In The News

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'm curious about the 'snapshot' correlation made based on conditions exactly 52m years ago. co2 was indeed twice that of today, but this was just at the end of a very cool period which lasted about 75m years when co2 was 2 to 2.5 times today. co2 was even higher before that, ranging from 2 to 4 times that of today, and we still alternated between 10's of millions of yeas of Cold and Warm cycles, which have no correlation whatsoever with the concentrations of co2 gases.

If you look at the graph below, which shows at the top Cold and Warm period using Grey and White bars, then this cycle of Warm and Cold happened irrespective of co2 levels, which varied of their own accord, and there is no direct correlation.

So, using 52m ago as a snapshot in time of a coincidence of Higher co2 with Higher temperature at only that specific point in time, and ignoring all the data spread across 500m years, is hardly very subjective evidence of what might happen if we double our current co2 concentrations.

http://www.pnas.org/....expansion.html

This graph may be useful

I think the main idea of the paper is that when the world was warmer (whatever the cause) the temperature difference between the tropics and the northern coasts of Antarctica was a lot less than we thought.

Whatever came before and whatever is driving the warming, CO2 is a +ve feedback on warming and so at levels of over 1,000ppm would have had a significant warming effect during the early Eocene. While there is no risk of seeing tropical conditions in Antarctica within the our life times, I think the paper does show that the possibility exists should CO2 emissions continue upward unabated.

[Polar Maritime]

The nation’s best-known and most prescient climatologist, NASA’s James Hansen, has a must-read op-ed in theWashington Post.

Here’s how “Climate Change Is Here — And Worse Than We Thought†opens:

When I testified before the Senate in the

hot summer of 1988

, I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic.

My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true. But I failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/?mobile=nc

[BornFromTheVoid]

The nation’s best-known and most prescient climatologist, NASA’s James Hansen, has a must-read op-ed in theWashington Post.

Here’s how “Climate Change Is Here — And Worse Than We Thought†opens:

When I testified before the Senate in the

hot summer of 1988

, I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic.

My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true. But I failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather.

http://thinkprogress...ssue/?mobile=nc

I think it's based around this

[Polar Maritime]

[keithlucky]

Depends on who you want to believe no rise in world temps.

[Devonian]

Depends on who you want to believe no rise in world temps.

So, Joe laminate floori think people who don't think his way are irrational. How very pleasant of him.

Of course Joe is looking at just part of just one of the several sets of global temperatures. Only in kangaroo courts do they look at just part of some of the evidence.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Depends on who you want to believe no rise in world temps.

Here you go Keith, I fixed the graph for you

[laserguy]

So we're actually a tad cooler than very nearly 25 years ago.... this global warming is terrible.

[Devonian]

So we're actually a tad cooler than very nearly 25 years ago.... this global warming is terrible.

And more than a tad warmer than 20 years ago. Which just goes to show that with climate you really need to compare trends else you see the big or small trees not the forest.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Devonian

[BornFromTheVoid]

I know what you mean LG.

Like the CET was higher on February 23rd than it was on June 13th this year... I can almost hear the theory of "seasons" crumbling as I type!

Edited August 5, 2012 by BornFromTheVoid

[Methuselah]

Depends on who you want to believe no rise in world temps.

Not very convincing KL...Those of us with even a modicum of statistics behind us can see through that...

[Waterspout]

Not very convincing KL...Those of us with even a modicum of statistics behind us can see through that...

I think a better respresentation of the point being made. I recall before the dawn of the Interent, having that very book which showed the graph below. We are well below any of the scenerios A,B,C made in 1988. It is indeed not about comparing the month xx from 2012 with month xx from 1988. But it is about people being answerable for their failed predictions. Because if they don't answer for them, why on Earth should be believe their current ones?

I should also say that the Hadley Centre also updates it's precitions every 5 years, and every one had fallen way short of the projected temperatures they expected. At the moment we should be around +0.35C (on average) above the actual average temperature now. When I see these organisations making believable predictions, then I'll start taking more interest in believing them.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Waterspout

[Methuselah]

A statement by 'Lord' Monckton: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/

[jethro]

Thought some may find these interesting....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304388004577531270272951132.html?mod=WSJ_article_RecentColumns_Mind%26Matter

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304039104577534830901741156.html?mod=WSJ_article_RecentColumns_Mind%26Matter

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444405804577558973445002552.html?mod=WSJ_article_RecentColumns_Mind%26Matter

[BornFromTheVoid]

Indeed, confirmation bias at its best!

Last month saw two media announcements of preliminary new papers on climate. One, by a team led by physicist Richard Muller of the University of California, Berkeley, concluded "the carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried" for the (modest) 0.8 Celsius-degree rise in global average temperatures over land during the past half-century—less, if ocean is included. He may be right, but such curve-fitting reasoning is an example of confirmation bias. The other, by a team led by the meteorologist Anthony Watts, a skeptical gadfly, confirmed its view that the Muller team's numbers are too high—because "reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled" by bad thermometer siting and unjustified "adjustments."

The Muller team did a lot more than just curve fitting and Muller himself was a sceptic, funded by some of the biggest sceptic funders, the Koch brothers. But the Article doesn't mention that (because it doesn't suit the agenda?). Or indeed, it doesn't mention that Anthony Watts claimed he'd accept Mullers results, even if they proved warming had indeed occurred on the scale most climate scientists believe!

[4wd]

A statement by 'Lord' Monckton: http://wattsupwithth...-to-potholer54/

Why are you calling him a Lord?

Or a 'Lord' 'whatever' that 'means'.

[Devonian]

Indeed, confirmation bias at its best!

The Muller team did a lot more than just curve fitting and Muller himself was a sceptic, funded by some of the biggest sceptic funders, the Koch brothers. But the Article doesn't mention that (because it doesn't suit the agenda?). Or indeed, it doesn't mention that Anthony Watts claimed he'd accept Mullers results, even if they proved warming had indeed occurred on the scale most climate scientists believe!

Indeed, it's pretty ironic that someone supposedly so wary of confirmation bias As Matt Ridley simply accepts what he's told by Anthony Watts without the slightest hint of criticism.

[Methuselah]

Why are you calling him a Lord?

Or a 'Lord' 'whatever' that 'means'.

Why, does it alter the veracity of his claims?

[jethro]

Indeed, confirmation bias at its best!

The Muller team did a lot more than just curve fitting and Muller himself was a sceptic, funded by some of the biggest sceptic funders, the Koch brothers. But the Article doesn't mention that (because it doesn't suit the agenda?). Or indeed, it doesn't mention that Anthony Watts claimed he'd accept Mullers results, even if they proved warming had indeed occurred on the scale most climate scientists believe!

I didn't say which way your interest may be piqued....

[BornFromTheVoid]

Right...

http://geology.gsapu.../8/743.abstract

Evidence for end-Permian ocean acidification from calcium isotopes in biogenic apatite

End-Permian (ca. 252 Ma) carbon isotope, paleobiological, and sedimentary data suggest that changes in ocean carbonate chemistry were directly linked to the mass extinction of marine organisms. Calcium isotopes provide a geochemical means to constrain the nature of these changes. The δ44/40Ca of carbonate rocks from southern China exhibits a negative excursion across the end-Permian extinction horizon, consistent with either a negative shift in the δ44/40Ca of seawater or a change in the calcite/aragonite ratio of carbonate sediments at the time of deposition. To test between these possibilities, we measured the δ44/40Ca of hydroxyapatite conodont microfossils from the global stratotype section and point (GSSP) for the Permian-Triassic boundary at Meishan, China. The conodont δ44/40Ca record shows a negative excursion similar in stratigraphic position and magnitude to that previously observed in carbonate rocks. Parallel negative excursions in the δ44/40Ca of carbonate rocks and conodont microfossils cannot be accounted for by a change in carbonate mineralogy, but are consistent with a negative shift in the δ44/40Ca of seawater. Such a shift is best accounted for by an episode of ocean acidification, pointing toward strong similarities between the greatest catastrophe in the history of animal life and anticipated global change during the twenty-first century.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Warmest month on record, and warmest first 7 months of the year on record for the contiguous US

State of the climate report for the US

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/7

[Methuselah]

Warmest month on record, and warmest first 7 months of the year on record for the contiguous US

State of the climate report for the US

http://www.ncdc.noaa...national/2012/7

The thermometers are all too close to the wall!

[knocker]

CU-Boulder-led team discovers new atmospheric compound tied to climate change, human health

New chemical pathway for the formation of sulfuric acid a big surprise, say researchers

An international research team led by the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of Helsinki has discovered a surprising new chemical compound in Earth's atmosphere that reacts with sulfur dioxide to form sulfuric acid, which is known to have significant impacts on climate and health.

The new compound, a type of carbonyl oxide, is formed from the reaction of ozone with alkenes, which are a family of hydrocarbons with both natural and man-made sources, said Roy "Lee" Mauldin III, a research associate in CU-Boulder's atmospheric and oceanic sciences department and lead study author. The study charts a previously unknown chemical pathway for the formation of sulfuric acid, which can result both in increased acid rain and cloud formation as well as negative respiratory effects on humans.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-08/uoca-ctd080712.php

[Polar Maritime]

[Gray-Wolf]