthly adjusted, the individual month is not as critical. However, if you wish to directly compare March to March, then check out the year 1910. March, 2012 broke the record set in 1910 by a mere 0.5F. In fact; many of the states that set record temperatures for the month, broke their 1910 readings. Additionally, in 1910, the warmth spread from coast to coast, with more heat in the West; Wash and Ore. were 6F warmer than this year, while most of New England was 6F cooler.

    Overall, 1910 was not an exceptionally warm year, in fact, it was only slightly above average (+0.4F). The same is true for other warm March’s, like 1907, 1946, 1986, and 2004. Particularly hot years, like 1934, 1998, and 2006, had relatively average March temperatures. The only hot years with a similarly warm March in the entire US records were 1921 and 2007

  13. 813
    Dan H. says:

    John,
    You do yourself a great disservice, and, by extension, the global warming movement. But then again, the movement does suffer from others like yourself, who through their own spewings, push people further and further away from the position which they would like them to support. Similar to the politician, through his own inept speech, pushes the people to vote for his opponent. So sad.

  14. 814
    Isotopious says:

    Here is my prediction for 2012 Arctic sea temperature anomalies
    (70 – 90 N) in deg C

    April = .06
    May = .08
    June = .05
    July = .15
    Aug = .35
    Sept = .34
    Oct = .29
    Nov = .15
    Dec = .11
    Jan = .11
    Feb = .10

    These are simply the monthly means since 2004. This method may under perform this year and the next, but over the long run, I win.

  15. 815
    A. Patterson Moore says:

    The world experienced a strong warming trend between 1975-1999. That much is beyond dispute. The question that we are trying to answer is how much of that warming was caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, and how much was caused by natural cycles like the AMO & PDO. The warming episode began much sooner and temperatures rose much faster than the CO2 forcing projected by Hansen in 1981. This would seem to indicate that natural cycles may have been the predominate cause.

  16. 816
    Vernon Goodman says:

    Where is the historical record? We know that in the 30s and 40s, the sea ice extent was less than it is now. We also know that when Hudson did his exploration for the Northwest Passage, the ice was at a peak. Yet a few decades later, sailors were able to get through in relatively ice-free conditions. Sea ice extent is highly cyclical and has been through known history.

    Of course, as Ray says, the black carbon may have a great impact. But then again, volcanoes have similar effects.

  17. 817
    Vera, Chuck and Dave says:

    Rather like Harry’s readme file. We all know big mistakes in software don’t actually happen.

  18. 818
    M. Watkins says:

    Hansen revised the temps from the 70s and 80s downward in the 90s to give an appearance of increase. No wonder his “predictions” of warming came “true”. You conveniently left that fact out.

    Hansen has now revised the 90s temps down. He’s repeating the same trick now. Revised previous stated temps down to give an appearance of an increase.

    Compare his latest revisions to 90s temps to his (revised downward in the 90s) 70s and 80s temps.

  19. 819
    T. Marvell says:

    The real issue, in my opinion, concerning the leveling off of temperature in the past decade is that it does not square with the fact that greenhouse gases have increased overall. There is no apparent correlation between changes in temperature and changes in greenhouse gases, especially CO2 which grows pretty steadily. Lack of correlation does not mean lack of causation, of course, but it does call for an explanation, even an ex post facto one. What might have caused the leveling off? I don’t think the ENSO explains much of it. Leveling off of methane? Unlikely. Polution in developing countries?

    I don’t like the general notion in the posts that variabily is to be expected, so one cannot tell much from a 10-year trend. That’s pleading lack of knowledge as a causal factor.
    In other words was the 20-year temperature increase after 1975 just another natural variability that one might expect from uncertain climate trends? It does not look right to say that one can explain that increse, but not the recent leveling off.

  20. 820
    T. Marvell says:

    The real issue, in my opinion, concerning the leveling off of temperature in the past decade is that it does not square with the fact that greenhouse gases have increased overall. There is no apparent correlation between changes in temperature and changes in greenhouse gases, especially CO2 which grows pretty steadily. Lack of correlation does not mean lack of causation, of course, but it does call for an explanation, even an ex post facto one. What might have caused the leveling off? I don’t think the ENSO explains much of it. Leveling off of methane? Unlikely. Polution in developing countries?

    I don’t like the general notion in the posts that variabily is to be expected, so one cannot tell much from a 10-year trend. That sort of argument can be used to disregard any trend one does not like. In other words was the 20-year temperature increase after 1975 just another natural variability that one might expect from uncertain climate trends? It does not look right to say that one can explain that increse, but not the recent leveling off.

  21. 821
    T. Marvell says:

    The real issue, in my opinion, concerning the leveling off of temperature in the past decade is that it does not square with the fact that greenhouse gases have increased. There is no apparent correlation between temperature changes and greenhouse gas changes (even when comparing current temperature changes to past greenhouse gas changes), especially for CO2 which grows pretty steadily. Lack of correlation does not mean lack of causation, of course, but it does suggest the need for an explanation, even an ex post facto one. What might have caused the leveling off? I don’t think the ENSO explains much of it. Less methane growth. It’s not that common a greenhouse gas? Polution in developing countries? Is the impact of greenhouse gases delayed so much, and so strung out, that one would not expect a correlation between current temperatures and past greenhouse gas changes?

    I don’t like the general sentiment that variabily is to be expected, so one cannot tell much from an unexpected 10-year trend. It’s just a short step to argue the same for periods when temperatures rose. Was the 20-year temperature increase after 1975 just another natural variation that one might expect from uncertain climate trends? It does not look right to say that one can explain that increase, but not the recent leveling off, when greenhouse gases have been increasing at roughly the same pace throughout.

    I’m not arguing that man’s activities do not cause temperature increases, but I do feel that more needs to be done to persuade non-climate scientists that this is the most likely explaination for long-term climate warming.

  22. 822
    vukcevic says:

    Four decades of high correlation (unlikely to be accidental) between the N. Atlantic SST and the global temperatures.
    Is this a uni- or bi-directional cause-consequence relationship?
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTandAMO.htm

  23. 823
    Dan H. says:

    T. Marvell,
    That is a very good question, but unfortunately, does not have a very good answer. You have mentioned many of the explanations espoused by Hansen, Zhang, et. al. Since many of these variables have changed simultaneously, zeroing in on the most influencial has been difficult. The following paper describes some of these effects.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038932.shtml

    I hate to say that we need more time to discern the effects, but that appears to be what is needed.

  24. 824
    Dan H. says:

    T. Marvell,
    That is a very good question, but unfortunately, does not have a very good answer. You have mentioned many of the explanations espoused by Hansen, Zhang, et. al. Since many of these variables have changed simultaneously, zeroing in on the most influencial has been difficult. The following paper describes some of these effects.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038932.shtml

    I hate to say that we need more time to discern the effects, but that appears to be what is needed.

  25. 825
    Dan H. says:

    Unsettled,
    If you have a problem with my statements in post #9, I welcome any discussion. Your response seems to be more of an ad hominme attack, rather than the actual data.

    I already admitted that two months ago, one of my four links was erroneous. I do not see you disputing the other three.

    My question to you is this: do you always accuse those who disagree with you of having the, “inability or unwillingness to do the actual work required to gain an understanding of the subject matter ?” This seems to be a common meme around here, claim that those who disagree with their own assessment to be ignorant. This only goes to further prove my claim that the reason so many people are not taking this seriously is the arrogant attitudes of those professing the “correct” knowledge.

  26. 826
    vukcevic says:

    Arctic geomagnetic field change (delta Br & z) as a proxy for the Holocene epoch’s temperatures:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMF-7Kyr.htm

  27. 827
    vukcevic says:

    Arctic geomagnetic field change (delta Br & z) as a proxy for the Holocene epoch’s temperatures
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMF-7Kyr.htm

  28. 828
    Jim Steele says:

    To Chris #2008, “It seem you are missing the point”

    Hmmm, The models can not reproduce natural warming to recreate the past Arctic temperatures, but they can create recent warming by adding CO2, and therefore that is proof that CO2 better accounts for warming than natural variations?And therefore I should trust the models to predict the future when they fail to recreate the past? Your faith in inadequate models rivals the legendary faith of Job, and I am not sure it is I who missed the point.

    You should read the literature more. There are hundreds of papers trying to separate natural variation from CO2 induced changes. Most suggest more research, more debate. Even Gavin along with Shindell were forced to accept the the Arctic Oscillation could explain much of the warming, but then suggested CO2 controlled the oscillations and offered that their models suggested that CO2 would keep the AO positive. But the AO then started going more negative. In 10 years, we will see, or those of use with open minds will see, the power of CO2 to control these oscillations. But my understanding predicts the AO will have a negative trend over the next 10 years. Any bets?

  29. 829
    Vera, Chuck and Dave says:

    @Paula Thomas 16 Apr 2012 at 11:46 PM

    This is a favourite of the fake sceptics. It is what I call cherry picking your starting point. They’ve started in 1997 not because they are looking for a 15 year window but because 1998 was a very hot year due to a massive el nino effect.

    Surely picking something other than 1998 – 1997 in this case – was exactly to AVOID cherry-picking ?

  30. 830
    Vera, Chuck and Dave says:

    DNFTT – invariably the signature of someone who wants to disguise the fact he has no real answer.

  31. 831
    Jim Steele says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I’d love to debate and reply, but not all my post are allowed on the advocacy forum. So a manipulated scientific debate doesn’t seem to serve anyone well.

  32. 832
    James says:

    Given the the current graphs showing the ice levels in the Arctic and Antarctic (i.e. Arctic pretty much recovered to “average” levels and Antarctic increasing) and the global temperature graphs showing no “statistical” increase in temperatures in the last 10 to 15 years – would it not be reasonable for the layman to conclude that there is little evidence to suggest that global warming is accellerating or heading towards some imminent “tipping” point?

  33. 833
    Jdey123 says:

    On Hansen’s credibility, I would direct the reader to page 964 of his 1981 paper which this article references and can be found on his GISS website http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
    He makes a very strong statement that CO2 will overcome the noise of natural variability by the 1990s and that would happen irrespective of the value of climate sensitivity or CO2 growth scenarios, which leaves him with very little room to wriggle. In his 2011 analysis, he accepts that there’s some evidence that warming in the 21st century is less than that in the last 2 decades of the 20 th but then blames it on the endpoint being in a la nina ie natural variability.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

  34. 834
    Mike Flynn says:

    Hi,

    Minor problem with the radiative physics involved supporting CO2 warming.

    If I understand correctly, maximum radiative transfer of energy between bodies occurs in a vacuum. If this is true, then interposing CO2, (or anything else that is not a vacuum,) in the radiative path reduces, not increases the energy being transferred between bodies.

    So how does reducing the amount of energy reaching a body cause an increase in the energy absorbed by a body with a resulting rise in temperature? Does the converse apply? That is, if one removes the interposed CO2 from the radiative path, thus increasing the amount of energy reaching a body, will the temperature fall?

    I give you the maximum temperature recorded on the Moon (no appreciable atmosphere) – in excess of 100C, compared with the maximum temperature recorded on the Earth’s surface – considerably less than 100C.

    This is a factual and easy to understand consequence of the maximal transmission of electromagnetic energy between bodies occurring in a vacuum.

    This whole “global warming” saga is drawing to an end. Anybody who claims to be able to measure the Earth’s “surface temperature” is delusional. The Earth has cooled from its creation (obviously). It’s still cooling (given that the Earth is still a molten blob with a very thin cooler crust sitting in a vacuum with the nearest source of heat far enough away to be unable to prevent the cooling to date.)

    How far will it cool? At least another 15C, probably more – depending on the vagaries of absorptivity on a moment to moment basis.

    Oh well, facts can’t compete with faith.

    Live well and prosper.

  35. 835
    Ursut Iosif says:

    CO2 is not obtain through combustion because this is incomplete,The molecular weight of the Air is 28, 966 and of the Carbon Dioxide, CO2 = 44.01.
    The gases lighter than air which have created the greenhouse effect and global warming are:
    Acetylene = 26.04
    Ammoniak = 17
    Carbon Monoxide, CO = 28.011
    oxide of hydrogen HO = 17,01
    Hydroxyl, OH = 17.01
    Methane, CH4 = 16,044
    Natural Gas = 19.00
    Neon, Ne = 20.179

  36. 836
    Titus says:

    It appears from my reading of this article that we do not have a firm grasp of the science, which is fine BTW. It’s good to hear as this is a key strength of the scientific process.

    However, it does bring into question the certainties that are held by the current anthropogenic claims supported by this site.

    Is their doubt creeping into the theory? BTW, that will be good for the scientific process but it seems politically incorrect to say so in the current environment that’s been created, so I will understand any contrary reactions.

  37. 837
    Dan H. says:

    Daniel Bailey,
    Maybe you should read the other thread referenced. All the citations are available there. To repeat them here, would be redundant. But then, you would not be able to make your inane comment.

  38. 838
    Dan H. says:

    t marvell,
    I think part of the problem is as you stated; climate scientists emphasized the temperature increases from 1977-97. During that time period, CO2 increased about 0.45% annually, while temperatures rose about 0.012C annually. Using the data since 1969, CO2 has still increased at about 0.45% annually, but the temperature rise has only been 0.006C annually. When using smaller intervals, other factors affect the results, such that the appearance of no connection between CO2 levels and recent temperatures arises.
    I think it was less an issue of addressing the critics, as addressing those who protrayed the warming as greater than it actually was, based on shorter time frames. Many feel that our failure as scientists, was in letting this perception continue, instead of reigning it in when we had the chance.
    CO2 will always work stronger in colder climates, as it captures heat that would normally escape. The effect has been most pronounced in nighttime, winter, and polar temperatures (Antarctica excluded).

  39. 839
    t marvell says:

    Ladbury (#37) “Revenge of the C students” – you blame the public’s lack of interest in climate warming on the public’s lack of understanding. No – that’s blaming the victim. It’s part of the climate scientists’ job to provide information that persuades the public and policy makers. (An analogy is the link between tobacco and lung cancer – the biologists and doctors were eventually able to provide information that the public can understand, and persuaded the public and policy makers, even against powerful political forces, the tobacco industry.)

    SecularAnimist (#43)
    About public opinion polls. You cite polls that find that people say they are concerned with climate warming. That’s simply not true (I don’t expect climate scientists to understand polls). People tend to say “yes” to whether they are concerned about something, like reducing climate warming, that seems good. But that is meaningless without knowing how conerned. In fact few people care much about climate change.
    The real facts are shown in a recent Harvard survey of young Americans, 18-29 years old. The researchers asked people to rank domestic policy concerns, 12 of them, and “combating the impacts of climate change” came in last. See:

    http://www.iop.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/spring_poll_12_topline.pdf

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/opinion/blow-young-peoples-priorities.html?_r=1

    I view the climate scientists as ostrichs, refusing to see their horrific failure to provide information that can persuade the public and policy makers to take action against a horrific threat.

  40. 840
  41. 841
    Arben Zeqiri says:

    Re Ray Ladbury comment 84. The biggest issue with most supporters of climate changes and global warming is that most of them showcase themselves as experts, when the truth is that regardless of how many PHDs you have in various fields, theories need to be validated and what we have right now are a lot of theories. What started as a scientific research is now becoming a political agenda with left vs right, so people are immediately labeled stupid and ignorant simply for asking questions.

    What we know today about climate change is based on the data for the last several decades and theoretical and computer models which are yet to be proven. I completely agree with Walt’s reply that there’s a big difference to comparing aerodynamics with climate and climatology. Anyone who knows anything about physics can tell you about aerodynamics (and I have that background), whereas climate is based on many different factors and variables most of which we still don’t understand how they work, for instance we still don’t quite understand how Earth’s magnetic field works and how it affects climate, the radiation that comes from space, solar flares and changes in the Sun, cloud formation etc. Everyday we discover new findings, most of these couldn’t be proven many years ago due to the lack of technology and insufficient knowledge in the area i.e. particle research at ATLAS, new experiments in high pressure, high temperature (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16265510) etc. http://news.discovery.com/earth/what-can-earths-core-tell-us-about-climate-110310.html, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619102553.htm, http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-03/14/earth-core-fluctuations.

    Having said all this, I believe that human impact can cause an increase in temperature, however it is important that we study all factors and variables and not just jump to conclusions right away. Most experiments and theoretical models support the impact that human factor has on temperature rise i.e. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/theexperiment/abouttheexperiment.shtml, but again not all variables are accounted for i.e. see questions and answers from the experiment (Nick from Oxford team):

    What were the differences between the different model runs?
    Nick: “Each model is an approximation of the real world. No one model is perfect, that’s why we create slightly different representations of what the real world is like. We change the values of different parameters in the models. For instance, rain drops are a good example. We don’t know exactly at what point rain drops form in a cloud, but we have a parameter in the model that represents this. We can then change the value of the parameter in different models to see how it will affect the climate.”

    Do the models take into account the Gulf Stream?
    Nick: “Yes, but the models don’t include scenarios where the Gulf Stream totally shuts down. We are less confident in making specific predictions about ocean changes. That’s because the scale of motion (of currents and circulations) occurs on a much smaller scale than those in the atmosphere. There are large scale motions in the oceans as well, but a lot takes place on a finer scale than the experiment models. We also have far fewer measurements of the ocean compared to the atmosphere, which makes it harder to verify the models against real world behaviour.”

  42. 842
    Dan H. says:

    Jim,
    I agree with the 90% of respondents in the Doran survey who think that global temperatures have risen since the 18th century. I also agree with the 82% who think that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

    Estimates of climate sensitivity range from about 0.5 up to ~10 C / doubling of CO2. Saying that this is a consensus opinion rally does not tell us anything. Yes, there is agreement, but is it useful?

    You seem to be using the fallacy exactly as your definition states; by implying that the opinion of the small minority in the surveys outweighs the larger scientific community.

  43. 843
    t marvell says:

    Ladbury (#37) says “if you look at the warming over the past 35 years, the correlation with delta ln(CO2) is quite significant.” Correlation does not imply causation. Even though everybody knows that, it’s often ignored. The whole topic of this post is the two-way relationship between CO2 and temperature, with positive causation both ways. So you don’t know whether the correlation is due to CO2 raising temperature, or (ocean) temperature raising CO2.
    Also correlation analysis is a very crude way of doing things. Regressions are much better.
    In your analysis you log the variables, and take differences (substracting current year values from last year’s), which is a good idea (it is essentially the same as transfering the variables into percent changes). I replicated your research, using NCDC temperature yearly data (anamolies and adding means, and adding 273 to create Kelven temp [results are almost the same with centigrade]). The CO2 is Mona Loa data starting in 1969. There are 52 years of data. I found a correlation of +.31, prob.= .027, which is consistant with your results. Again, that says nothing about causal relationships. I then lagged temperature one year, and got a correlation of +.41, prob =.002. That is temperature comes first, and appears to cause CO2 to rise. (A stronger result was obained using ocean temperature; the was no significant relationshiup with land temperature.) Then I lagged CO2 one year, and got a correlaton of -.33, prob = .017. That’s minus. So if CO2 causes temperature to change, this correlation suggests it lowers it.
    Simple correlations like this have the benefit that anybody can replicate them. But the drawback is, as I said, correlation analysis is crude. The results do not mean that CO2 causes temperature to decline. More sophisticated regression analysis does not indicate that, but it also does not indicate that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, at least in a 6 year time period which is about the limit I can study. The regression analysis shows a strong impact of ocean temperature on CO2 several months later.

  44. 844
    Ian says:

    I realise this might be anathema to the authors and readers of RealClimate but have you seen the maps of the arctic ice on WUWT? I suppose that it would be inadmissible to discuss something from that blog here but they are really very interesting and should be of value to all who are interested in climate change whatever their position.

  45. 845
    Dan H. says:

    Gavin,
    I am not sure why you allow post like #28 above to be displayed on your website. It is demeaning to the poster, and insulting to the rest of us.

  46. 846
    Dan H. says:

    Meow,
    For your information, a negative pdsi is indicative of greater (not lesser) drought. PDSI values have not decreased since 1900.

  47. 847
    Dan H. says:

    Ray,
    You say you are a physicist. Then how can you not see the debate that is currently raging within the APS. The APS statement on climate cahnge (which I posted previously), mentions that natural forcings, as well as manmade have contributed to the observed warming, and the climate sensitivity range is 1-3 C/doubling. You state a near certainty that it is 2-4.5. I agree with the APS. Some members of the APS resigned in protest, because they thought this was too high. Maybe MARogers is one of them, as he mentions climate sensitivities of less than 1, or possibly negative.

  48. 848
    Otter says:

    I have to agree that emotions definitely play a role in this argument. Oft-times, when I am presenting a great deal of information to those attacking my writing, all I get back are paens of anger, such as ‘denier,’ ‘big oil loves you,’ ‘it will be your fault that the world is dying’…

    Just CanNOT get through to them.

    So long as the argument is polarized by political correctness, ideology, and the need to ignore incoming science- such as the negative feedbacks being discovered- we’re not going to get Anywhere.

  49. 849
    tim lanigan says:

    ‘One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.’

    With only 9 comments I would have to agree with that proposistion.

  50. 850
    DocMartyn says:

    Well, cards on the table time:-

    “Whether a major event like hurricane Katrina or the Moscow heat wave changes attitudes towards climate change is determined by people’s interpretation of this event, and whether they draw a connection to climate change – though not necessarily directly”

    Is there any connection between hurricane Katrina or the Moscow heat wave and the present levels of of CO2 in the atmosphere?

    [Response: there are many connections – background states, recurrence times, extreme value statistics etc. More importantly there are connections in terms of perceived impact which I understand is rasmus’ point. If you want specific discussions of anthropogenic impacts on extreme events there are many past threads. – gavin]

    Yes or no will do fine Gavin.