OT: How to profit from AGW?

Slowman's life is miserable so wants to spread his misery. Ignore him.

krw is - of course - an example of the old unreliables who never post anything worth reading.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

t d g m -

From time to time. Some of the people who post here do know their electronics, even if their ideas about global warming don't show much appreciation of the science involved. Spehro Pefhany and Phil Hobbs always posts sense, though many of the other old reliables have dropped out in recent years, and Tony Williams had the bad grace to die on us.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Buy wool futures.

John

Yet you do. You're such a liar, Slowman.

I'm a compulsive reader. Despite the fact that I know - from empirical experience - that your posts are never worth reading, I can't stop myself. If they were longer, or in any way hard to follow, I might make the effort to avoid wasting the time involved, but I read fast, and it simply isn't worth the effort.

Replying to them is also largely a waste of time - you haven't got much mind to change, and you'd automatically reject anything that I came up with - but it does at least register my disdain for your trivial interjections, at the cost of fouling the net with one of my own.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

.

And what has this got to do with anthropogenic global warming? The fact that we've managed to drive up the global average temperature by

0.8K doesn't have much effect on the probability of an unusually cold snap early in winter, as Don Klipstein has been pointing out here from time to time over the past month of so.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:21:51 -0800) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

Da, I have some snow for sale :-)

SNIP

I didn't have to argue because the facts speak for themselves.

In rresonse to:

The facts:

The original data from here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

which is reffered from here:

I have posted with a plot here:

Keep in mind that the data is years before 1905.

For the current interglacial, the holocene:

1188 years to 1095 years temperature rise of 0.9C per century 3390 years to 3297 years temperature rise of 1.3C per century 5375 years to 5274 years temperature rise 1.1C per century 7095 years to 6991 years temperature rise 1.5C per century

And as the glaciation ended:

14749 years to 14648 years temperature rise 8.2C per century

So 4 examples of warming rates lasting at least a century which are greater than the recent 0.7C rise over the last 100 years. Also there are several peaks between 1C and 2C warmer than today.

My conclusion:

The current temperature and the current rate of rise in temperature are nothing special and within the bounds of natural variability.

Please don't strange yourself, trying to think who you have/had respect for..

You may become very surprised one day, when you discover that many here, sitting idle or being on the shy side, are much more talented than you give credit for. In fact, I suspect many of them get a chuckle reading some of the grime that passes through here. :)

Then again, there are those that pride themselves, way above others in many cases. I guess its not too bad feeling good about yourself, as long as you keep it to a civil level. For those that can't, well, you've seen the results.

..

Me too, but only a thin layer, no more than a centimetre thick.

It happens around here pretty much every winter.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Or so you seem to think, desopite the fact that the fact that you cite don't acutally happn to support the argument that you have espooused.

But - as I pointed out at the time - you are quoting local temperatures for the centre of the Greenland ice-cap (which is now warming up twice as fast as the globe as whole) and using this "evidence" to explain away the current global warming of the earth as a whole.

The first four excursions you point to aren't associated with any known disruption of the Gulf Stream, but Younger Dryas (which was more extreme) does seem to have been, and that was a largely northern hemisphere event, as also seems to be true of your beloved Little Ice Age.

The fifth example represents the end of the last ice age and seems to represent some kind of climate flip from one quasi stable state to another - a perfectly natural variation, but not something that you'd want to have to survive.

As I said, you were comparing apples and pears, a point that doesn't seem to have registered with you yet.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I'm using it as a sample site demonstrating that recent temperature changes are within the range of natural variation. I'm using this site in particular because it the only one I have found so far that has real temperature data.

You of course would prefer to avoid real data because you can't sucessfully argue it actually means something else.

Yes it is an arctic site which makes it a good example as all the alarmists are worrying about ice melting and your favourite - methane claptrap, sorry clathrates. On several occasions the arctic was 2C warmer than now.

Did the clathrates explode? Did ancient Egyptian civiilisation come to an end? And more to the point did the earth enter thermal runaway as you seem to expect to happen sometime next week?

Since all the holocene temperatures are post younger dryas that is a red herring.

And Briffa's tree rings were from Yamal in Siberia which is in the northern hemisphere. The ones he used to try and disprove the MWP and LIA and then had to "hide the decline" (trademark of Mann and CRU) because tree ring data showed cooling as opposed to warming since

1960. But that's my red herring so let's not digress.

That one shows an interesting rate of change.

The public understands that climate is just a lot of weather. And politicians understand that the worst thing that can happen to a politician is to look like a fool.

John

ata

nd

.

re

But the recent temperature change that you are talking about is a global temperature rise, averaged over the entire planet.

That the temperature at a single site can vary by up to 1.5K in a century isn't any kind of evidence that the temperature of the planet as a whole can vary that much - as I said, the arctic is currently warming more than twice as fast as the planet as a whole

and it is peculiarly sensitive to changes in ocean currents.

The range of "natural variation" that you are seeing at the top of the Greenland ice cap is lot higher than the range of natural variation you see in more global measures of temperature, and isn't any kind of evidenece of a large range of natural variation in global tmperature.

Real, but not all that relevant to the argument you want to make.

Since the real data that you are presenting doesn't mean what you would like it to mean, this is a trifle ironic.

presents real data from the sediment from Lake CF8 on Baffin Island, which shows that the current climate is unique in the last 200,000 years (the period covered by the sediment). See figure 3 in the paper (if you can get hold of a copy).

Right, which is one of the reason the "alarmists" are campaigning to reduce CO2 output now, so that we have a chance of holding eventual global warming below that 2C limit.

We can be fairly sure that the bulk of the methane clathrates that we know about won't run away below that temperature.

This interglacial didn't peak as high as the last one, so the Egyptians weren't actually at risk

Scarcely. The Gulf Stream stopped dead during the Younger Dryas, which made the disruption detectable. It does show quite a lot of natural variation

which has been used to explain the Little Ice Age and could equally explain your earlier variations.

You are quoting out of context again ... And in any event, the Little Ice seems to be not only restricted to the northern hemisphere, but also the environs of the North Atlantic, which is a fair way from Siberia.

As did the planet as a whole. It is a common feature of ice-age to inter-glacial transistions.

And still hasn't registered.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Some things I saw there - makes me feeling skeptical:

1. Mention that in some areas cirrus clouds were decreased by increasing surface temperature. My experience is that even though warmer surface temp. should heat up these clouds at least a little by radiation (and maybe vaporize them?), bigtime sky-watching on my part shows me lack of correlation. For one thing, I don't see cirrus clouds getting worse at night and improving during the day.

1. Another mention - black carbon from aircraft. I have been under the impression that commercial jet engines achieve combustion so close to complete in "cruising operation" as to have soot particles having close to snowball's chance in hell to be formed and not burnt. Heck, do these engines even make much carbon monoxide? (Even though they mostly operate where people don't have to breathe their output.)

However, if I am presented with a cite for jet engines while cruising actually producing significant black carbon, I could easily change my mind somewhat here...

The mention that some Jacobson thinks that reducing aircraft black carbon by 20-fold would halt warming and a slight cooling would occur instead: I feel skeptical here. That strikes me as a tall claim.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Then why does AMO show up in HadCRUT-3?

AMO running high would warm the world as a whole that way - but when it runs high, the equator is not cooled - the Antarctic is. AMO appears to me more a north-south heat shift from one hemisphere to the other.

What does the 1998 El Nino have to do with anything I said that you are responding to?

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

I see how much is anthropogenic and how much is AMO - especially in HadCRUT-3, which goes back to 1850.

I agree that AGW exists - but it appears to me to be a little over half the warming that occurred when global temperature took off in the late

1970's. The other almost-half appears to me to be from upswing of AMO.

Furthermore, about 1/3 of anthropogenic GHG effect increase since beginning of Industrial Revolution is in GHGs other than CO2, increase of which was largely stalled several years ago.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

e

tly

cific

adal

the

much

ion,

the

otspot

f

I said it didn't change it much; AMO does show up in HadCRUT-3 but at about +/-0.2C, which is apprecably less than 0.76C.

it

o

So the peaks in global warming coincide with the AMO running low?

re

It's another example of an ocean current moving around which has a pereceptible effect on global warming.

rom

ll

eed

lf

Sure, but repetitive oscillations vanish is you measure over full periods of the oscillation, HadCRUT3 now records 130 years of global temperature, two full cycles of the AMO.

Sure, but the oceans are warming up, so less of the CO2 we are now emitting is going to be absorbed in the ocean, and we might start to get some pf our earlier emissions back.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

.

...

.

With a lot of help from denialist propagandists, paid for by Exxon- Mobil amongst others. They don't get much help in understanding that weather flucuates quasi-randomly around the average values that define our climate, and that the standard deviation that defines the range of this variation is still appreciably larger than the warming we have seen so far.

This doesn't seem to stop Senator Inhofe acting like a mindless paid- for member of the denialist propaganda machine. Presumably the campaign contributions he gets from the fossil carbon extraction industries can pay for enough TV spots to get him re-elected, even if he does look like a corrupt fool to the better educated minority in his electorate.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen