Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 Next
Comments 50001 to 50050:
-
quokka at 20:30 PM on 14 January 2013Putting an End to the Myth that Renewable Energy is too Expensive
#53 sailrick, Claims that fast reactors pose some sort of extra proliferation risk are very dubious. The only nations likely to build fast reactors in the next decade or more are already nuclear armed and already have an excess of weapons grade material. For would be proliferators, there are much easier, faster and cheaper ways to make Pu in a graphite moderated water cooled "research" reactor or alternatively centrifuge enrich uranium. Ultimately any nation that has access to natural uranium (which really is everybody as it can at a pinch be extracted from sea water) could with sufficient effort make nuclear weapons. Proliferation at it's core remains a political problem. Of course LFTRs present precisely zero proliferation risk because there aren't any, nor are their likely to be any commercially deployable LFTRs for 15 years or more without dramatically increased R&D spending. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:10 PM on 14 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
smerby As others have said, testing by eye is extremely unreliable. We have evolved such that our brain tries very hard to detect patterns in what we see (e.g. so that we can detect ambush predators that are hiding in cover). This is one reason that optical illusions can be so convincing. This is why we should use objective statistical methods to test out hypotheses. However, don't stop there, the next step is physics. A good physical theory is more convincing that an observed correlation, as it allows you to go into the causal mechanisms. For example, there are good physical reasons that can explain the apparent cyclical changes in climate sine 1880, based on observed changes in the forcings. This means that if for the changes to be due to a real cycle, then much of what we know about atmospheric and radiative physics must be wrong. So do you have a physical mechanism to explain the 30 year cycles and an explanation of where our knowledge of physics is wrong? Lastly, scientific method is based on the idea of self-skepticism - if you want to promulgate an hypothesis, the onus is on you to test it first. In this case, if the hypothesis of climate change being cyclical is based purely on the observations, then you need to show the evidence for those cycles is statistically significant (i.e. that the observations would be unlikely under AGW). -
cynicus at 19:48 PM on 14 January 2013Skeptical Science Upgrade
although the spacing of some page elements may be different by a pixel or five, here or there. Yes, the temperature scale of the most uses septical arguments has holes in FireFox 18. Internet Explorer 9 is fine as is Chrome 23.0.1271.97 and 24.0.1312.5Moderator Response: [Sph] Have you tried reloading the page in Firefox? -
jyyh at 18:11 PM on 14 January 2013Skeptical Science Upgrade
honoring this update, I've also updated my profile ;-) , pretty much counting myself out of the regulars nowadays though. Is there a way to delete the profile image, the old one was no longer very accurate, so there's a Greenland bedrock map in its place now. -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:38 PM on 14 January 2013Skeptical Science Upgrade
Drop downs and links all seem fine, running Firefox under Fedora 17 Linux. Also, I just worked out how to enter CO₂ with 2 as a subscript, using the Compose key and typing (Compose key)_2 How annoying to find the work-around just when WYSIWYG is nearly here ... sigh. -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:31 PM on 14 January 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #2
2012: The Year Climate Change Got Real by Greenman appears in both 'The Week in Review' and 'Coming Soon'. I must be in a quantum time warp: oh, yes, there's Schrödinger's cat, and it's still alive; I'm definitely warped ... "8-) -
Tom Curtis at 16:48 PM on 14 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Phillipe Chantreau @93:"Cycles are extremely easy to mistake for stochastic fluctuations."
I suspect you mean that around the other way, although no doubt both ways are true when the data is less than a few "cycle" lengths in duration. -
Bob Lacatena at 15:12 PM on 14 January 2013Skeptical Science Upgrade
Anyone who has the drop down problem can clear it immediately by hitting reload. It will also clear on it's own in a few days (it's just your browser caching a file that has changed, so it's using the one that's incompatible/out-of-date). -
citizenschallenge at 15:12 PM on 14 January 2013Skeptical Science Upgrade
oh I hate those typos. . . good night . -
citizenschallenge at 15:11 PM on 14 January 2013Skeptical Science Upgrade
Just got off my girl friends Dell Windows 7 - Explorer Internet Drop downs work fine and all the menu link also work. In fact, I just check on this Mac and they are all working this time. Cheers -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:09 PM on 14 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Smerby says: "Some graphs do pass the eyeball test and I think the surface temp graph that I posted shows reliable and repeating trends of ~30 years." THere is a serious problem with this statement. The eyeball is not a test, can not substitute for a real statistical analysis. There is a variety of true statistical methods to determine if a cycle is a present in a data set. I'm sure Dikran can weigh in on that; Tamino has posts dedicated to the subject. One can assert that a cycle is present only after subjecting the data to these tests. Saying "I think a cycle shows" without being able to refer to any analysis is dangerously close to being full of it. It is nowhere near a skeptical attitude. Cycles are extremely easy to mistake for stochastic fluctuations. -
Rob Honeycutt at 14:34 PM on 14 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
smerby... First off, I greatly appreciate you sticking around to discuss the subject. You're clearly interested, even though sometimes it can be tough to push through and get all the answers you want without getting frustrated. One suggestion I would offer is to remember, this is all about the greenhouse effect and the change in radiative forcing on the climate system. All the elements we're discussing, including surface temperature, are responses to that change in forcing. What I think I see your questions possibly alluding to (correct me if I'm wrong), is whether there is another explanation for global warming. Is it something internally cyclical about the climate system (i.e., PDO, etc.). And what I would have to remind you of is, the radiative properties of GHG's are well understood. What would be utterly amazing would be if the changes in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere did not act to change surface temperatures. -
citizenschallenge at 14:27 PM on 14 January 2013Skeptical Science Upgrade
weird I just looked again and they are under their headings where they belong. Oh and I got Safari is 6.0.2 too. don't ask me, I'm just reporting ;-) -
citizenschallenge at 14:22 PM on 14 January 2013Skeptical Science Upgrade
The menu bar and drop downs seem to be working fine for me {Mac OS X - ver 10.8.2 - Safari } However these links were broken: lessons from predictions trend calculator climate myths prudent path OA not OK ====================== Other than that, SWEET - it seems to work much faster and I clinked around a bunch, including translations... never appreciated how many translations you've got. Bravo! It all worked swell ! Although - about your "Donation" too bad PayPal is the only option you have. Not like I could donate much, but for you folks, I could definitely scratch some coin together. But I don't do the PayPal. ~ ~ ~ Anyways, thanks for all your collective efforts, they help. You folks are awesome !Moderator Response: [Sph] Links fixed. Thanks for the heads up. -
skywatcher at 14:22 PM on 14 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Smerby, you keep returning to your eyeball as a reliable identifier of some kind of "cycle", but you are as yet providing insufficient evidenciary backup for this claim. [BTW, you can refer to such work as Santer et al for why you need 20-30 years for determination fo a trend in climate.] So here is one simple question for you: Q: Is there a statistically significant change in the warming trend over the past decade? If you think there is, please show your working. Eyecrometer results are not acceptable. My thinking is in line withKevin C's video above, and the final two figures of Tamino's post - that the underlying trend has not actually changed over the past decade. Global temperatures are where you would have expected, had you plotted a graph in 2000, estimating the subsequent 12 years. Skeptics often claim that somehow there's cooling, large overprinted cycles or other changes that are manifesting themselves just now or shortly in the future. You claimed that temperatures have "flat-lined", yet is there any actual evidence for this? I contend that there is not. I also contend that you are confusing noise with signal. -
Rob Honeycutt at 14:17 PM on 14 January 2013Skeptical Science Upgrade
All the drop down menus show up on the far left side of the screen. I'm using a Mac OSX 10.8.2 with Safari 6.0.2. Sounds similar to what Daniel is describing above.Moderator Response: [Sph] Hit "reload" on your browser. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:08 PM on 14 January 2013Skeptical Science Upgrade
Bug/Feature: Hovering the cursor over the drop-down bar doesn't generate a normal drop-down listing underneath each linked tab. Instead, the listing appears in a blocked column to the left of the Most-Used Climate Myths thermometer. It is difficult to move the cursor over fast enough to access this remote menu before it times out and disappears. Affected Tabs: Arguments, Software, Resources, Translations and About drop-down headers/listings. FF 18.0, Windows 7.Moderator Response: [Sph] Hit "reload" on your browser. -
smerby at 13:49 PM on 14 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
All, thanks again for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I hear you skywatcher and I agree that the eye test can be misleading. Some graphs do pass the eyeball test and I think the surface temp graph that I posted shows reliable and repeating trends of ~30 years. I have looked at the 12 month, 36 month, and 5 year mean versions of this graph to try to dampen out short term forcings and it pretty much shows the same trends. The overall time scale of these trends may not be long enough for a regular cycle as Tom pointed out and the early cooling part of the graph was influenced by Krakatoa as Kevin indicated, but it is interesting that the trends are ~30 years. These are roughly the same time frame as climate cycles. Why is 30 years decided as a climate cycle in the first place, why not 60 year cycles for normals; puzzled by this. The length of these global surface trends are roughly the same as the length of the trends of the PDO and AMO, which can influence global surface temperatures. The global surface temperature trends are more in step with the PDO rather than the AMO. I think this makes sense given the vastness of the Pacific Ocean. I look at these cooling and warming trends of the oceans as baffles and accelerators of global surface temperatures. Against the backdrop of global warming, they make for more of a step function rise in temperatures as opposed to a continuous cataclysmic rise in surface temperatures. What do you all think? -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:15 PM on 14 January 2013Skeptical Science Upgrade
Hooray! Wysiwyg rules! CO(subscript 2) coming to a comment editor near you Real Soon Now (I hope). Thanks, DB et al. -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:11 PM on 14 January 20132012: The Year Climate Change Got Real
Great to see the sceptical view that we are in a cooling phase. Sen. Inhofe must be so amazingly sciency that he does not need to examine the temperature records, in order to come to his conclusion. Another cup of Tea for you, sir, or has it gone cold? -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:01 PM on 14 January 2013Skeptical Science Upgrade
Will the change include being able to use <sub> and <sup>, or any other HTML tags, in comments?Moderator Response: [DB] Complex editing/formatting and WYSIWYG commenting functionalities will be rolled out to the comment boxes for users. This is in the works. -
bill4344 at 12:02 PM on 14 January 20132012: The Year Climate Change Got Real
Peter Sinclair is one of out greatest assets. This series gets stronger and stronger. -
funglestrumpet at 08:01 AM on 14 January 2013Met Office decadal forecasting explained: the reality
The Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday will continue to deny climate change until long after the sea-level has risen above the roof of the British House of Commons and Big Ben is seen by shipping as an hazard to navigation. (The British House of Commons under water? Oh well, ‘it is an ill wind ...!’) -
villabolo at 07:55 AM on 14 January 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #2
William @#1 "Giya" is spelled Gaia. :-) -
Tom Curtis at 07:30 AM on 14 January 2013Nature Confirms Global Warming and Temperature Record Accuracy
fpjohn @5, as you yourself have noted on another thread, this article rebutted Lomborg's latest before it was even published. -
martin3818 at 07:15 AM on 14 January 2013Met Office decadal forecasting explained: the reality
If, as you say, El Niño has such a significant effect on the global annual temperature, what is the value of the UK's Met Office 5 year forecast? If in the year 2017 we have a super El Niño or for that matter a super El Niña what will comparing actual and forecast mean? It seems to me that decadal forecasts are really only useful when done as hindcasts, that is when the ENSO and possibly volcano effects are well known. -
Bob Loblaw at 06:51 AM on 14 January 2013Greenhouse effect has been falsified
To add: - plastic greenhouses (which don't block any IR) work pretty well, so it can't be the IR that keep things warm. - glass greenhouses, in which the glass does affect IR, tend to reduce the incoming solar more than they increase incoming IR, once the glass gets typically dirty. So, the net effect of the glass on radiative input tends to be negative for dirty glass. - all the latent heat that results from evaporating water in the greenhouse soil is kept inside (unless vented). Greenhouses are awfully humid, in addition to being warm. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:04 AM on 14 January 2013Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Wig4, ...short version of Tom's answer... A greenhouse works by interfering with both infrared radiation and convection, but the important point with reference to the topic at hand is convection. You are taking umbrage at the use of the word "block" in place of "absorption." That's just picking nits, and the use of the latter term does not better clarify the argument for the reader. To the sort of person reading the Intermediate rebuttal, the term "blocked" is perfectly clear, especially when considered in concert with the graphic presented. It's about communication. -
Mal Adapted at 05:57 AM on 14 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
Bernard J.:It's a thermodynamic truth that many people, even on the side of the consensus, need to hear and understand.
Since CBDunkerson and I are both on the side of the consensus, I want to be sure I didn't misunderstand his(?) use of "business as usual" (BAU). CBDunkerson:The claim that environmental problems can only be solved by giving up modern technology, individual freedom, et cetera is a lie that deniers have told themselves so often that they take it as inviolate truth even in the face of observed reality to the contrary.
If BAU means "no one has to freeze to death in the dark if fossil fuels are replaced by renewables", then that's defensible. If BAU means "the transition to a sustainable economy won't reduce average buying power (what's usually meant by 'standard of living')", then that's frank denial. The professional AGW deniers don't care if a few 47%-ers freeze to death in the dark, and they don't worry about average buying power either. To them, BAU means "My own buying power will be reduced if fossil fuels are replace by renewables". Changing BAU will make winners and losers, and they'll be losers. Of course it's OK with me if the Koch brothers lose some income, but who really thinks the 1% will be the only losers? You and I might be willing to give up some of our own hard-earned buying power if it reduces the risk of climate catastrophe; we'll leave the hybrid in the garage and take the bus. We may even be willing to pay extra, to keep people now on the edge of poverty from sliding over it. As for the rest of the middle class, not all of them are as sanguine as we are about loss of buying power. Some accept the scientific consensus but refuse to change the way they live, perhaps believing that the impacts of AGW will mostly affect other people far away. Others think arguments from consequences refute arguments from evidence. Some, with no worse than average understanding of science as an institution, are willing to believe that AGW is all a hoax, and that consensus supporters are conspiring to impose world socialism. We roll our eyes, but we should ask ourselves what it will really take to keep the impacts of AGW from getting worse -- never mind establishing a truly sustainable economy. This comment is already too long, so I'll let Naomi Klein answer:The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their “free market” belief system. As British blogger and Heartland regular James Delingpole has pointed out, “Modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the left: redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, greater government intervention, regulation.” Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.” Here's my inconvenient truth: they aren't wrong.
-
dana1981 at 05:00 AM on 14 January 2013Nature Confirms Global Warming and Temperature Record Accuracy
fpjohn @5 - we will have a rebuttal to a similar argument by Ridley and Murdoch this upcoming week. If I have time I'll try to incorporate some of Lomborg's nonsense. Unfortunately the deniers have been very busy writing BS media articles lately, and it's very hard to keep up. -
Lars Karlsson at 01:46 AM on 14 January 2013No warming in 16 years
Another factor that would be nice to mention is aerosols from human activities. I believe those would have contributed to warmning during the 1980's and 1990's, and to a slight cooling during the 2000's. With the effect of those aerosols subtracted, there might even have been a slight acceleration in warming the last decade. -
fpjohn at 00:56 AM on 14 January 2013Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
This piece is a great pre-rebuttal to Lomborg's new engenous article on Climate related crop failures which he discounts. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/global-warming-and-agricultural-production-by-bj-rn-lomborg yours Frank Johnston -
Bernard J. at 23:27 PM on 13 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
Mal Adapted:I'm sorry, but anyone thinks business as usual can go on is in denial.
Don't be sorry. It's a thermodynamic truth that many people, even on the side of the consensus, need to hear and understand. There is no such thing as a free lunch. -
fpjohn at 23:27 PM on 13 January 2013Nature Confirms Global Warming and Temperature Record Accuracy
This is off-topic as I can no longer find an email link to a moderator. Delete as necessary. Lomborg has a new red herring piece on Slate which makes light of climate change related reductions in crop yields LINK Can this be rebutted and is there someone to do it? Pass the linguine? The best to you all in the New Year. yours Frank JohnstonModerator Response: [RH] Hot linked URL that was breaking page formatting. -
jake7351 at 23:00 PM on 13 January 2013Nature Confirms Global Warming and Temperature Record Accuracy
@ sotolith this is why end points are not used. if the analysis started or ended at slightly different years you could come to the exact opposite conclusion (if you used end points). the trend is important, the wiggles are not -
shoyemore at 22:26 PM on 13 January 2013Nature Confirms Global Warming and Temperature Record Accuracy
sotolith7 #2 The chart (Figure 1) is relative to 1901-2000. Americal Meteorological Society statement on climate change gives 0.8C warming 1901-2010, with 0.5C of that coming since 1979. The chart appears consistent with the AMS statement. -
sotolith7 at 20:49 PM on 13 January 2013Nature Confirms Global Warming and Temperature Record Accuracy
But while it may confirm the trend, doesn't it show significantly less warming? If you take the end points, roughly half-as-much (0.2 instead of 0.4). -
skywatcher at 19:54 PM on 13 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
global surface temps and sst going back to the 1880s clearly shows repeating ~30 year trends.
smerby, alarm bells ring out when I see statements like these. It sounds like you're using that unreliable statistical tool, the eyecrometer. Do you understand the methods required to correctly determine the existence of cyclicity in a dataset? And the tests required to evaluate significance of such a signal. Have you considered variations in forcings (volcanic, aerosol, increasing ghgs), which can create the illusion of cyclicity? And how to test this? And why are your so-called 'troughs' - not that there is even a statistically significant change in the recent warming rate - getting rapidly warmer over time? I would suggest you can't rely on your eyecrometer to tell you the "truth". In science, there are better methods... -
John Mason at 19:49 PM on 13 January 2013Met Office decadal forecasting explained: the reality
Ray, I'd guess that's the case; HadGEM3 seems to do a better job in general though both fail to nail the 1997-8 super El Nino - as I said in the post such things are notoriously awkward in terms of predictability, despite the level of scientific knowledge today. In turn, that creates an interesting possibility. What if there was another super El Nino in a few years' time? Looking at the temperature records, the difference between 1996 and 1998 is around 0.3C: given the mean HadGEM3 forecast figure of 0.43C relative to 1971-2000 climatology, such an event in the next 5 years could produce a spike of getting on for 0.75C. At that point, of course, the temperature would be blamed by the usual suspects on natural variation, followed in the years to come by Daily Mail articles proclaiming how global warming stopped in 2015!! -
Kevin C at 18:02 PM on 13 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Smerby: Look a bit further back to 1850, and then look at this graph. (Or don't, the site is down, but here is the link for when it is back up.) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/. Alternative version:
The dip from 1880-1900 is not part of a cycle - it is the result of a series of major volcanic eruptions.
Once you take out this effect the bulk of the cycle vanishes - it's mostly a coincidence.
-
Tom Curtis at 17:05 PM on 13 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
smerby @86, there are have been at most 2 cycles of that pattern since 1880. That is far to few repetitions to infer a regular cycle. If you look at either HadCRUT or BEST prior to 1880, the 60 year pattern breaks down and is not in evidence. Further, it is highly dubious that it is in evidence prior to that period in paleodata. Hence the inference that it is not only a regular cycle, but strong enough to counter global warming in the medium terms is completely unsupported. -
smerby at 16:50 PM on 13 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Thanks for the feedback. That graph I put up with global surface temps and sst going back to the 1880s clearly shows repeating ~30 year trends. Based on that graph, the leveling off of surface temperatures for the past 10 years falls right into step with these repeating trends. Could this trend continue for the next 20 years, I think it could. What would knock this repeating cycle of global surface temperatures off track? -
Tom Curtis at 14:30 PM on 13 January 2013Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Wig4@104: 1) A variety of experiments have been performed by people attempting to quantify the strength of the effect of trapping IR radiation by glass in warming greenhouses. Most famously, this was done by R. W. Wood in 1909, who found no measurable effect. The lack of measurable effect has been misinterpreted by Wood and others as a refutation of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. In fact, while some have repeated Wood's experiment and found no measurable effect, others have found a 15 to 20 degree C increase in temperature relative to control when trapping IR radiation. That 15-20 degrees C is, however, less than half of the total increase in temperature. Further, in greenhouses in which the presence of vegetation limits the increase in temperature of the surface, and hence the increase in IR radiation from the surface, the effect will be even smaller. It follows that the prevention of air circulation carrying away excess heat is the major cause of increased temperatures in greenhouses. Ergo, greenhouses primarily work by "by blocking convection" as indicated in the original article. 2) Your argument devolves down to a mixture of garbled facts and outright errors. Let's start with the basics: a) The total upwelling IR flux at the surface is greater than the incoming SW flux times (1-albedo); b) The total upwelling IR flux at the Top Of the Atmosphere (TOA) approximately equals the incoming SW flux times (1-albedo). c) The difference between the upwelling IR flux at the surface and that at the TOA is the atmospheric greenhouse effect; and it can only exist because components of the atmosphere absorb IR radiation from below (lower atmosphere and or surface). c') If components of the atmosphere did not absorb IR radiation, then by necessity the upwelling TOA IR flux would equal or exceed that at the surface, resulting in no atmospheric greenhouse effect. c") If the atmosphere did not absorb more upwelling IR radiation from the surface than the atmosphere alone emitted at the TOA, then by necessity the upwelling TOA IR flux would equal or exceed that at the surface, resulting in no atmospheric greenhouse effect. c"') If the atmosphere absorbs more more upwelling IR radiation from the surface than it alone emits at the TOA, then be necessity the upwelling TOA IR flux will be less than that at the surface, and hence there will be an atmospheric greenhouse effect. From the points above, it is clear that atmospheric absorption of IR radiation is necessary for the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect. Ergo, as a simplified account, saying that the "atmospheric greenhouse works primarily by blocking thermal radiation" is sufficiently accurate. Radiation of IR radiation by the atmosphere reduces the strength of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and in the special and unusual case where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface, will result in a cooling of the surface. Typically, however, the atmosphere is cold enough that there is a substantial atmospheric greenhouse effect, and the colder the atmosphere the stronger that effect will be. I refer you to my article, Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere for a more detailed discussion, including examples of "proven, measured quantifications" of this effect. Finally, I note that IR radiation from the atmosphere is restricted in the range from which it will radiate, with a large a smaller atmospheric window from which there is essentially no radiation (or absorption) except in the presence of clouds. Further, I will note that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is so-called for historical reasons, and nothing save a foolish pedantry is served by railing against history. -
Ray at 12:19 PM on 13 January 2013Met Office decadal forecasting explained: the reality
Looking at Figures 2 and 3. the slope at the later portions of the white line on the two graphs are markedly different, a difference that I don't think has been discussed here. Exactly what is that white line showing and why the differences? Presumably these differences are due to the differences between HadGEM3 and HadCM3. Is that correct? If so and as HadCM3 has been used in earlier predictions, is it not possible that in the future, predictions from HadGEM3 will be shown to be different from those of the succeeding generation of climate models? Should the answer be in the affirmative this could indicate the science of climate change may be somewhat less settled than has been suggested. Whatever, I'd very much appreciate elightenment on the questions I've asked re the "white line" -
Flakmeister at 10:27 AM on 13 January 2013Nature Confirms Global Warming and Temperature Record Accuracy
One picture is a 1000 words or so... http://xkcd.com/54/ -
Phil at 10:26 AM on 13 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Rob @81 I wonder whether people like smerby, don't appreciate the full extent of the sources of evidence for climate sensitivity. In other words smerby might be assuming (sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth, smerby) that future temperature rise projections come from a climate sensitivity value that is solely determined from the temperature record for the last 30 years and therefore such projections assume that there are no long term (multi-decadal) oscillations. (Conversely, of course, smerby would then believe that if multi-decadal oscillations did exist and the last 30 years was on an up-swing, then future temperature rise projections would be over-estimated). In actual fact only a very few of the methods of determining climate sensitivity use the recent temperature record, and so the supposition of a multi-decadal oscillation does not alter the long term trend. -
Albatross at 10:21 AM on 13 January 2013Met Office decadal forecasting explained: the reality
The reality, of course, is very different from how those in denial about AGW and fake skeptics are trying to spin this story. As always, it is best to go to the source. Here is a BBC Radio 4 segment in which they try and set the record straight, but without actually bringing themselves to admit they messed up or apologizing to the Met Office. I would encourage people who are still convinced in the myth being promoted by those in denial to listen to the words of Prof. Julia Slingo, who is the chief scientist of the agency who actually made the experimental forecast. -
Doug Hutcheson at 10:16 AM on 13 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
Mal Adapted @ 25, I don't quite agree with your final sentence. I don't think anyone expecting BAU is in denial, necessarily. The problem is more subtle than that: I think people in general are optimists, who don't have the time to think through all the issues. I have a more pessimistic view, based on my understanding that the IPCC chooses to err on the side of caution in its pronouncements, so that reality is likely to be somewhat worse than they care to admit. As for BAU, I predict most nations will continue as they are now, for as long as they can, until various crises overwhelm them. I base that on a combination of two human traits: greed and optimism. -
Tom Curtis at 10:07 AM on 13 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
smerby @80 writes:"[T]he records also show that the leveling off should last for another 20 years."
The record shows nothing of the sort. I have just finished an analysis of how successfully you can predict future temperatures from trends of a given length. As it happened, for a ten year prediction, a 16 year trend performed significantly worse than simply adding 0.085 C to the current month's temperature. That makes the 16 year trend a very poor predictor of future temperatures. The best prediction from linear trends is obtained by adding 0.046 C (the mean under projection) to the 24 year trend projection. That yields a projection on HadCRUT4 data for 2022 of 0.744 +/- 0.391 C anomaly relative to 1961-1990; and approximately a four in five chance of exceeding the current consecutive 12 month record. Far better than any prediction from recent trends, however, is a prediction from physics. Here for example, is a comparison of the prediction from 16 year trends and that from CO2 forcing alone:
As you can see, prediction from trends performs far worse than prediction from physics, even when you only include one (albeit dominant over the long term) forcing. When you include all forcings plus ENSO, as Kevin C does, there is not contest between the predictions made from physics, and those made from trends only:
Yet you want to predict a 36 year pause in global warming from a cherry picked 16 year trend in contradiction to the physics?
As I said, your claim has no basis.
-
Wig4 at 10:01 AM on 13 January 2013Greenhouse effect has been falsified
"Intermediate" level article copy contains this passage : quote ...//... A glass greenhouse works primarily by blocking convection, and an atmospheric greenhouse works primarily by blocking thermal radiation, and so the comparison is not exact. ...//... This is blatantly wrong information. (1) ((A glass greenhouse works primarily by blocking convection)) Nonsense. Glass greenhouse works promarily by blocking IR with wavelenght above 3000 nm from leaving. (This is related ti SiO2 glass, other glass-types have different IR-block out limits) It's reflected inward again. This causes partial reabsorption by solid materials, re-emitting IR, reflected again, and again and again in this enclosed space, until losses are getting effective through conduction. (air-glass-air, and I calculate these loss rates 'everyday' through my practise... 99,9% correctly calculable...) Convection originating from air-contact with the solids is heating the air, not the radiation. That is the glass-glasshouse effect. Of coarse the heated air will leave if you open windows, but that if childish talk when explaining physics of the greenhouse effect. The total heat capacity contained in the enclosed air, however, is futile compared to the heat capacity of the solids. That explains the extreme speed of the glass-greenhouse effect. Ventilation of a greenhouse will lower very little of the temperature gain on the solids. The re-re-reflexion mechanism is still working. Only the air temperature, by ventilation, is fooling us we broke down this greenhouse effect. Nonsense, it goes on. We're only evacuating the resulting air convention heat, witch has, as said, a very low heat capacity. (Only water vapour contains a higher heat capacity, due to it's latent heat energy content, not temperature.) I'm really shocked to find such nonsense written down in presumed "intermediate what science says". Because science never said such a thing. Where is that article sourced? A journalist's sensation box ? .... By the way, I see Ned and others, all over this discussion, play with the notion quote ...//... confused about the distinction between "near infrared" and "thermal infrared" wavelengths ...//... While these terminologies are rather useless in science, when describing thermodynamic processes. We quantify only, we don't play with words. (This whole discussion lacks quantification, btw.) Sun radiation boosts a serious amount of direct molecule activating IR-radiation (roughly 1000 - 5000 nm), from which up to 3000 nm is passing glass. At the total 45% IR present in sunlight, at least 30% is contributing to direct molecule vibration activation, "heat". Because this depends to the receiving molecule, the global % contributing directly to heat excitation from the sunlight is not exactly definable. Earth-born IR-radiation peeks at about 10,000 nm, but starting only over 2500 nm. This explains fully the "trap" of reflexion behind Si02 glass. (2) ((an atmospheric greenhouse works primarily by blocking thermal radiation)) Nonsense again. Atmospheric "greenhouse" (fake terminology use, grown over the years.... never use the same terminology for 2 totally different physical systems...) works primarily by absorption of IR-radiation. In some stage of this discussion, I saw the 100% correct statement that all molecules of whatever kind, within a gas mix, in one location, equalise onto the exact same temperature, though the collisions among each other. This means, that if one kind of molecule warms up faster then another kind of molecule, related to a specific IR waverlenght, the resulting accumulated heat is extremely fast redistributed over all at random neighbour molecules. First physical concern is = available heat capacity of the mixed gas. (This capacity always if futile, compared with solids on earth. Only the watervapour ice cristals physics provide something of non-futile proportions) If RE-emitting of radiation (different wavelenght, in most cases ?) is happening, now, the original captator is in minority position within the total gas composition (including suspended ice crystals.) As said, RE-adiation can happen in all kind of different wavelenghts, through this mechanism. I like to see proven measured quantifications within this real-reality complex process, not wet-finger work.) Apart from RE-radiation, chemical driven heat converting processes can take place. On this level , all 5 heat dissipation mechanisms are active at the same time. Convection, conduction, radiation, latent energy conversion, chemical energy conversion. I read zero.dot.zero comments, until now about this complex reality. (From both sides of the discussion table, by the way.) I'm not an active scientist. I have studied, however, thermodynamics, in my accademic years, and I feel horror when anyone is talking gibberish within this domain. I read ridiculous theoretic simplicications of those very complicated thermodynamic processes within the so called "peer revieuwed scientific majority", and I encounter just as much riduculous stupidities from the opposition side. It is sad. Fact is that at least all basic laws of thermodynamics have been proven correct. (-snip-) Anyway, greetings to all, and my wish to get this into real science backed discussion. (I just touched a microscopic detail within the whole topic... ;-) )Moderator Response: [DB] Please familiarize yourself with this site's comments policy (link adjacent to the comment box). All caps usage is forbidden (converted to lower case in this instance; future violations will ensure moderation up to and including deletion of the entire comment). Inflammatory tone snipped.
Prev 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 Next
