Blah blah blah. Whatever. I think you're out-to-lunch and am tired of this particular aspect of the conversation.
Socialists in a Panic
- Thread starter china
- Start date
I missed this post earlier. Seems you entered it when I was replying to Anna's posts. Oh well, better late than never.
1000 years (or more) is desirable because significant cyclical changes take long periods of time. A 10 year trend tells you little in isolation because it could be a small blip inside a larger trend. Same thing for a 30 year trend, it’s too short to establish much of anything. For example, the climate warmed from 1860 to 1880, then cooled to 1910, then warmed to 1940, then cooled to 1975, then warmed to 1998, then cooled to the present. None of these short trends are indicative of anything significant, yet when taken all together, a warming trend can be deduced from 1880 to the present. Would that mean that there is a significant warming that will last for hundreds of years? Maybe, maybe not, it’s impossible to tell just from that data of only 130 years. If we look at the temperature records for 1000 years we see that movements of 10, 30 or even 130 years are part and parcel of much larger trends such as the 1500 year cycle.
Proper analysis reveals that all those fluctuations, from the 10 year to the 1500 year are responses to various fluctuations in solar activity. Thus one can make a prediction on future climate trends. I suggest the current cooling will be short (just like the two immediately previous coolings) and warming will resume at the same rate as the 3 previous short warmings. These will be part of the warming portion of the 1500 year cycle that will continue in this fashion for a couple centuries or more, bringing us to the peak of the next climate optimum. From there it will be a general cooling trend on the downward portion of the 1500 yr cycle.
Woohoo! Ton finally admits there is a solar minimum that affects earth’s climate! Next he’ll be admitting that solar variations track temperature changes!
First of all, yes the increase in CO2 emissions is progressing exponentially, which would mean that warming should be far less at the beginning of the 20th century (when our emissions were miniscule compared to now). Yet the majority of warming occurred in the first half of the 20th century, and it increased at the same rate then as it did between 1975 and 1998. That would be impossible if the warming were caused by CO2
Second (and how nice it is to see you finally admit that CO2 warming effect is logarithmic) once the concentration is past 200 PPM the effect is quite negligible, and since we’re now past 380, you could double the amount we emit and not even get close to a linear response. One report I read said that if we burned all the fossil fuel on earth in one year we wouldn’t get the warming the IPCC predicts (sorry, I can’t remember where that was so can’t link. Wish I could).
I was going to say you don't know what you're talking about, but no, it's quite plain you do know and you are merely being inventive.
I suggest you immediately contact the CRU and inform the climate scientists of your insights into AGW hypothesis, since they don’t seem to share your confidence.
You also might want to contact James Hansen, since his predictions also seem to contradict your superior knowledge.
Hansen Update « Climate Audit
1000 years (or more) is desirable because significant cyclical changes take long periods of time. A 10 year trend tells you little in isolation because it could be a small blip inside a larger trend. Same thing for a 30 year trend, it’s too short to establish much of anything. For example, the climate warmed from 1860 to 1880, then cooled to 1910, then warmed to 1940, then cooled to 1975, then warmed to 1998, then cooled to the present. None of these short trends are indicative of anything significant, yet when taken all together, a warming trend can be deduced from 1880 to the present. Would that mean that there is a significant warming that will last for hundreds of years? Maybe, maybe not, it’s impossible to tell just from that data of only 130 years. If we look at the temperature records for 1000 years we see that movements of 10, 30 or even 130 years are part and parcel of much larger trends such as the 1500 year cycle.
Proper analysis reveals that all those fluctuations, from the 10 year to the 1500 year are responses to various fluctuations in solar activity. Thus one can make a prediction on future climate trends. I suggest the current cooling will be short (just like the two immediately previous coolings) and warming will resume at the same rate as the 3 previous short warmings. These will be part of the warming portion of the 1500 year cycle that will continue in this fashion for a couple centuries or more, bringing us to the peak of the next climate optimum. From there it will be a general cooling trend on the downward portion of the 1500 yr cycle.
Woohoo! Ton finally admits there is a solar minimum that affects earth’s climate! Next he’ll be admitting that solar variations track temperature changes!
First of all, yes the increase in CO2 emissions is progressing exponentially, which would mean that warming should be far less at the beginning of the 20th century (when our emissions were miniscule compared to now). Yet the majority of warming occurred in the first half of the 20th century, and it increased at the same rate then as it did between 1975 and 1998. That would be impossible if the warming were caused by CO2
Second (and how nice it is to see you finally admit that CO2 warming effect is logarithmic) once the concentration is past 200 PPM the effect is quite negligible, and since we’re now past 380, you could double the amount we emit and not even get close to a linear response. One report I read said that if we burned all the fossil fuel on earth in one year we wouldn’t get the warming the IPCC predicts (sorry, I can’t remember where that was so can’t link. Wish I could).
I was going to say you don't know what you're talking about, but no, it's quite plain you do know and you are merely being inventive.
I suggest you immediately contact the CRU and inform the climate scientists of your insights into AGW hypothesis, since they don’t seem to share your confidence.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
You also might want to contact James Hansen, since his predictions also seem to contradict your superior knowledge.
Hansen Update « Climate Audit
I rather think you realize that you're wrong and are dropping it like a hot potato.
See, you really don't know what you're talking about. If the signal is significant, it means that the noise in the system is unlikely to be the source of the response. More than that, we have other methods to determine if something is periodic. One such method is called Fourier analysis.
Or it could just be noise.
Not true. A thirty year period will include on average three solar cycles, six ENSO cycles, many polar oscillations, many phases in ocean circulation and overturning.
Maybe you're confusing a significant signal with attributing causes to our climate change.
Just because there are step changes in the climate doesn't mean they weren't significant. It's possible to have competing forcings Extra, and their existance doesn't mean they are non-significant.
If everything stayed the same, yes. That's obviously impossible to tell, and as such is meaningless.
A prediction for 100's of years out is meaningless. Even if your prediction was correct, there's no guarantee that the causes are the same. If you were wrong, that's not evidence that trends which were significant at the time were actually insignificant.
It's your confusion on this subject which tells me you don't really understand what the concept of statistical significance is. Google it and learn.
I never said it doesn't. The changes in solar irradience amount to about +/- 0.1°C from peak to peak. The hottest decade on record occurred in the longest solar minimum in close to 100 years.
Who ever said the warming is caused entirely by CO2? Certainly not me. The first half of the century was a combination of radiative changes and solar. The last 60 years is chiefly due to the radiative changes in our atmosphere (and not just CO2, also NOx, CH4, HFC's).
I never said it wasn't logarithmic. I've said you don't understand what that means though, and you still don't. There is nothing negligible about it. If emissions are increasing exponentially, then the response will be linear. The doubling time of our emissions has gone from about 50 years in the beginning of the 20th century, to about 30 years now. That is the textbook definition of how a logarithmic relationship proceeds. You seem to be confused about how this relationship works, as well as the concept of time lag (the climate doesn't equilibrate instantaneously to a new state.)
So you are calling me a liar. Well, you're a hemorrhoid; useless and undesirable, so there. And I don't care what you "rather think".
Last edited:
This is not correct. No temperature anomalies are measured against a baseline which correlates to a specific concentration of carbon dioxide.
They are measured against the average temperature for a given interval, like say 1951-1980 for GIStemp. HadCRUT has a baseline of 1961-1990. The baseline period is irrelevant, it's like measuring ten centimeters at sea level versus ten centimeters on the top of Mount Everest. The quantity measured is still the same.
What is the temperature of 366 ppm carbon dioxide?
Anything above −76 °C ( I think) and it starts to sublimate from a solid.
What do I win?
Trying to determine climate trends without taking into consideration the numerous ongoing cycles would be an exercise in futility.
No, a 30 year trend could also be noise. 30 years duration is far too short to be considered significant.
In and of themselves they are not significant. Only when they are part and parcel of a longer time period will they attain sigificance, and then only because it's the longer time period that establishes the trend.
Exactly what I said.
I assume you also apply those criteria to the IPCC predictions.
Oh really?
Seems to me that we entered the minimum around the beginning of the 21st century, just when temps started dropping.
Some speculation that solar cycle 25 has already begun « Watts Up With That?
Besides which, there's more than just the sunspot cycle. There's also the 87 year Gleissburg cycle and the 210 year DeVries-Suess cycle which, when superimposed, combine to produce a stepped 1500 year cycle which appears to be the cause of the modern warming.
Yet, strangely, all those changes track solar changes.:roll:
I know what you're getting at. But it doesn't work that way because we're long past the point where CO2 will react enough to cause linear warming. If we were starting at zero ppm and adding CO2, then small additions of CO2 could cause that kind of warming, but we're at the point of the exponential curve where the increase in temps approaches (but never quite reaches) zero. It can't happen the way you suggest. You're grasping at straws for reasons to hang onto your belief in AGW
I can't believe you actually misunderstood me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
As you should know, that graph is actually two graphs, one showing temperature changes and the other showing CO2 concentrations. In order to demonstrate a relationship (or lack thereof) between two disparate entities, it is common practice to superimpose graphs on one another, and that has been done in this case. Both graphs have the same elapsed time as their horizontal axis which is necessary for any comparrison. The graph showing temperature change has its vertical axis on the left, and the graph showing CO2 concentrations has its vertical axis on the right.
Got that so far?
In order for a comparrison to be seen, both graphs must show a beginning relationship. In this case, since the CO2 graph line begins at 365 ppm in 1998, that is where the baseline 0 for the temperature variations was placed. That makes it very easy to see both in the temperature graph line itself, and the temperature gradients of the left vertical axis just what the relationhship (if any) is to the increase in CO2 concentrations.
Got that now?
Ha ha! :lol: Depends on how you plot the averaging/smoothing. and where your start and end points are. Only thing for certain is the warming trend of the last century has ended......for now.
I wouldn't want to embarrass you Av, but since you brought it up and reminded me, well I'll remind you that you were to tell us how humans are causing dangerous global warming.
After all, since you've seen it yourself in person (you said so yourself, not my words) it shouldn't be difficult to share it with the rest of us; you don't need to be a climate scientist to tell us what you've been told.
So come on, spill it. We're not expecting precise scientific details, just tell us what you've been told.
We're all waiting in breathless anticipation for your revelations of superior knowledge.