Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Rapid Descent

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rapid Descent

  • Rank
    HPC Regular
  1. Thanks for the thoughtful and cordial reply. For the 800 year lag, early estimates were made by Fisher et al in 1999, who arrived at 600+/-400: Lag estimated by Fisher Then subsequently by Caillon et al, who used 40Ar isotopes to estimate 800+/-200: Lag estimated by Caillon Although the recent increase in CO2 is unquestionably from the burning of fossil fuels, it is worth noting that a massive amount of CO2 is exchanged between the atmosphere and various natural sources and sinks every year. The first guess is that the glaciation (or deglaciation) associated with the sharp change in temp
  2. You might want to look at that graph a little more closely. Firstly, it is CO2 and temperature plotted againsts time, not CO2 vs temp as you say. I think whitemice's interpretation on position is rather more accurate than your own. Generally, temp rise happens first, CO2 changes very soon after. There are a couple of cases where CO2 seems to move first, but around a dozen where the temp changes first. I believe a quantitative analysis of this yields CO2 lagging temperature by around 800 years. But then... as I said, people tend to see what they want to see in proxy data.
  3. You are joking - aren't you? Do you seriously think there is any credible claim that climate responds linearly to CO2 at 10ppm/deg C? How, exactly, do you think that mere ocean changes are going to offset the 400 degrees C that such a climate sensitivity would have introduced? Climate naturally varies at all timescales - it exhibits self-similar behaviour just as you would expect a complex, coupled, non-linear system to. Attempts by you and others to attribute specific, linear reasons for these shifts is amusing, but is a question of fitting evidence to proxy data. As I made clear above
  4. Whitemice, If one were to believe that CO2 was driving temperature in these graphs, rather than the temperature driving CO2, you come to the conclusion that the climate "sensitivity" is around 10ppm / deg C. If you assume (like someone did in an earlier thread) that everything behaves linearly, you would conclude that this greenhouse effect would cause a greenhouse effect in the Ordovician period (when CO2 levels were at around 4400ppm) of some 400 degrees. Even if you assume a log relationship, you still get an effect of the order of 100 degrees. This is patently absurd, even if you take
  5. My post makes it clear that I disagree with the approach Monckton takes (although I agree with him on a number of sub-points, which are supported by primary scientific evidence, e.g. there are serious statistical flaws with some of the millenial scale temperature reconstructions) I would agree nobody disputes that the surface and air temperature (particularly of the Northern Hemisphere) has warmed in the last thirty years or so when averaged on annual to decadal scales. There is much dispute on whether it is the warmest going back 800,000 years because it is not possible to assign credible c
  6. Nice "conspiracy" straw man. Works well with your "fossil fuel lobby" appeal-to-motive fallacy. And why reference the press? Why not try science? (And by science, I mean primary sources, rather than selective secondary sources, such as the Royal Society, or third-hand-twice-removed sources, such as the media) FWIW I don't agree with Chris Monckton's analysis for various reasons (primarily because it makes the same mistakes as mainstream climate science, assuming the climate system can be trivially separated into linear, distributive components like forcing and feedbacks) and he makes a nu
  7. Interesting! The Royal Society (which appears to be a political player in this piece, sad to say) references the IPCC TAR (Third Assessment Report) which quotes the conclusion "Furthermore, the increase in surface temperature during the 20th century in the Northern Hemisphere was likely (a chance of 66 to 90%) to have been greater than for any other century for the last 1000 years." If you do some digging, you find that the report the IPCC relied on for this conclusion was... the very "hockey stick" graph Chris Monckton refers to; the very one which contains the statistical errors. But don'
  8. Geek man, I see you still haven't given any substantive responses to my questions regarding non-linear dynamics on the other thread. You say we don't need to "tweak" our description of climate. Yet no climate model successfully predicted the recent massive loss of heat energy from the sea. Given the enormous amount of energy lost over the last couple of years (of the order 3x10^22 joules), wouldn't you say our understanding of climate needs a little more than a "tweak"? Ref. Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006), Recent cooling of the upper ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L
  9. Austin Allegro, I think your view here is very astute. Science and politics do not make good bedfellows. When science adopts a viewpoint that has some political expediancy associated with it, objectivity goes out of the window. Trofim Lysenko was a great example of this. (Please note: I am not attempting to draw direct parallels between climate science and Lysenkoism, just drawing attention to the broader topic of science and politics interacting) I've already promoted Prof Pielke Sr so I may as well mention his son (Prof Pielke Jr no less!) as well... who does very good work on the inter
  10. Adren, I'm not such a fan of the Monckton approach - to me, it is fighting fire with fire, Chris Monckton's work is guilty of trivialising the complex relationships of climate and cherry-picking of data. The climate scientist who most closely shares my view, I think, is Professor Roger Pielke Sr, whose article on climate as an initial-value problem I referenced above. He has a website here and a weblog here, and I find them very useful resources. I'd also recommend some of the work carried out by Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis, website and links here, who has done some excellent work in t
  11. Geekman, Your response is surprisingly unscientific. Can you please point to where I said we should give up modelling the climate altogether? I don't remember making such a statement, and I share no such opinion. However I do believe we should recognise the limits of what modelling can provide. I concur entirely with Adren that modelling is an excellent route to finding out what the limits of our understanding are - forming hypotheses which can then form the basis of experiments to learn more about the climate. Models are valuable scientific tools, but they are being used in ways that ar
  12. In terms of op-eds, this is probably a more significant piece: Chaotic world of climate truth Partly because Mike Hulme is no sceptic of human-induced climate change, he very much buys in to the "consensus", yet even he is disturbed by some of the extreme language used - primarily by the media and NGOs, but increasingly by politicians and scientists who realise it can help get them noticed. As I said earlier, it is a sorry state of affairs and I personally think history will record this issue as a low ebb in scientific objectivity.
  13. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As ever, in science disagreement should be seen as an opportunity (combined experiments to resolve / understand the differences) but all too often it is the cause for entrenchment of position and isolation. To back up my views, I would reference the reader to Roger Pielke Sr.'s detailed note on climate as an initial-value problem, which can be found on the web here, and the Mandelbrot paper referenced above (unaware of a version of that paper on the internet unfortunately). This provides both a theoretical basis and observational evidence to support my views
  14. This is exactly the problem with climate science. This is a clear ad hom / guilt by association fallacy. It is a political instrument, not a scientific one. For the record: I believe evolution is an excellent model for the origins of life and species, whereas creationism is weak and unconvincing I believe that the moon landings were not faked I believe that the towers were knocked down by terrorists not as a US conspiracy .. yet I also believe there are serious flaws in the way climate science is addressing the issues, and also how they interact with politics and the media. So I don't
  15. Global temperature, in particular, cannot be meaningfully represented by one parameter. In two- or three-dimensional models (e.g. GCMs), they are represented by a more complex relationship. If modelled on a 5 degree x 5 degree basis with three cuts through in altitude, you have 7,776 parameters defining temperature alone. CO2 is simpler because it is well-mixed but can still has considerable seasonal variation in some parts of the world (e.g. Europe). Plenty of scope for elephants. Basic physics tells us this is not so, if you isolate the relationship between CO2 and temperature you fin
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.