Recent Comments

Prev  1009  1010  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  Next

Comments 50801 to 50850:

50801. scaddenp at 06:45 AM on 17 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       "what is absorbed is re-radiated at longer wavelenghts still." Are these longer wavelengths somehow undetectable?
50802. scaddenp at 06:43 AM on 17 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       "Hansen describes it as radiation increasing from higher levels in the atmosphere to maintain an equilibrium with (outer space), Ramanatan does not. " Hansen's explanation is the outcome of the Ramanathan model (we are talking about Ramanathan and Coakley here?). There is no contradiction. "that the oceans are not in equilibrium with the atmosphere," Do you think this is news to climate modellers? So lets see - the Radiative Transfer Equations at the core of greenhouse theory successfully predict the temperature structure of the atmosphere and the spectrum that will be observed when viewed from both surface of the planet looking up, and from the top of atmosphere looking down. The model can do this for any planet (taking proper account of rotation speed). By contrast, you have so far not offered an experiment that the physics cannot explain. So what appears more likely - you have found a flaw in the physics? Or that you have failed to fully understand the physics?
50803. shoyemore at 05:08 AM on 17 December 2012
       Doha Climate Summit Ends With No New CO2 Cuts or Funding
       As far as I can see the best thing about DOHA is that the United Nations process did not collapse completely. But is has moved from a tortoise-like to a snail's pace. Until, the USA and China come to some bilateral arrangement, there will be not much to be seen in the way of progress.
50804. Johnb at 04:59 AM on 17 December 2012
       Thawing of Permafrost Expected to Cause Significant Additional Global Warming, Not yet Accounted for in Climate Predictions
       You wonder at times which rhubarb pot they have been hiding under. Sybil Fawlty springs to mind, Special Subject, the blindingly obvious. I suspect that damage to foundations will be the least of their worries. With anthropogenic CO2 emissions continuing their annual increase at the 3% level it should be time to remind those with the responsibility that under the laws of compound interest 3% annual equates to a doubling in 24 years. The start point was some few years ago now. Additionally a straight line projection forward for atmospheric CO2 ppm should give us 410 ppm in a Decade's time. Am I being unreasonable ? Johnb
50805. gws at 01:36 AM on 17 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       Just in case anyone wonders... Boiling off the ocean (equivalent to a runaway GHE) is very unlikely to happen for several reasons, such as 1. Unless positive feedbacks to anthropogenically emitted CO2 are larger than expected, FF derived CO2 forcing and associated T changes are limited to FF "availability", and 2. ocean carbonates are buffering atmospheric CO2 over 1000s+ of years, so as long as an ocean is present with sedimentary carbonates (such as at depth), CO2 uptake into it slows (and limits) atmospheric increase Problem is, neither of these limits is likely to limit atmospheric CO2 to a level palatable to today's society and environment, hence the concern.
50806. Brian G Valentine at 00:45 AM on 17 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       I can't write much now, and will not be able to for some days. Thank you for calling me names, Tom, it shows to me what I am guilty of, and is a good lesson for me. Obviously your graph shows what happens when one looks out a window fogged by water (ha just a joking analogy), what is absorbed is re-radiated at longer wavelenghts still. If there were observational evidence of the "greenhouse effect" and I deny it - then you have called me the wrong name. Valentine is not a "charlatan" - he is "insane"
50807. BaerbelW at 20:17 PM on 16 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       ajason@46 "In regards to those climate change proponents,...." Apart from what others have already pointed out in their replies, the first half of the first sentence is wrong as well as far as I'm concerned: I am anything but a climate change proponent as I - just like others here on SkS and elsewhere - am working towards climate change not becoming any worse than it already is. So, if anything, I am an opponent of climate change.
50808. JohnB6223 at 19:34 PM on 16 December 2012
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       For addition to Australian politicians denial list; Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (20:13): ( Ex Hansard House Reps AFP 18th June 2012) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610/0382/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf Image url: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/handbook/allmps/99931/upload_ref_binary/99931.jpg Back in 2005, the United Nations Environment Program, with one of those 'the science is settled' predictions, asserted that global warming would create millions of climate change refugees. By 2010, it was said, these people would be forced to flee their homes because of rising sea levels from melting ice caps. Well, 2010 has come and gone and there has not been a single person made a climate refugee because of rising sea levels. However, here in Australia we now have some of the world's first climate refugees, forced to flee their homes not by rising sea levels but by government policies subsidising industrial wind turbines...... ... Firstly, we need to be clear how little power wind turbines actually produce. You would need 3,500 giant steel windmills to produce the equivalent output of one single, medium-sized conventional coal or gas fired power station. Secondly, even if we built these 3,500 steel windmills, we would still need a gas fired power station as a backup—for when the wind doesn't blow, the power doesn't flow. It is that simple. And of course any gas fired backup power station needs to be ramped up and down to compensate for the intermittency of the wind. A gas fired plant runs inefficiently, burning more gas and having a shorter life span than a plant which is just working normally. It is like a car battling through heavy traffic —less fuel efficiency and more wear and tear. Overseas studies have suggested that we could actually lower our emissions of carbon dioxide if we did away with wind turbines altogether and just ran gas power stations inefficiently.
50809. Glenn Tamblyn at 19:22 PM on 16 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       ajason "In regards to those climate change proponents, I'd say are fairly pathetic in that they don’t let everyday humans decide for themselves if it’s true." How does anyone decide whether anything is true with out the information needed to base their decicion on? So how does an 'everyday human' decide the truth of something when they don't have the knowledge base to do that? Which most people don't have wrt AGW. This is sort of the 'one man's opinion is as good as anothers' argument. Which is fine when discussing our preferred football teams. But is completely wrong when considering subjects that are based on detailed factual information - the more knowledgeable person's opinion is worth more because it is an opinion upon the factsand they have more of them. Where my health is concerned, my doctor's opinion is worth far more than my own - that why we always take our doctors advice. If what the taxes are spent on is worth it, taxes are good. Or do you think governments shouldn't tax us to provide for the national defense for example, or to build roads? Besides, in situations of deep and profound threat, Government is that part of society that has the duty and responsibility of responding to the threat. So when scientists sea clear threats to our wellbeing and security, who should they 'attach' themselves to, the Boy Scouts? Government is the centre of society. Our focal point. If they aren't doing that very well, we need to fix that fact. But not ostracise government. "There will always be arguments as to who is wrong and who is right in the climate change debate. " Which is totally different from who is actually right and wrong. Some people can never stop arguing even when they have been shown to be wrong again and again. So the simple existance of arguments actually doesn't say very much without an assessment of the merits of the arguments. This is the centralnature of cranks. Some people become so fixated on an idea that they can never recognise that they have lost an argument and concede.Somepeople go totheir graves arguing. "The real truth will ferret out the public’s course of action" Yes but. The full impact of AGW will reveal itself over time. And presumably our response to it then will be appropriate to what ishappening.But the inertia and lead times involved in the climate system means that we have to be acting on it decades before it fully manifests itself. "How many times have people been lied to by politicians ..." Yep, sometimes they do. Guess why. When they tell us the truth, we can't handle it, we want to wish it away or blame someone for it. Or vote them out. So all governments deceive us a bit because they have to to be able to get things done. This is the down side of democracy. "Look at Einstein’s special theory of relativity, he published it and let it be...." Interesting example. When he published the theory, there were no apparent real world consequences toit, certainly no hazards associated with it that were obvious then. So Einstein 'put it out there'. Years later, asit became clear that his theory had some very real and dangerous consequences - Nuclear Weapons - He got very,very political. So to in many other branches of science. When the science has clear negative implications for human wellbeing, the scientists have a deep moral obligation to get involved in pushing for a response to the threat. Because they are the ones best qualified to understand the threat. And if you look at the advocacy of most scientists on this it is along the lines of 'we need to achieve these goals by this point in time or this will happen'.Andif 'the politicians aren't responding veryquickly - they aren't, then the scientists start to bypass the politicians, to convey the magnitude of the threat to the people so that the people can pressure the politicians. "If the scientist really cared about people, then care about people and leave politics out of the equation. " Wish they could. If you really care about people then you know that we need to achieve profound change rapidly. That is the only thing that will 'care for people'. Profound change at this pace can only be driven by government - only they have the power to bring about the changes needed fast enough. The private sector can change things rapidly when there is a buck in it. But they can't bring the targeted focus to the problem needed since their agenda is always somewhere else. In a perfect there wouldbe no politics in government. Government would be what it truely should be - good management. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and too many of my fellow citizens feel the need to politicise everything. So unfortunately, Politics is it. Sadly it's the only game in town.
50810. Lanfear at 18:21 PM on 16 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       ajason@46 "I'd say are fairly pathetic in that they don’t let everyday humans decide for themselves if it’s true." You essentially imply that: a) the reality of physics can be modified by voting (or maybe) b) there is a viable 'second' alternative which we can choose Can you provide any evidence or material to back up these thoughts of yours? And inversely, can you also provide any projection of behaviour, assuming that what the scientists, based on sound physics, are telling is true, ie. the global temperature is rising and we (humans) are the cause of it? I'm especially intrigued in the behaviour of the group which we can plainly call denialists (whether their denial is based on religion, dogmas or ideology does not really matter). How do you see that these individuals would react, and how does that situation differ from our present? Most importantly: What should the rest of the rational world do in regards to this denier-group, as the outcome of what they are advocating is fairly well known? In the other case (where the perceived denier-view would be the correct one), there would be several tell-tale signs: a) measurements would not correlate to the claimed models b) an abundance of (scientific) material would point to the actual cause Do you see that these statements are in accordance with our reality? There are several cases where 'everyday humans' have no say in decision making. You can apply that to the gas price at the pump (or any product sold). Or most environmental laws. Our situation is a bit of a comical one. In one sense this is the inverse of Taleb's black swan, but with the same end result. Instead of a sudden unknown which kills the turkey, the fowl knows what will come, but since the process is so slow, spanning a long time, the bird just assures itself that "I'm still ok, I can continue living my life in a BAU manner". Obligatory disclaimer: Analogy with the bird is to the humankind, not single individual. I am aware of the story about the frog in the warming water kettle.
50811. Tom Curtis at 17:11 PM on 16 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       FGD135 @50, not only did Dana not ignore the reports, he quoted the key passage Rawls cites as evidence directly. Here it is again, as quoted by Rawls, and with the nub of Rawls argument:

       "Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.["] The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is."

       As can be clearly seen, the entirety of Rawls' argument depends on equating "many empirical relationships" with "strong evidence". He should tell that to Pons and Fleischmann. As cold fusion and Lysenkoism illustrate, the history of science is full of people who have found "many empirical relationships" in support of their favoured theory, only to have later and wider assessments refute the theory conclusively. This is sometimes due to careless experimental work, but can be simply the result of coincidence. The standard of statistical significance is that there is only a 5% chance of arriving at the observed result by chance given the null hypothesis. Of course, that means that, by chance 5% of false theories will appear to be born out by "statistically significant" relationships. In such cases, further studies and attempted replications will fail to confirm the hypothesis. As the IPCC carefully point out, that is in fact what has happened in this case.
50812. Tom Curtis at 16:15 PM on 16 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Brian Valentine @49 tries to baffle us with bullshit. The most important piece of bullshit in his armoury is the pretense that global warming is only predicted by zero dimensional models - ie, models that take as inputs only the globally averaged insolation, the globally averaged albedo, and the globally averaged means surface temperature; and from these and the Stefan-botlzmann law calculates in increase in surface temperature due to the greenhouse effect. He spends much verbiage pretending that because these very simplified models used almost solely for educational purposes have (surprise, surprise) certain simplifications, that therefore they are false and the theory of the greenhouse effect fails. One could almost imagine that there are no models which divide the Earth's surface into 2x2 degree sections, with multiple atmospheric layers, with absorption and reflection of solar radiation calculated for each each layer seperately, and so on. One would almost imagine that these models (let's call them coupled Ocean Atmosphere global circulation models) do not predict the same general outcome as the simplified models - and that scientists are restricted in making predictions about the greenhouse effect to only the simplified models. So, armed with this pretense, Valentine pretends to refute models designed to teach people with only a grade 10 level of education in science the core concepts of the greenhouse effect; and pretends therefore to have refuted the actual science. For his next trick, no doubt, he will refute the science of ballistics by pointing out the existence of air resistance. Sadly, Valentine fails in his efforts even against the cut down science he will admit as evidence against his views. He argues that the Earth does not have a constant temperature, and that therefore the 33 degree K approximation for the total greenhouse effect from simplified models is in error. What he does not mention is that a body with uneven surface temperatures radiates more energy for a given mean surface temperatures than one with an even temperature. So, yes, the assumption of equal temperatures introduces an inaccuracy,but that inaccuracy underestimates the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. If we allowed uneven surface temperatures, the result would be a larger than 33 K greenhouse effect; not a smaller one. He then argues that the Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be applied to the globe as a single unit. Thereby, he claims to refute the notion that greenhouse gases reduce the energy radiated to space relative to what would have been radiated without their presence. Of course, if you look at the radiation from particular places, at particular times you will see something like this: This may be difficult for Valentine, but the essential point is that the area under the approx 295 K approximation is the energy that would have been radiated to space at that location and time where it not for atmospheric absorption, most notably the large notch at a wavenumber of 15 cm-1. Of course, the actual energy radiated (ie, the area under the observed curve) is less than the surface radiation, and hence, the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere at that time and location has reduced the energy radiated to space at that time and location. It turns out, from multiple observations, that this is true at nearly all times and locations on the Earth's surface. Consequently, the average of the reduced energy radiated to space from all those times and locations represents a large global shortfall in energy relative to what would have occurred without the presence of the greenhouse effect. That, of course, is something Valentine does not want you to know, or think about under any circumstances. For if you do know it, and think about it you will know that the presence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect has been observed and known about from direct observation since 1970. And Valentine hides this from himself by criticizing simplified models as though they were all of climate science; and never, under any circumstances developing a complex model such as those developed by genuine climate scientists. And he hopes and prays that you will never cotton on, even if he manages to prove that a simplified model is, well, simplified; he does not thereby prove that more accurate models will not show the same basic effect shown in the simplified model. So, in the end, there is only one thing you really need to no about Valentine. He is a charlatan.
50813. John Hartz at 16:01 PM on 16 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       To learn more about Brian G Valentine and his views on climate change, check out DeSmog Blog’s profile of him by clicking here.
50814. climateadj at 14:43 PM on 16 December 2012
       Newest Yale Forum Video: A ‘Play-by-Play’ on Sandy with Kerry Emanuel
       Tom Curtis @13 Sorry for the very late response (busy week). I liked your rebuttal very much and I only have a few little quibbles. With oceans rising, I'm in agreement that storm surge damage should increase. However, as the coast line recedes an increasing area of properties become unviable and property exposure might be relatively constant. This could explain the lack of trend in property damages. People might decide, rightly, not to rebuild. In my graph, there seems to be a couple of quite periods that coincide with a negative AMO. This supports the SST/hurricane relationship. Why am I not finding a significant trend? It could simply be because the SST's close to the northeast coast haven't warmed much (in an absolute Kelvin sense). I haven't looked at this possibility. One very speculative hypothesis I can think of is that the increased melting of the Greenland Icecap is keeping the Labrador Current cold. The cold fresh water might be floating on the denser, brinier salt water. As for the non-hurricane charts you posted, they don't go back very far. This is a continuing debate as to how long a timeseries one needs to determine a trend. I will allow that there are many charts going in the direction of a more extreme meteorlogical world. However, depending on which metric one examines and which start date one chooses, the picture could change to that of more uncertainty. As for the "small" hurricanes of 1869, one of them flooded every river from Pennsylvania to New Brunswick. On the southern side it appears to have been a rainfall event. On the Northern side it certainly was a surge evert. Landing in southen Maine, it produced a storm surge of 8' in Moncton, NB (about 300 miles north). The Peticodiac River (pre-Causeway) had a Tidal Bore of ~6ft. From eye-witness statements, this bore was 8'. I should mention that the Peticodiac river is a tribuary of the Bay of Fundy, which in the head region has about a 50' tide. Which brings me back to the sea level increase. I visited a friend at his cottage on the Minas Basin recently (southern fork of Bay of Fundy). He said that when he was a kid they had a ballfield out front. I asked where it was now. Apparently the sea washed it away. Instead of ~300' in front of their cottage, there was only ~100ft. Regards.
50815. Brian G Valentine at 13:09 PM on 16 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       I'm a signatory to the "denialist letter" (your terminology). There are REASONS for this. This is not simply "ad hoc negativism"
50816. Brian G Valentine at 12:57 PM on 16 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       I think we need to be careful here, Hansen's and Ramanathan's interpretation are not quite the same. Hansen describes it as radiation increasing from higher levels in the atmosphere to maintain an equilibrium with (outer space), Ramanatan does not. Keep in mind too, that the oceans are not in equilibrium with the atmosphere, surely, as ocean evaporation takes place - and this is the bulk of the heat transfer of the ocean to drive the ocean temperature towards the air temperature. According to the World Meteorological Organization climate is defined as "Synthesis of weather conditions in a given area, characterized by long-term statistics (mean values, variances, probabilities of extreme values, etc.) of the meteorological elements in that area“ (International Meteorological Vocabulary. Sec. ed. WMO-No. 182. Geneva, 1992). However, what is considered in the center of this climate disputation: the globally average near-surface temperature of about {T} =288 K. This temperature has, if at all, only a minor physical relevance. Most explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect are related to temperature {T}. The explanation of the American Meteorological Society, for instance, reads: “The heating effect exerted by the atmosphere upon the Earth because certain trace gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc.) absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. Most of the sunlight incident on the Earth is transmitted through the atmosphere and absorbed at the Earth's surface. The surface tries to maintain energy balance in part by emitting its own radiation, which is primarily at the infrared wavelengths characteristic of the Earth's temperature. Most of the heat radiated by the surface is absorbed by trace gases in the overlying atmosphere and reemitted in all directions. The component that is radiated downward warms the Earth's surface more than would occur if only the direct sunlight were absorbed. The magnitude of this enhanced warming is the greenhouse effect. Earth's annual mean surface temperature of 15°C is 33°C higher as a result of the greenhouse effect than the mean temperature resulting from radiative equilibrium of a blackbody at the Earth's mean distance from the sun. ..." These 33 K are based on physical nonsense because the temperature of the so-called planetary radiative equilibrium, T_e = 255 K, and the globally averaged near-surface temperature are two completely different temperatures. The temperature T_e = 255 K is computed using a planetary albedo of 30 percent. This value, however, is only acceptable for the entire earth-atmosphere system. For an earth in the absence of an atmosphere for which this 255 K should be valid, the planetary albedo should be much lower. This was already discussed by Budyko in his textbook on climatic change published in 1977. Another requirement is that the surface temperature is homogeneously distributed over the entire planet. We know that this is wrong even in case of the earth having an atmosphere. If we perform the same calculations for our moon, we will obtain a temperature of T_e = 270 K for a planetary albedo of 12 percent. This is more than 55 K higher than the value determined by Monstein (2001) using remote-sensing-techniques (see attachment). More than 60 years ago, there were also remote-sensing observations, the results were higher than those of Monstein, but 30 K lower than T_e = 270 K. Consequently, we may conclude that this prediction of a temperature of a planetary radiative equilibrium is based on assumptions that are not fulfilled and the results notably disagree with observations. Often, it is stated that the moon is an inappropriate instance because of its slow rotation velocity. If this would be true (it is not), why did Pierrehumbert use this formula in case of the Venus (see his physics today paper, 2011)? The rotation velocity of the Venus is four times lower than that of the moon. It is interesting that the Enquete Commission of the German Parliament "Schutz der Erdatmosphere" (Protection of the Earth's Atmosphere) related in its report from 1990 these 33 K to various greenhouse gases by following Kondratyev. The explanation of the atmospheric greenhouse effect by Ramanathan et al. is not better. It is also related to {T} = 288 K. The authors argue that this temperature leads to a radiative emission of 390 W/m^2, but at the top of the atmosphere the emission into the space is only 236 W/m^2 . Thus, they argue that "the intervening atmosphere causes a significant reduction in the long-wave emission to space. This reduction in the long-wave emission to space is referred to as the greenhouse effect." This argument is unacceptable of two reasons: First of all, the power law of Stefan and Boltzmann cannot be applied to an averaged surface temperature because it is based on two integrations, namely the integration of the Planck over all wavelengths (or frequencies) and the integration over the adjacent half space. The latter is an integration over a vector field. Secondly, the globally averaged surface temperature has no physical meaning in the global energy budget for the earth-atmosphere system. In the well-known figure of Trenberth et al there is an energy budget for the earth's surface. The so-called net radiation in the infrared range (emitted radiation minus down-welling radiation) amounts to 63 W/m^2. This value serves to "warm" the atmosphere, but not the surface. It is much smaller than the sum of the fluxes of sensible and latent heat that also warm the atmosphere. Warming means the increase of the total internal energy of the atmosphere. If the down-welling infrared radiation is related to a temperature of the atmosphere, T_a, as commonly done in so-called Dines-type two-layer energy balance models for the earth-atmosphere system, one can determine this net radiation in the infrared range by many pairs of {T} and T_a values. So far these problems deal only with the definition of the "greenhouse effect." The absolute misunderstanding comes from the consequence of what the "greenhouse effect" must imply. If higher levels of the atmosphere (stratosphere) must cool in response to the effect, then heat transfer by radiation from lower levels to higher levels in the atmosphere necessarily increases, as the temperature differences increase, by assumption. Thus some sort of "decreased heat transfer" from the low levels to the higher levels cannot possibly be true. Furthermore, any radiation imbalance caused by this disturbance will (eventually) be equilibrated by molecular conduction. True, the component of molecular conduction is small, and convection effects are negligible. Nevertheless this phenomenon happens over the same time period that the radiation effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is assumed to warm the surface. The Earth and its atmosphere are an open system. The consequences of radiation heat transfer are different in an open and a closed system. This is where the problem comes in, and the misunderstanding of what the "greenhouse effect" must imply in an open system
50817. FGD135 at 12:49 PM on 16 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Doh! I now realise that the temperature is an 11-year average, so naturally it will look different to most temperature presentations. But, dana, please could you still redo the graphs (figures 2 & 3) with a temperature profile that is not a running average. Thanks.
50818. FGD135 at 12:16 PM on 16 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Dana, could you redo those graphs with a temperature dataset other than NASA GISS? The reason I ask is because I suspect you may see a much better correlation if you do. That NASA GISS dataset is a bit extreme for the temperature. Most temperature graphs I see show a peak in about 1998, with a gentle decline since then. This NASA GISS shows nothing like that. I don't think you have faithfully conveyed the message in Rawls' submission. There was great import to what he had to say about the chapter 7 admissions, but you reported none of this. It was as though your intent was to obfuscate his message. Here are his bombshells, for the benefit of your readers: "The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is." And, "This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing." And, "The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work." And finally: "The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum."
50819. Tom Curtis at 11:17 AM on 16 December 2012
       CO2 effect is saturated
       curiousd @185: 1) Switching between Pressure and Relative Humidity changes the way H2O concentrations are calculated with altitude. Essentially, with Pressure, H2O is a function of pressure for the standard atmosphere. As such, it will not rise nor fall if you offset the surface temperature. In contrast, with the water vapour factor set to Relative Humidity, using the surface temperature offset to increase temperature will increase the H2O concentration, while decreasing temperature will decrease it. You can explore the exact effects in greater detail by looking at the output file under atmospheric profile for H2O. 2) The method you describe will not calculate the flux weighted mean altitude of OLR. Essentially, at each altitude, z, the value recorded is the OLR from z-1 minus absorption at z, plus emissions at z. What you require is the sum of ((emissions at z - absorption of emissions from z between z and space)*z) for all z, divided by / the sum of (emissions at z - absorption of emissions from z between z and space) for all z. I strongly suspect that Modtran will not provide you with that information. If it does, it will only be by careful perusal of the output file. What may be of more interest, however, is the effective altitude of radiation, defined as the lowest altitude such that, black body radiation with an emissivity of one at the temperature of that altitude equals the total power of the OLR at TOA. The formula for the relevant temperature is, from the Stefan-Boltzman law: T= (Iout/(5.67*10^-8))^0.25
50820. voice of reason at 10:18 AM on 16 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Even as a skeptic unqualified in science the solar paragraph looked wrong to me so not really surprised. But what was a surprise was the summary of the rest of AR5 by Roger Pielke here. Not wanting to put the cart before the horse they seem to have made pretty much a total U turn, with most expectations of extreme weather etc pretty much quashed. The full report can be downloaded for those with the time and disk space, but no reason these quotes wouldn't be genuine. http://climatedepot.com/a/18800/Prof-Pielke-Jr-Analysis-of-UN-IPCC-Draft-report--IPCC-shows-almost-complete-reversal-from-AR4-on-trends-in-drought-hurricanes-floods
50821. curiousd at 09:26 AM on 16 December 2012
       CO2 effect is saturated
       Modtran questions Thanks to info here I think Modtran on the David Archer website would be good for me to learn about. Some questions: 1. What does the water vapor parameter mean? 2. I am trying to compute the "flux weighted mean altitude of the OLR" by looking "down" from various altitudes. So with the default parameters, then at 1 Km, upward OLR flux is 406 W/m squared and so 1 Km x 406 W/m sqd is 406 Km W/m sqd And at 10 Km, upward flux is 306 w/m squared and 10 Km x 306 W/m sqd is 3060 Km W/m sqd If I keep doing this I dont think the "flux weighted mean altitude of emission to space' is well defined. It keeps getting bigger and bigger all the way up to 70 km. What am I doing wrong, here? Obviously something,or have the whole idea wrong?
50822. dana1981 at 09:07 AM on 16 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       ajason @46 - try listening to scientists instead of politicians. They're the ones who are really alarmed about climate change. I'm not sure why you're talking about politicians at all, since this post is about a scientific report.
50823. Icarus at 08:54 AM on 16 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       OHC to 2km looks to have risen by about 10^23 Joules over the last decade, implying a global energy imbalance of around 0.6W/m². Trying to get an idea of what this means for the climate, I calculated that this magnitude of energy imbalance, maintained constantly, would boil the entire world's oceans dry in about 33,000 years... which seems a disturbingly short time. I know that maintaining such an energy imbalance over thousands of years is not necessarily a realistic scenario, but are the numbers at least roughly right? I was working on the basis of 1 billion cubic kilometres of water having to warm by 80K at 4.18J/cm³/K.
50824. DSL at 08:40 AM on 16 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       ajason, while I appreciate some of your sentiments re politicians, your analysis is flawed in several ways. 1. You assume that everyday humans are going to be immune to the rhetorical force of opinion-makers and their employers. These opinion-makers are highly effective in situations where everyday humans do not have the time, energy, means, and/or training to read the science and come to their own conclusions. Surely you know people whose political expressions could be mistaken for plagiarism of a popular pundit's talk show transcript. 2. The real truth? The real truth for an everyday human occurs when that human's empirical context is significantly changed over a period of time long enough to convince the human that the change isn't temporary. All other evidence arrives mediated in some way by other humans. If science is correct, then the real truth will arrive when we're already committed to the worst outcomes, because the real truth has to fight against the guiding hands of the opinion-makers (the infinitive "to convince" then becomes the key element in the above formulation). 3. I'm certain the Koch brothers have the best intentions, according to their own ideology. I'm certain that they think their corruption of the democratic process is a necessary evil to further human progress. I'm certain that Al Gore and James Inhofe have the best of intentions according to their own ideologies. Not sure about Morano. You want to do something about politicians? Teach the public how to think critically, create conditions where they are motivated to do so, and encourage open, non-hostile dialogue. That may require some fundamental changes, because, again, most people don't have the time, energy, training, and/or means to engage the science of just climate (among all of the other pressing issues). 4. Relativity isn't rapidly stressing the biosphere. This is a pressing issue. Though if I recall correctly, Einstein didn't leave alone relativity in one respect: the bomb. I recall he was quite vocal in his disgust that his fellow humans would use his scientific contribution to kill each other and generally make each other miserable.
50825. ajason at 08:10 AM on 16 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       In regards to those climate change proponents, I'd say are fairly pathetic in that they don’t let everyday humans decide for themselves if it’s true. Those proponents refuse to understand the concept of attaching themselves to bureaucracy which will tax or make people bend to their will, is appalling. There will always be arguments as to who is wrong and who is right in the climate change debate. The real truth will ferret out the public’s course of action, not from edicts or laws passed by politicians. When one side attaches themselves to that they are already going down the wrong side of the rabbit hole. How many times have people been lied to by politicians, that they hold the whole grail in the solution of things? It’s December 2012 in America and why aren’t we seeing the benefits of Nafta, and Gatt, passed in 1994, since they were supposed to be the next best thing since sliced bread? The road to hell is paved by the path of good intentions. It’s this distrust that should drive the proponents away from this resolve. Look at Einstein’s special theory of relativity, he published it and let it be. He didn’t get politicians involved in making people like or accept it. If the scientist really cared about people, then care about people and leave politics out of the equation.
50826. scaddenp at 06:33 AM on 16 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Hmm, given that Ramanathan, Hansen believe in same GH effect (modern codes build on Ramanathan), I have a bad feeling about this. Is this going to be: AGW violates 2nd law of thermodynamics (please read extensively into thread and also do the textbook stuff at Science of Doom) the greenhouse effect has been falsified Postma has disproved the greenhouse effect Or something novel? Please no "slaying the sky dragon" stuff. This is a science site.
50827. scaddenp at 06:10 AM on 16 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       "You'd have to argue that natural forcings are highly negative then" Sorry, why do you think that? See the IPCC report for breakdown of all the forcing, anthropogenic and natural. Anthropogenic are both postitive (GHG) and negative (aerosol, land use change) but not a lot change in any natural forcing (eg slight increase in solar, very very slight decrease in milankovich forcing). Evidence for the manmade cause comes from multiple sources (models validation from forcing, direct measurement of the increased radiation on surface and attribution of that, lack of any other explanation).
50828. scaddenp at 06:00 AM on 16 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       It should also be pointed out that in single model runs, you can get long periods with the ocean absorbing heat (which is La Nina). Keenlyside et al 2008 attempted decadal prediction by closely initialising models to actual condition and coming up with a long pause. Other modellers do not believe models have skill for type of prediction (see here ) but it shows that pauses in surface temperature warming (but not total ocean heat content) are consistant with modelling.
50829. John Hartz at 03:31 AM on 16 December 2012
       2012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #9
       @Michael Sweet #1: Only Roger Pielke Jr. can answer your question. It will be interesting to see whether or not he posts a critique of the Nature paper you have cited on his website. I suspect that he will do so, For purposes of clarification, the link that you embedded in your post is to the article, From Risk to Opportunity 2012: The Greening of Insurance posted on the website Insurance in A Climate of Change. This website is part of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division.
50830. Eric56 at 03:23 AM on 16 December 2012
       Doha Climate Summit Ends With No New CO2 Cuts or Funding
       GHGAT (green house gas added tax) rather than for example state sales taxes? This debate could be brought to the consumer... although as a practical matter, the GHG content in a particular product, exported by a particular nation, would be the source of great debate and cause some headaches within the WTO...
50831. dorlomin at 22:41 PM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Great visuals from the SkS team once more. Nothing makes the case like a good clean visual representation of data.
50832. michael sweet at 22:40 PM on 15 December 2012
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       DPC, In this case scientists predicted over 100 years in advance that increased CO2 would lead to warming. There is no room for citing "correlation does not necessarily mean causation." It is the deniers who try to explain warming by fitting magical natural cycles, scientists predicted in advance. Just what type of proof do you want? Spencer Weart has a detailed history of the scientific discovery of global warming that is hyperlinked. You will find your answers there.
50833. michael sweet at 21:56 PM on 15 December 2012
       2012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #9
       Science magazine published This article on insurance industry responses to Global warming (this link is a summary, there is a link to the full article). From the article: "Increasingly, multifaceted weather- and climate-related insurance losses involve property damage, business disruptions, health impacts, and legal claims against polluters. Worldwide, insured claims that were paid for weather catastrophes average $50 billion/ year (about 40% of total direct insured and uninsured costs); they have more than doubled each decade since the 1980s, adjusted for inflation. Insurers must also tackle risks emerging from society’s responses to climate change, including how structures are built and energy is produced" How come Pielke Jr says insurance costs are not going up when this article says doubling every decade? This article states that insurance is 7% of the global economy. They discuss market mechanisms where insurance companies are responding to AGW.
50834. DPC at 21:36 PM on 15 December 2012
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       I find this a really disappointing article. For me, this issue is the main one that I would like an answer to. I accept that CO2 is rising (due to human activity), global temperatures are rising and that there is a strong correlation between the two. But correlation does not necessarily mean causation. And it's pretty basic that increased levels of CO2 causes an increase in the Earth's temperature, but the thing I wonder about is whether it is on a scale large enough to account for all (or at least the majority) of the global warming experienced in the last several decades. That's why I read this article, wanting more information on that specific point. But unfortunately all the article contains is more of the same as you get everywhere else when it comes to the climate change debate - ANALOGIES!!! Analogies are not proof in any way, shape or form. I could just as easily write a few analogies showing that a trace element of something has no impact. It doesn't add anything at all to this specific question. I would really appreciate if someone could add some actual proof on this issue. Thanks. P.S. Have just found this site and, despite my comments above, I have found it very useful. Have looked at several arguments/responses that I had not heard before and found them a useful resource. Thanks.
       Moderator Response: [TD] Skeptical Science "Argument" posts intentionally are narrow. That is one of the strengths of Skeptical Science, as a complement to other sites and books that provide broader treatments. For example, if you are interested in the narrow argument that CO2 is only a trace gas, you can easily find the narrow rebuttal to that argument without having to wade through a bunch of other material that does not interest you at this moment. The "CO2 is just a trace gas " post was intended to address only that one narrow argument against CO2's causal role. A post more directly and comprehensively addressing causation is "Increasing CO2 has little to no effect."

       You don't have to browse through the entire Arguments list to find relevant ones, though. As a newcomer you will find helpful the broad guide to the posts in The Big Picture post you can get to by clicking the big button on the home page.

       Even then you might find you want broader or deeper information. Skeptical Science does not try to provide all that (with some exceptions). Another of Skeptical Science's intents and strengths is to provide concise and readily accessible links to other resources for that additional information. Some of that is the peer-reviewed literature linked in every post, but often the comments provide just as much information. Michael Sweet already gave you an excellent reference. You might also watch the video lecture by climatologist Ray Pierrehumbert from the U. of Chicago, titled "Successful Predictions," from the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference a couple weeks ago.
50835. Ray at 15:55 PM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Thanks DSL and dana1981 it'll teach me to pay much greater attention to the captions in figures
50836. dana1981 at 15:17 PM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Ray @36 - Figures 2 and 3 do extend beyond 2000. They don't extend further because they're 11-year running averages. Cosmic ray data in Figure 3 also comes from a 2003 paper. brr @40 - no, anthro accounting for >100% warming would only require a slightly negative net natural forcing, which is quite plausible over the past half century. SoundOff @41 - good to see the IPCC getting attribution right, i.e. noting that the net anthro contribution is >50% of warming, and the GHG contribution is >100% since 1950.
50837. SoundOff at 14:13 PM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       I was just reading through the draft of the upcoming AR5 linked to earlier. Here’s a quote from the draft that tells us the latest scientific consensus thinking on causes of warming.

       Quantification of the contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing using multi-signal detection and attribution analyses show it is extremely likely that human activities (with very high confidence) have caused most (at least 50%) of the observed increase in global average temperatures since 1951. Detection and attribution analyses show that the greenhouse gas warming contribution of 0.6°C–1.4°C was very likely greater than the observed warming of 0.6°C over the period 1951–2010. … Taken together with other evidence this indicates that it is extremely unlikely that the contribution from solar forcing to the warming since 1950 was larger than that from greenhouse gases. Better understanding of pre-instrumental data shows that observed warming over this period is far outside the range of internal climate variability estimated from such records, and it is also far outside the range of variability simulated in climate models. Based on the surface temperature record, we therefore assess that it is virtually certain that warming since 1950 cannot be explained by internal variability alone.

       Note the use of the words “very high confidence”, “very likely”, “extremely unlikely” and “virtually certain”.
50838. DSL at 14:05 PM on 15 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       When you answer, answer in the right thread. There are a variety, and navigation is easy. Let's just go with the standard greenhouse effect: CO2 absorbs/emits at pressure-broadened bands in the thermal infrared range, the range within which the sun-warmed earth emits. Increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 means greater likelihood that radiation will be absorbed before being radiated to space. Once absorbed, conduction or re-rediation can occur, but the direction of re-radiation is random, and the process repeats until the energy is transformed or is radiated to space. Increasing atmospheric CO2 therefore effectively decreases the cooling efficiency of the climate system. Oceans store energy via GHE by skin temp increase, preventing the sun-warmed top meter (or so) from cooling as much convectively. Oceans also warm via GHE indirectly through a variety of mixing and land-interaction processes. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does result in downwelling longwave radiation has been instrumentally verified (e.g. Puckrin et al. 2004, among others). And of course the satellite inference and decades of lab work and practical application. I don't know what direction you're going to take this, so I can't suggest an appropriate thread for your response. I'm all ears with an open mind. If you can show me how increasing atmospheric CO2 does not result in greater energy storage within the climate system, I'll be a very happy person.
50839. brr at 13:52 PM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       dana @35 Possible, but not exactly likely. You'd have to argue that natural forcings are highly negative then, including certain feedbacks that AGW requires to be positive. Like I said, reality says it'll be somewhere in between.
50840. DSL at 13:46 PM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       brr, you sound like a merchant of doubt. Somewhere between 100% natural and 100% anthro? That would require the falsification of the greenhouse gas effect. Solar de-coupled from surface temp fifty years ago. It had been tracking surface temp fairly well prior. See Pasini et al. (2012) and other attribution studies. Solar has been flat or falling for fifty years, and we just went through the deepest 11-year cycle trough in the instrumental period, yet global ice mass loss actually accelerated during that time. ENSO and AMO are not sources of energy. At best, you could argue that El Nino is moving energy stored long ago, but you're going to have to provide a mechanism that works. Unless you like long odds and hanging out at the far ends of error bars, AMO lags surface temp. What other mechanisms are you proposing for the source of the trends in surface temp, OHC, and global ice mass loss?
50841. Brian G Valentine at 13:38 PM on 15 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Why certainly, Mr Digital Subscribers Line, happy to oblige. You must first give me your interpretation of the "atmospheric greenhouse effect." There are numerous of them (Hansen, AMS, Ramanathan ...) Pick your favorite, and I will show why the reasoning is false. Will you change your opinion about the effect if you are shown why your interpretation cannot be valid? (-snip-). I will only do this exercise once.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.
50842. DSL at 13:37 PM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Ray, look closely. Look at the increments. The answer for the blue line in fig. 3 is in the caption.
50843. Ray at 13:14 PM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Apologies I should have written Figures 2 and 3
50844. Ray at 13:11 PM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Can you advise why the graphs in figures 1 and 2 don't include years later than 2000?
50845. KR at 12:53 PM on 15 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       julesdingle - "...increased frequency of cool la ninas and no hot el ninos...." The ENSO is best described as an aperiodic variation, somewhat chaotic in nature: it doesn't cycle back and forth at regular intervals, and there are significant stretches more heavily El Nino as well as La Nina. The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is perhaps our longest direct observation of the ENSO; it is defined as the difference between sea surface air pressure anomalies at Tahiti and Darwin. Note that in the SOI higher values are La Nina's, and lower values are El Nino's - flipped relative to the more common representations: [Source] It should be clear from this that the recent prevalence of La Nina's is not at all unusual - the 1990's, for example, consisted mostly of El Nino's, while much of the 1950's through 1970's La Nina was more common.
50846. dana1981 at 12:12 PM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Indeed, well said by Sherwood. brr @33 - you're missing the distinct possibility that more than 100% of the recent warming is anthropogenic (i.e. that natural influences are in the net cooling direction). But I'd put my money on something close to 100% anthropogenic warming over the past ~50 years.
50847. mikeh1 at 11:32 AM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Professor Sherwood again. This time interviewed by New Scientist and making the obvious point.

       The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are," says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. "If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence.

50848. brr at 11:19 AM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Rob @22 Whilst it's NOT uncertain whether solar caused the last 50 years of warming, it's also NOT certain that humans caused the last 50 years of warming. Say what you will about graphs such as that in figure 1 of this article, those studies don't quantify ALL natural and anthropogenic sources, only subsets. One may have ENSO but miss AMO. Another may have the AMO but miss the PDO. I think we will find the reality is most definitely somewhere between 100% natural or 100% human. Fingering humans for all the recent warming is as ludicrous as fingering solar. Both sides fall for THAT trap.
50849. panzerboy at 11:14 AM on 15 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Dana1981 @31, Thanks, that's what happens when I search for text (Cosmic Ray) in a scanned pdf. Doh!
50850. julesdingle at 11:04 AM on 15 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       Thanks gws for taking the time to answer. Every answer triggers a bigger question or at least a more in depth one. The ENSO question for me is the 'apparent'[I use that just because what appears to a layman to be this or that is neither here nor there] increased frequency of cool la ninas and no hot el ninos. I am sure someone will correct me but if the ocean has heat how come it is not on the heat[or having more intense] el ninos cycle. The first question is really what will happen to ocean heat- is it a heat sink that will give up its energy- will it just continue to absorb more energy- will it mainly just defrost the Arctic? [btw I am familiar with the CO2-ghg- surface temp data].

Prev  1009  1010  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  Next