tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post3139931502458096636..comments2023-10-31T05:09:58.639-04:00Comments on maribo: More global cooling lunacyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-49737224988518209122008-08-16T09:24:00.000-04:002008-08-16T09:24:00.000-04:00First, "catastrophic" is not a word from the scien...First, "catastrophic" is not a word from the science. That's being applied by commentators. Second, the things you mention, solar variability, ocean circulation, etc., is exactly what climate scientists have been studying all these years. Your doubts are fully addressed in the published literature and in the IPCC report. For example, we have very good records of solar variability that show it is NOT an equally strong influence, that is can only be responsible for a small change in radiative forcing compared to that caused by the change (past century and future) in greenhouse gas emissions. I recommend reading the IPCC working group 1's technical summary (www.ipcc.ch).Simon Donnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844831377442275615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-61212351160868966302008-08-16T00:52:00.000-04:002008-08-16T00:52:00.000-04:00But everyone is conducting themselves under the as...But everyone is conducting themselves under the assumption that catastrphic global warming is a foregone conclusion. It is entirely possible that the other, equally strong influences, could overide any greenhouse gas effect. And those influences are in no way predictable and make any assumptions just that...assumptions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-65195761669051814872008-08-15T13:51:00.000-04:002008-08-15T13:51:00.000-04:00We are asking and answering those question. Solar ...We are asking and answering those question. Solar variability, density-driven ocean circulations, even volcanic emissions are considered in climate models and discussed at length in the IPCC reports.Simon Donnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844831377442275615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-64498148663619946472008-08-15T13:35:00.000-04:002008-08-15T13:35:00.000-04:00Unfortunately no one is asking the question of why...Unfortunately no one is asking the question of why important influences on climate change such as solar activity and shifting of warm currents in the oceans are not given as much emphasis as carbon emmissions. Those two items could counteract the effects of greenhouse gases. There is no way to predict how solar and oceanic changes as well as possible volcanic activity will change things. Why are we giving one possible influence more emphasis over all the others?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-87755768618776696032008-05-07T18:36:00.000-04:002008-05-07T18:36:00.000-04:00No need for the conspiracy theory. The graph is fr...No need for the conspiracy theory. The graph is from the published paper I discuss. The authors probably used the period since 1960 because it features more complete climate data: remember, the point of the study was to test a new model formulation. <BR/><BR/>(Regardless, the globe is warmer now than in the 1930s.)Simon Donnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844831377442275615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-72470911872283916052008-05-07T16:13:00.000-04:002008-05-07T16:13:00.000-04:00Why does your graph start at 1960? Why not start ...Why does your graph start at 1960? Why not start at 1900 and show the peak period in the 1930's including the peak year 1934?Climate Chaoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00375070925286838162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-34680227171819317802008-05-07T15:28:00.000-04:002008-05-07T15:28:00.000-04:00The goal is really to slow human-induced climate c...The goal is really to slow human-induced climate change and return the climate system to an equilibrium (natural variations still going on, of course) with a minimum risk of dangerous impacts on the economy and the environment. Stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations at an acceptably low level (e.g 450 ppm, maybe lower) would achieve that. The climate itself would continue to warm slowly and change for some time (decades) afterwards because of lags in the climate system. Warden's post would be useful it is wasn't so confused about the facts. In the one post, he manages to bungle the causes of glaciation, the climate warming affect on crops in the subtropics and tropics, the definition of "usable" land, and rates of biodiversity loss, and fails entirely to take into account the rising human population.Simon Donnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844831377442275615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-36066241567978679112008-05-07T15:07:00.000-04:002008-05-07T15:07:00.000-04:00Whenever I encounter blogs about Global Warming an...Whenever I encounter blogs about Global Warming and Global Climate change, I inevitably must read something about <I>Stopping Global Climate Change</I>. That certainly may be a laudable goal, but it begs a greater question. <I>How will we know when we've stopped Global Climate change?</I> Whenever I ask that question, I rarely get a rational answer. As for rational answers, this recent post from John A. Warden III entitled: <A HREF="http://venturist.com/wordpress/?p=33" REL="nofollow"> Thinking Strategically about Global Climate Change</A> actually does a pretty decent job of thinking about the endstate of Global Climate versus all the tactical things people are trying to do. I found it very enlightening.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-25257966016616547892008-05-06T19:31:00.000-04:002008-05-06T19:31:00.000-04:00I suspect you are right. But I think the "Nature s...I suspect you are right. But I think the "Nature stamp of approval" affects scientists as much it affects the media. To get a paper reviewed in a top journal like Nature, it often is not enough for a paper to be important scientifically. The paper also has to have a good "headline". So scientist are pushed -- often willingly, we're not innocent here -- to play up the headline, rather than the research. In this case, the decadal prediction method made the research significant, but the specific conclusion that temperatures may level off for a few years was the headline.Simon Donnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844831377442275615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-15956456208474309072008-05-06T18:04:00.000-04:002008-05-06T18:04:00.000-04:00Simon -Thanks for a helpful explanation of what th...Simon -<BR/><BR/>Thanks for a helpful explanation of what this paper means, rather than what people think they want it to mean.<BR/><BR/>I think this paper is a textbook example of a huge problem caused by Nature magazine, and by the misunderstanding of many in my business (the news media) regarding what the "Nature stamp of approval" means.<BR/><BR/>I know there's no way of conducting this experiment, but it's fascinating to imagine what might have happened in the news ecosystem had the paper been published in GRL instead.John Fleckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01945772782727225745noreply@blogger.com