Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 Next
Comments 50501 to 50550:
-
Alpinist at 13:33 PM on 22 December 2012Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
Sort of like playing the lottery...which of course is essentially a tax on people who are bad at math... I don't feel that lucky. -
vrooomie at 12:01 PM on 22 December 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #50
Doug H, 210, the *standard* for debunking Lomborg is "The Lomborg Deception," by Howard Friel. He painstakingly takes apart Lomborg's assertions in a fashion that will leave no doubbt in your mind as to how far off-base Lomborg really is. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:53 AM on 22 December 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #50
I don't know where else to post this question, so I apologise if I am out of line. Using this site's search function, on the term "Bjorn Lomberg", I receive numerous hits to comments, but these results do not indicate the original article to which they apply and do not provide a hyperlink to the original comment or thread. Is it possible to tweak the search engine, so that returned comments include some way to at least navigate back to the original post? I was looking for information to rebut a post at The Conversation, in which someone has referred to Lomberg as a "world renowned expert on economics of climate change" and I'm sure there is material here that would help, but I can't get to it using the search function. -
Hans Petter Jacobsen at 08:44 AM on 22 December 2012Solar Cycle Model fails to predict the recent warming
Thanks to Tommi for his kind offer in @14. But I had already programmed the library function for reading the HadCRUT4 ascii format when I read his comment. The HadCRUT4 webpage that MA Rodger provided a hyperlink to, gives the possibility to download the temperatures in a simple ascii format. I follow the monthly Northern hemisphere link to download the temperatures for the NH. There are some differences between the HadCRUT3 and 4 NH temperatures. But the HadCRUT4 NH temperatures seem to fit with the model approximately as the HadCRUT3 NH temperatures do, i.e. OK until the mid 1970s, but not after that. That is not surprising, because I have earlier seen that the NASA GISS NH temperatures also fit with the model in approximately the same way as the HadCRUT3 NH temperatures do. I have generated the same plots as in Figure 2 and 3, but now based on the HadCRUT4 NH temperatures. I show these plots in this google blog spot. Those interested in more details can follow that hyperlink. -
scaddenp at 06:58 AM on 22 December 2012Models are unreliable
" if Foster and Rahmsdorf are correct" If they are correct, then short term surface temperatures are dominated by ENSO, and so for climate models to have the accuracy you want, then they would have to make accurate predictions about ENSO for decades in advance. In practice, ENSO is difficult to predict even month's in advance. Is the current rash of La Ninas unusual historically? No, nor would a rash of El Ninos be but I will bet that if it happens there wont be complaints about models underestimating rate of warming. Climate models have no skill at decadal prediction, nor do they pretend to. It's a fake-skeptic trick to try and prove models wrong by looking at short term trends. Climate is 30 year weather trends, and these are the robust outputs of models. There are attempts at decadal predictions - look at Keenlyside et al 2008. How is this one working out? If surface temperatures are dominated by chaotic weather, then instead of looking at the surface temperature to validate models, then how about looking at indicators that are long-term integrators. Eg OHC and say global glacial volume? -
dana1981 at 03:56 AM on 22 December 2012This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
My response to Ridley's WSJ piece will be published later today, FYI. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:54 AM on 22 December 2012Models are unreliable
No such thing as a "throwaway remark" in our brave new world; you can't just roll down the window and toss out litter without finding it stubbornly affixed to your reputation, later on. I hope Jack will deal with Tom and KR's remarks; judging by those I count perhaps a half-dozen assertions on Jack's part that appear to be baseless. -
Models are unreliable
JackO'Fall Tom Curtis - "The test of the model is the comparison between prediction and observations once the model is run on actual forcings." JackO'Fall - "You are 100% correct that the method you propose to test a GCM would be the best. However, I have never seen a model used that way." Then I would suggest looking at the performance of various models here on SkS, both of "skeptics" and of climate researchers, as well as the considerable resources on Realclimate: Evaluation of Hansen 1981 Evaluation of Hansen 1988 2011 Updates to model-data comparisons And even a cursory look via Google Scholar provides a few items worth considering (2.4 million results?). I find your statement quite surprising, and suggest you read further. "OTOH, if you are a modeler worth your salt, you will freely admit the range of shortcomings in models, the inherent problems with any computer model, the difficulty with trying to model as chaotic and complex a system as our climate, and the dangers introduced with any assumptions included." If you are a modeler worth your salt, you will know that all models are wrong, but many are close enough to be useful. And the record of reasonable models in predicting/tracking climate is quite good. Your statements regarding models appear to be Arguments from Uncertainty - the existence of uncertainty does not mean we know nothing at all. -
Tom Dayton at 00:58 AM on 22 December 2012Models are unreliable
JackO'Fall, probably you do not realize how fundamentally wrong some of your contentions are, due to your admitted lack of background in climate modeling, climatology, and science in general. You are overconfident in your experience with modeling in general, too. Your expressed overconfidence is going to trigger some strong reactions. I hope you do not take offense and retreat, but instead get some humility and learn. Many lay people new to the global warming discussions enter with similar overconfidence. You need to learn the fundamentals. Start with this short set of short videos from the National Academy of Sciences: Climate Modeling 101. Your implication that climate modelers do not want to, or have not considered, improving their models is not just offensive to them, but reflects poorly on your understanding and ascribing of motivations. Modelers are consumed by the desire to improve their models, which you would know if you had even a passing familiarity with their work; every paper on models describes ideas for how the models can be improved. Just one example is the National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling. Then look at the Further Reading green box at the bottom of the original post on this page (right above the comments). Your contention that models are not open for public inspection is wildly wrong. A handy set of links to model code is the "Model Codes" section on the Data Sources page at RealClimate. Also see the last bullet, "Can I use a climate model myself?", on the RealClimate page FAQ on Climate Models. (You should also read the FAQs.) The Clear Climate Code project is an open source, volunteer rewriting of climate models. So far it has successfully reproduced the results of the GISTEMP model. But computer models are not needed for the fundamental predictions, as Tamino nicely demonstrated. Successful predictions were made long before computers existed, as Ray Pierrehumbert recently explained concisely in his AGU lecture, Successful Predictions. The vertical line in this first graph separates hindcasts from forecasts by a bunch of models. Your baseless, snide remark about "crappy code" reveals your ignorance of software engineering. You can start to learn from Steve Easterbrook's site. Start with this post, but continue to browse through some of his others. -
Composer99 at 00:47 AM on 22 December 2012Models are unreliable
Jack O'Fall: Please move any further discussion on the economics of climate change to an appropriate thread. It is completely off-topic on this thread. If you have references to economic analyses supporting your position please provide them on an appropriate thread; otherwise you are engaged in unsubstantiated assertion, which will not get you very far here. (All: Any responses to Jack regarding ecnomics should also be on an appropriate thread.) As far as the rest of the wall of text goes, please note that climate models are attempts to create forecasts based on the known physics, existing empirical data, and the reconstructed paleoclimate record. If you want to "disprove" AGW, meaningfully, you must show the physics is wrong, not the models. -
Tommi Kyntola at 18:37 PM on 21 December 2012Solar Cycle Model fails to predict the recent warming
HPJ @11 What kind of formatting would you need the hadcrut4 data to be in? Or alternatively which hadcrut3 data format did you use? I can help you convert it to pretty much any input format you want, don't bother modifying the programs. Just drop me a note at my.name at gmail.com -
sotolith7 at 17:43 PM on 21 December 2012This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
Thanks for the replies to my post. I think I could defend my, admittedly a bit provocative, metaphor with the hockeystick, but I don't want to sidetrack. I shall follow up the links and the reactions to the wsj article, to counter-evidence some lukewarmist tendencies I now detect in myself. -
JackO'Fall at 16:32 PM on 21 December 2012Models are unreliable
Tom Curtis @592, Re 1): Tax and dividend policies are deceptive, in my view. It is not just a wealth transfer, but it changes behavior (as you intend it to do). This change in behavior has ripples, and the ripples have efficiency costs. For example, a carbon tax in India or China would prevent most of the new coal plants from opening (if it didn't, I think it's fair to call the tax a failure). There is no 'second best' option available to replace those plants at a price that is viable (today). Thus, the tax is retarding the economic growth and advancement of millions of our most poor people without actually collecting any revenue from those power plants. There would be no redistribution of wealth as a result, instead there would be a lack of growth and no taxation to show for it. To produce that missing power with a 'greener' technology will indeed push the price tag into the trillions. Unless you have a cheaper way to produce that volume of power. (side note: I don't want them to build those coal plants for a number of health reasons, but I recognize the economics of it for them and that until they are at a higher economic level, clean isn't a concern for them) 2) Uncompensated or not, ALL negative externalities cause inefficiencies. Taxing them is helpful in reducing the net effect, but compensating for them is actually counterproductive (it creates an incentive to by 'harmed' and eliminates the incentive to avoid harm). To pay for the costs associated with coal, I would fully support a targeted tax on what causes the medical issues (clean coal [in spite of being a misnomer] produces a lot less harmful byproducts than dirty coal, but little difference in CO2). Taxing the carbon would be a very inefficient way to deal with that problem, compared to taxing the release of specific combustion byproducts. But, yes, in a general sense, taxing externalities, such as coal byproducts, is an efficient way to try to compensate for the negative consequences. 3) You are 100% correct that the method you propose to test a GCM would be the best. However, I have never seen a model used that way. Hindcasting is a distant cousin, as best, as the models were developed to account for the known inputs and known climate. Taking the exact models used in AR4 and updating all the unknown variables, specifically CO2 emissions (as opposed to CO2 levels), volcanic activity, & Solar output for the following 8 years (unknown to the modeler at the time of finishing their model), you should be able to eliminate the range of results normally produced and create a single predictive result. That should be much more useful to compare than a range of predictions to cover the uncertainty. Comparing that 'prediction' with actual measurements would be the best way to test the GCMs and would even provide a result that 'could' be proven wrong. Having the possibility of being proven wrong by observations is actually a needed step for AGW, otherwise it hardly fits the definition of a theory. Though, I suspect the climate models of today are more accurate than those used in AR4 (at least I hope they are, otherwise our process is really broken). OTOH, if you are a modeler worth your salt, you will freely admit the range of shortcomings in models, the inherent problems with any computer model, the difficulty with trying to model as chaotic and complex a system as our climate, and the dangers introduced with any assumptions included. At least, those are the caveats I accept in my modeling (except for the difficulty modeling the climate; I have much more simple tasks, but ones with more immediate and absolute feedback to test my predictions). -
Doug Bostrom at 15:34 PM on 21 December 2012Sun and climate moving in opposite directions, says leaked IPCC report
Hold on a minute. Is this Rawls fellow really an intellectual first cousin to the 911 Truther bunch? Shouldn't a massive overdraft in one credibility account cause a red flag to be thrown up on further applications for credence? -
Tom Curtis at 14:46 PM on 21 December 2012Models are unreliable
JackO'Fall @591, 1) If you are an economist, you know that the true cost to the economy of a fee and dividend carbon tax (or similar) is not measured by the cost of the fee alone; and indeed is a small fraction of it. Your characterizing such costs in terms of "trillions" of dollars is, therefore unwarranted (to be polite). 2) If you are an economist worth your salt, you will recognize that uncompensated negative externalities make the economy inefficient, and would be advocating a carbon tax to fund the medical costs, plus costs in lost income for those affected, associated with the burning of coal irrespective of your opinions on global warming. 3) If you were a modeler worth your salt, you would recognize the difference between a prediction, and a conditional prediction premised on a particular forcing scenario. A slight difference between a conditional prediction premised on a particular forcing scenario and observations when the actual forcings differed from those in the scenario does not make the model wrong. It just means the modelers where not perfect in predicting political and economic activity ten or more years into the future. The test of the model is the comparison between prediction and observations once the model is run on actual forcings. -
jyyh at 14:07 PM on 21 December 2012Solar Cycle Model fails to predict the recent warming
for those who are into cycles http://climateandstuff.blogspot.fi/2012/12/cycle-mania-anf-hadcrut3.html presents two cycles, of 60 + c.317 years that look to fit somewhat into recent behavior of temperatures. Of course if this was true one would have to throw out MWP and LIA, proxies of the past 1000 years, accept that there can be a cycle of almost 320 years (that's longer than Pluto's but shorter than Eris' period) within a fusion rector (sun) and dismiss some archeological finds (just for the heck of it) Anyway, it's cool to know what sort of periodical phenomena we should be looking if there's some overestimate in the equilibrium and other sensitivities. -
Bert from Eltham at 13:56 PM on 21 December 2012IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
My previous post was a total joke! It was aimed at the ignorati who peddle drivel from other ignorati. I just used their recipe to make stuff up! we can always use a good laugh. Bert -
jibal at 13:53 PM on 21 December 2012Italian flag curry
@AuntSally Curry's qualities have nothing to do with whether she is misrepresenting the methodology: it's a fact that she is. Why you seem to be challenging is whether she is doing so *intentionally*. But intent is complicated when it comes to conformation bias and other sorts of intellectual dishonesty. There's a difference between lying -- saying something one knows not to be true -- and allowing oneself to believe something that wouldn't stand up to a "robust" examination of the evidence. @vroomie Expert evaluation of evidence *is* a form of evidence. When the vast majority of trained people who have examined the evidence come to a similar conclusion, Ockham's Razor strongly suggests that the evidence supports the conclusion; the contrary would require an extraordinary hypothesis about mass collusion or delusion amongst these experts. Thus it's wrong or at least grossly misleading to say that science is not based on consensus. In fact the vast majority of each of our true beliefs about the world are based on just that, since we don't have the time or other resources to establish these facts through personal observation. This is the power of human civilization. -
Bert from Eltham at 13:43 PM on 21 December 2012IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
My new paper 'Inverse Correlation with the Wearing of Hats with Global Warming' This is in Press and the data must remain secret. We note that there is a variation due to the libido of the hat/non hat wearer of both genders. We call this the southern libido oscillation. This can mask the true trend of Global Warming and lead to apparent quiescent states due to of loss of libido. We discuss melting of the heart and lack of judgment in choice of partner with or without hat. We thank the Mad Hatters for their financial support. In conclusion the wearing of more hats is the fundamental way to solve this problem. Bert -
JackO'Fall at 13:30 PM on 21 December 2012Models are unreliable
Daniel Bailey & scaddenp: Thank you, that's helpful to me to see that. However, if Foster and Rahmsdorf are correct, then the models are wrong recently b/c they missed some critical information. One of them has to be 'wrong', since they either explain why warming is hidden or predict that warming happened and isn't hidden. I'm not throwing the GCMs out the window b/c they need better tuning, but shouldn't we support identifying their weaknesses and correcting them so the GCMs can make better predictions with their next run? I'm not a scientist, I don't play one on TV, but I'm trying hard to better understand all this. I will try to ask better questions as I learn more, but I'm thick skinned enough to tolerate being berated when I ask a stupid one. However, I am an economist by training, and I do a lot of computer modeling in my job, so I am quite familiar with those aspects of this topic. That's also why the economic arguments about a lack of 'real' costs to changing policies is one I dismiss easily. It's the classic 'broken window' proposition, thinking that breaking a window benefits the economy by getting a glass repairman paid to fix the window and then he spends that money on a new TV, which means the worker who made the TV spends his increased wages on a... It only works if you assume that the money to pay the glass repairman was magically created and didn't devalue the remaining currency. Otherwise, you are pulling money from an investment that can increase economic efficiency to spend on a repair to get back to the same level of efficiency you were before the glass was broken. It has been shown in numerous manners that it is a flawed proposition, and it also doesn't 'make sense' (no economy has been helped by being bombed by the US). Yet, it get repeated often to justify spending money on things that don't increase efficiency but cost a lot. I freely admit there are times when it makes sense to spend the money that is being proposed here, but don't try to pretend that their aren't real financial costs. -
From Peru at 13:30 PM on 21 December 2012Subcap Methane Feedbacks. Part 3: Methane from beneath the ice
Tomorrow 21/12/2012 (in a few hours) one of these methane reservoirs collapse... Just kidding, of course! -
Daniel Bailey at 12:04 PM on 21 December 2012This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
"No need to do anything to prevent this."
That's a howler. Basically, just another handwaving variant of It's not bad. -
michael sweet at 11:56 AM on 21 December 2012More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica
Agnostic, This paper states that 30-65% of snow accumulation is countered by increased ice flow caused by the snow fall. In addition there is increased ice loss at the edges caused by warm ocean water melting the edge. Snow accumulation in the center of the Antarctic has long been known. The mechanism of ice loss caused by increased ice flow is new and increases the ice loss from the Antarctic. The data coming from the Antarctic is mixed and a clear pattern has not emerged. We will have to watch the measurements as they come to see the final result. The West Antarctic is more vulnerable to warm ocean water and the East has a larger snow accumulation area. -
dana1981 at 11:48 AM on 21 December 2012This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
Even though I'm currently on vacation, since Ridley's WSJ piece was little more than a repeat of the errors in his WIRED piece (as noted by KR @50), I drafted up a blog post about it. So that will probably be published here in the coming days. -
Riduna at 10:34 AM on 21 December 2012More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica
“Between 30 and 65 percent of the ice gain due to enhanced snowfall in Antarctica is countervailed by enhanced ice loss along the coastline,” says lead-author Ricarda Winkelmann. I understand this to mean that between 35 and 70 percent of ice gain is NOT countervailed by enhanced ice loss – in other words Antartica is gaining ice. If so, Winkelmanns finding does not appear to be supported by GRACE gravity measurement. Given that EAIS and WAIS are expected to be affected by snowfall/ice gain and ice loss in quite different ways, failure to differentiate between the tow is not helpful. -
Doug Hutcheson at 09:30 AM on 21 December 2012Sun and climate moving in opposite directions, says leaked IPCC report
VeryTallGuy @ 3, the pdf you linked to, a letter from Flight 93 Advisory Commission Chairman to Mr. Alec Rawls, includes this little gem:You continue to harass, intimidate, and slander
Nothing like a bit of harassment, intimidation and slandering, to make up for an excruciating lack of facts, research and analysis. It is almost beyond comprehension that Mr. Rawls could become so belligerent over something as simple and sensitive as planning for the Flight 93 Memorial. I wonder if his next outburst will be to accuse Islam of inventing and funding the AGW hoax? -
This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
Bradely - Matt Ridley has made these kinds of claims before (see this thread on his writing), and they've never been supportable. He bases this article on the posts of Nic Lewis, a blogger with as far as I can tell zero publications in the field. Neither Ridleys claims on sensitivity nor his feelings about "beneficial" are supported in the actual literature, and I can only suspect that he and Lewis have misread the various publications, including the IPCC AR4 and the (pre-publication draft) AR5. I would suggest reading climate sensitivity is low to see what the science says - ~3C/doubling of CO2 - and positives and negatives of global warming regarding the impacts. Those are summaries; read the primary literature linked therein for details. Rather than taking (IMO) what are just ideological polemics as gospel...Moderator Response: [TD] Fixed link. -
shoyemore at 09:07 AM on 21 December 20122012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #10
John, thanks for this. John and Doug, you make me think about retiring! I would probably get more useful work done, as opposed to merely remunerative! :) -
Bradely at 08:48 AM on 21 December 2012This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
December 18, 2012 Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change. Evidence points to a further rise of just 1°C by 2100. The net effect on the planet may actually be beneficial Summary: Observations now allow accurate forecasting of ratio of warming / CO2 buildup. IPCC will publish the new estimates which are 1-1.5 degree C for a doubling of CO2 over the next 100 years vs. 3+ degree C in former IPCC models. No need to do anything to prevent this.Moderator Response: [TD] Linked text. -
Bradely at 08:16 AM on 21 December 2012This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
December 18, 2012 Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change Evidence points to a further rise of just 1°C by 2100. The net effect on the planet may actually be beneficial. (-snip-). A version of this article appeared December 19, 2012, on page A19 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change.Moderator Response: [DB] Block copy/pasting is in violation of this site's Comments Policy. A link with a summary of why the link is relational to this thread is all that is needed. -
vrooomie at 06:37 AM on 21 December 2012Italian flag curry
Thanks, gws, for an exceptionally clear and concise post. Yours is a 'content-rich' post, but to me, the main takwaway was this: "Thus, she mistakes the expert evaluation of evidence for the evidence itself." This is a very common mistake, on both "sides" of the argument but, from my POV, is largely one assumed by the fake skeptics. Well-done! -
AuntSally at 06:08 AM on 21 December 2012Italian flag curry
Nice Post, Though I think you're mistaken when you suggest Curry is misrepresenting the methodology. I've followed Curry's tortured blog posts and argument threads over the years and come to (what I believe to be) a reasonably well-informed conclusion: she's just not very good at what she does. I don't know if she's just not very bright, or just a little lazy... but her process is not what I would call robust. And she does seem to be rather more susceptible to preconception bias than one would hope from a scientist of her stature (if not actual ability). -
dana1981 at 02:08 AM on 21 December 2012This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
sotolith7 @44 - Levitus et al. (2012) shows the error bars on ocean heat content measurements. See Figure 2 here. -
Albatross at 01:29 AM on 21 December 2012Sun and climate moving in opposite directions, says leaked IPCC report
Great title John, it really says it all! -
Bob Lacatena at 01:29 AM on 21 December 2012This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
sotolith7, Could you kindly tell me exactly who has been beating you over the head with "the hockey stick?" The only places I ever see it mentioned are denial factories like WUWT and climateaudit. They go on and on about it as if it is the foundation of all of climate science. I don't even see it mentioned anywhere else -- certainly not in the main stream media, very rarely here at SkS, etc. The world has moved on. Ocean heat content is soaring. Arctic ice melt, total ice mass loss, global temperature observations, extreme weather events, TOA imbalance measurements, paleoclimate sensitivity studies... all of this and more has been going on. Hockey stick? Not so much. If you've been beaten over the head with the hockey stick, which was created way back in 1998/1999 (13 years ago) as one graphic in one paper on paleoclimate, as evidence of an issue which is no longer a question in the debate (i.e. whether or not global temperatures have been warming at an unusual rate since 1979), then it speaks more about the web sites and media that you (as "not a denialist") have been visiting and watching, than it does about the actual progress and position of the science today. -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:34 PM on 20 December 2012This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
sotolith7 It does indeed look as if there is evidence of a plateau, however the eye is rather too good at picking out patterns in data, and often sees patterns where they don't actually exist. In this case, if you leave out the 1998 El-Nino spike, the visual suggestion of a plateau virtually disappears, for instance in the UAH data:This is why objective tests of statistical significance are a useful sanity check. In this case, the observations don't rule out the existence of a plateau, but they don't rule out a continuation of warming at a constant rate either. This is most probably simply due to the fact that there is too little information over that period to be able to draw any strong conclusion either way. In fact, for so short a period, it isn't really all that surprising that there should be the occasional plateau. So the best thing to do is to keep an open mind about it, but also to consider all of the relevant information. As to hockey sticks, I suspect that it would be difficult to produce as good a proxy for ocean heat content as we can for surface temperatures, which is why we don't have (AFAIK) an ocean heat content hockey stick. We can only draw conclusions from the data we actually have, so there is no goal post shift there, just that we have modern data for OHC, but not for pre-industrial OHC.
-
Paul D at 22:35 PM on 20 December 2012Sun and climate moving in opposite directions, says leaked IPCC report
Esop: "I can't believe why the deniers keep bringing up the failed "it's the sun" argument time and time again." Because many of them know that continually repeating it will negate action on AGW. It isn't anything to do with science. -
sotolith7 at 22:34 PM on 20 December 2012This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
I stress, I am not a denialist, but looking at the surface temperature graph since 1998, it seems difficult to deny that some sort of plateau is showing there. There seems to be a certain amount of moving of goalposts going on here: for years we were beaten over the head with the hockeystick, which, is I believe, a surface temperature graph, only to be told now that ocean warming is far more significant. The arguments for this above look plausible. But ocean warming seems always to be expressed as change in heat content. I'm wondering what these figures for the extra heat content translate into as a temperature rise. My guess is it's quite a bit less than the surface temperature anomaly. Then , considering the area and depth of the seas, isn't this data vulnerable to measurement and calibration problems? Just what are the error bars on ocean warming? -
Mighty Drunken at 21:10 PM on 20 December 2012Add Frame and Stone to the List of Papers Validating IPCC Warming Projections
Alex C @23 OK, my fault. I jumped to conclusions. I am confused about the draft report. The text of the draft and the placeholder figure 1.4 don't seem to say the same thing. This of course maybe because it is a draft. -
Andrew Mclaren at 20:50 PM on 20 December 2012Sun and climate moving in opposite directions, says leaked IPCC report
Summary form of denier argument: So: a dog, a blonde, and a helicopter walk into a bar. But! That does not mean the blonde dog is necessarily in *charge* of the helicopter! Apologies for what may appear off topic but the structure of argumentation is not far off... -
Kevin C at 20:32 PM on 20 December 20122012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #10
On that note, can I add my own note of thanks to you John for your work here? Dana gets a lot of attention for his prolific output, but your persistent effort in gathering and presenting press releases and summarizing the media coverage play a vital role. -
VeryTallGuy at 19:18 PM on 20 December 2012Sun and climate moving in opposite directions, says leaked IPCC report
Even by denier standards, Rawls is really quite something http://www.nps.gov/flni/parkmgmt/upload/briefingpaperattachment1.pdf H/T Rattus Norvegicus at Stoat -
Charles08537024 at 14:08 PM on 20 December 2012Sun and climate moving in opposite directions, says leaked IPCC report
Yes, I think the deniers hope to reach new groups--which is why it was so great to see Skeptical Science, The Conversation, and scientists like Sherwood get out in front of this nonsense and quickly shoot it down. Happily, the MSM picked up SkS and the others (with one the dismissable exception of Delingpole, who again displayed his utter ignorance of science and his inability to read carefully and think for himself). -
chriskoz at 13:49 PM on 20 December 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #50
Has anyone notice that National Review (the conservative newspaper that libelled Mike Mann and faces his lawsuit as a consequence) is in financial trouble as the result? Read about it here and here. The comment thread to the original pledge reveals an interesting trend. I checked just first few comments. The commenters that mock the pledge and LOL it, receive most "up" votes... -
John Hartz at 13:42 PM on 20 December 20122012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #10
Doug H: Thanks for catching the typo (will fix) and for the positive feedback. PS - I'm retired as well -- have to be in order to produce the news roundups and the digest on a weekly basis. -
Doug Hutcheson at 10:59 AM on 20 December 20122012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #10
The heading "Impacts: Wildires in the US" has a typo: it should be "Wildfires". Thanks for this list to add to my reading schedule. It's a good thing I am retired, so I have a chance to keep up! -
Doug Hutcheson at 10:33 AM on 20 December 2012New research from last week 50/2012
Thanks for all your hard work, Ari. -
Doug Hutcheson at 09:57 AM on 20 December 2012Doha Climate Summit Ends With No New CO2 Cuts or Funding
Doha will do nothing to cut emissions that are taking the world to four degrees and more of warming
None of those in the second Kyoto phase increased their emission cuts pledges
The Doha outcome puts the world on track for three, four or even five degrees of warming
Elsewhere on this site, I have read that a 4 degree rise will create a global climate that is not compatible with organised human society. It is sooo encouraging to know our fearless leaders are boldly taking us where mankind has not been before, with nary a doubt or waver. Monkton & Co. must be excessively proud of themselves. As Monty Python put it in the Galaxy Song:So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure, How amazingly unlikely is your birth, And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
-
Hans Petter Jacobsen at 08:59 AM on 20 December 2012Solar Cycle Model fails to predict the recent warming
Thanks to Larry for the feedback in @9. The first time I processed the temperatures I was surprised to see how well the temperatures up to and including solar cycle 20 fitted with the model. So I agree with Larry that SSH should have concentrated on this instead of trying to predict the temperatures in SC24. I am satisfied that my analysis is published here at SKS, and I don't know if it is necessary to write it up as a comment to the journal. -
Tom Curtis at 07:20 AM on 20 December 2012CO2 effect is saturated
curiousd @191, the agreement is, of course, largely coincidence. One reason the model will not produce an accurate estimate of instantaneous forcing is that, unlike in the real atmosphere, increased CO2 will not result in a cooling above the tropopause. The temperature offset is relayed to all higher levels resulting in a warmer stratosphere, not a cooler stratosphere as would actually occur. Professor Brian Fiedler recommends calculating radiative forcing from 20 km look down to allow for this, which will no doubt yield better, but still imperfect results. Anyway, that is not the primary purpose of this comment. Rather, Monash University (in Melbourne, Australia) have just placed online a global energy balance model, which you may enjoy playing with. Unlike LBL models it is globally resolved, and allows for lateral energy transfers. I believe these are handled by parametrization, however, rather than being an emergent property of dynamic and radiative processes as in a GCM. As Domminget and Floter say:"In contrast to CGCMs the model assumes a fixed atmospheric circulation, clouds and soil moisture, which are given as boundary conditions. It thus does not simulate internal chaotic climate variability caused by weather fluctuations and also assumes that climate change, due to external forcings such as 2 9 CO2 increase, is a small perturbation, which does not change the atmospheric or ocean circulation, which is clearly a simplification."
Clearly such a simple model cannot be used to "prove" anything; or indeed to make detailed quantitative predictions. It is potentially a useful tool for instruction (and learning), particularly as key parameters can be left out of the model to judge their influence (with suitable caveates). Full documentation of the model can be found in Domminget and Floter (2011) (PDF).
Prev 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 Next
