Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 Next
Comments 50951 to 51000:
-
Bernard J. at 22:34 PM on 6 December 2012It's El Niño
Kevin, your compelling posts as they stand are quite accessible anyway, so I wouldn't rush to a summary version. And it would be extremely interesting to first wait for Tisdale's response to your approach. He might also consider properly answering the hanging questions directed at him, so that the underlying physical assumptions of your model and his can be appropriately referenced and grounded in real-world conditions. Without a proper summary from him, beginning at first principles, his implicit-bootstrap model of global warming is laying rather bloodied in the middle of the road. -
Tom Curtis at 22:33 PM on 6 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
I get rather tired of asinine deniers whose first response to a rebutal is "What you've done is set up a straw man". Such purely tactical claims are well known to be false. In this case, they can be seen to be false by anyone willing to read the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics thread, which begins with the quote:""The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist." (Gerhard Gerlich)"
The simple problem here is that, it is a fact that there are deniers who deny even the simplest science; that this is embarrassing for deniers who wish to pretend that denial is rational; and so many such deniers resort to their basic strategy for dealing with uncomfortable truths - denial. -
Kevin C at 22:10 PM on 6 December 2012It's El Niño
The final step in testing the the validity of Bob’s and my models of the relationship between Nino34 and Rest-of-the-world SST (and what conclusions may be drawn from them) is to validate the models. I thought this was going to take multiple posts, but the results are so clear cut that we can do it in one. The most fundamental test which can be applied to any scientific hypothesis is whether it has predictive power - i.e. whether it can predict observations which were not used in making the hypothesis. In Popper’s model of the scientific method, this constitutes a ‘severe test’, which can falsify a model if the prediction is wrong, or strengthen our confidence in it if the prediction is right. So let’s apply that kind of test to both models. We need some data which the models have not seen. Fortuntely, ERSST SST and Nino34 data are available for over a century, although on monthly rather than weekly resolution. The change in resolution means that we will have to ensure we can reproduce Bob’s results when we switch to the longer data run. The ERSST monthly anomaly and Nino data (in various versions) is available on the KNMI data explorer, and you can also select latitude and longitude limits to reproduce Bob’s rest-of-the-world SST anomaly. I’ve made two relevant claims here: Firstly that Bob’s detrending of the data on 1982-2012 without including a volcanic term produces the wrong result, and secondly that matching the scales of the Nino and temperature data produces artifacts through upscaling the artifacts caused by inadequacies of the model. To test those, we’ll apply Bob’s scaling method - i.e. detrend only on the 1982- data, and match the variances of the data and model. The result is shown below:
First we need to check that the post 1982 features are still present - they are, and show the same features as Bob identified in the weekly data.
However, when we look at the pre 1982 agreement, the fit is nonexistent. As I predicted, the trend is well off.
So, what if we were to fix the trend? We’ll let Bob’s model cheat and see the trend for the whole data by detrending the SSTs on the entire period. What you got is this:
The fit is still very poor. If we follow Bob’s approach and interpret the deviations, we do see the Mt Agung eruption in 1962, but we also predict major ‘warming events’ in the 50’s and early 60’s. No such steps are present in the SST data - in fact the 40's-60's show very little trend at all.
That’s it. The hypothesis is falsified.
For completeness, we can also apply the same tests to my model. Since I fit the Nino term, the volcano term and the trend simultaneously, it makes no difference to the model if or how how we detrend the data beforehand. Here is the model fit using the temperature data detrended as in the first figure above:
And here is the same result using the trend from the second figure:
The fit is fairly good, and well within the uncertainty bounds on the trend term. The 2-lag + volcano model seems to have predictive power, even to the extent of predicting a trend over a period equal to the model period.
Finally, we can check what my model gives when it sees all the data:
Apart from a slight correction to the trend, the results are almost identical.
So that’s it. Not only do the post-1982 statistics overwhelmingly favour my model over Bob’s, Bob’s method is falsified by looking at the pre-1982 data, whereas mine performs pretty well. In retrospect we could have saved a lot of time by going straight to the longer data, but then we probably wouldn’t have worked out all the details of what was going on.
It's been suggested that I try and write an accessible summary of this. I'll try, but I've put in a lot of time already, so don't expect it immediately.
-
Steve Case at 21:00 PM on 6 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
What you've done is set up a straw man argument implying that skeptics dispute that the greenhouse effect is real, but you provided no supporting evidence. -
Esop at 20:31 PM on 6 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
At least Ivar Giæver is honest about where he gets his funding: He admits to being sponsored by Statoil (the worlds 13th largest oil company). He says so in his Bio at the Nobel prize organization website: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1973/giaever-bio.html -
dana1981 at 17:12 PM on 6 December 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
mjp @65, I'll include the last individual frames in the next Escalator update, which should come in the next couple of weeks. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:07 PM on 6 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
Chris G: And then they will convince themselves that no one told them, or there wasn't enough evidence, or ... Most likely a paradoxical "the government failed us," ignoring any attention to consistency w/regard to whining about regulations, forgetting that "the government" obediently and as demanded took its cues from citizens who insisted on ignoring external costs, overlooking decades of complaining about "government scientists" and their "liberal agenda," etc. Don't expect compunction. -
scaddenp at 16:41 PM on 6 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
"and him responding 'Obamacare'." To which I would say surprise, surprise - a right-winger. It would be interesting to know why pre-disposed to deny then - didnt like Al Gore, or doesnt like the proposed solutions. Surely choosing fantasies cant be a political bias - left-wingers have their own share of fantasies - but climate denial and the right wing go together. -
Chris G at 16:25 PM on 6 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
It shouldn't really be pick-on-Aaron-day, but I would like to point out that some of the most popular spokesman in the list above, Watts, Nova, Monckton, can hardly be called 'experts'. They are just very good at telling people what they want to hear. Some of the other are, or have been, valuable researchers, but they are in a very small minority with regard to the seriousness of the problem. If I have a strange lump, and I'm not an oncologist myself, I'm probably going to choose the course of action recommended by the majority of those who are. Eating enzymes and hot peppers has not worked out so well for one of my family members. She really, really did not want to believe her situation was that serious. It is a sad metaphor. -
Chris G at 15:56 PM on 6 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
... this would have happened no matter what we did. I didn't know how to finish that thought for a minute, but I think this is going to be the most typical/common view from the ex-denier group. I'm thinking maybe they're right, but we must try. -
Chris G at 15:50 PM on 6 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
So, a coworker the other day showed me the Rose article on there being no warming for 15 years. We went back and forth a few times on the flaws in the article, and ended with me asking him what physical process was stopping CO2 from absorbing and emitting IR, and him responding 'Obamacare'. (He knows better; I think it was an attempt to change the subject.) My point is, it doesn't matter what is said about the greenhouse effect or anything else; nothing short of harsh reality will convince him that BAU is not going to last indefinitely. His mind becomes like a greased pig in a corner; try to pin him down hard facts, and he either acts as though the last century or two of research is all hypothetical, or he switches to, 'Even if what you say is true, there's nothing we can do about it.', and then accuses environmentalists of wanting to kill off half the people by wrecking the economy. Ironically, that is the path we are trying to avoid. (See the World Bank report on 4 degrees.) I think it will take some large shock to reset the world view of people like this. Unfortunately, nothing so far has seemed to be enough, which leads me to believe that things will be bad, and we'll be committed to worse, before this happens. And then they will convince themselves that no one told them, or there wasn't enough evidence, or ... -
mjp at 12:56 PM on 6 December 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
guys the update version of the escalator is great can you provide non-animated versions of the skeptic and realist gifs for use on forums that don't allow animated posts? -
skywatcher at 11:59 AM on 6 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Non-physicists can always claim acceptance of 1st and 2nd law but then fail to translate into more complicated physics. The latest we have seen here is "LW doesnt warm the oceans because it only penetrates a few microns".
And that includes such skeptic luminaries as Bob Tisdale, seen in response to KR on comment #134 on this thread... Physics... Who needs it when you can doubt anything! -
scaddenp at 09:33 AM on 6 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Gingerbaker - "Cloud Cuckoo Land? Teleported to Venus? " Well interesting answers. Favourite would be "sensitivity is low - usually needs a magical negative feedback (Spenser, Lindzen like clouds) or a belief that empirical data has somehow disproved Clausius–Clapeyron. Or perhaps more reasonably that a sensitivity of 2 "isnt that bad" (better than taxes or anything else that might interfere with "freedom" or change lifestyle). Non-physicists can always claim acceptance of 1st and 2nd law but then fail to translate into more complicated physics. The latest we have seen here is "LW doesnt warm the oceans because it only penetrates a few microns". In short, a lot of people more interested in finding some plausible excuse for doing nothing than facing reality. My favourites are those who hold to a political ideology more strongly than a commitment to reality. The argument goes like this. "Solutions for AGW violate my political ideology ergo AGW doesnt exist" rather than trying to find a solution within their ideology. Basically an admission of a bankrupt political ideology. -
Bernard J. at 07:40 AM on 6 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
DB re my post at #21. I have no problem with the page. It shows the options to view or to download the video, and it asks me for my name and password. I originally registered using a work computer, but I did access it once from this computer about a year ago. If I can find the diary in which I wrote my log-on details I'll comfirm that the video can be accessed, but if I can see the front page I assume that it's OK.Moderator Response: [Sph] The link was apparently broken in some way, but (again, apparently) Dikran fixed it, so... all should be well. -
Tom Curtis at 07:23 AM on 6 December 2012CO2 effect is saturated
curiousd @182, the way to read the graph is to take a projected increase in CO2 in the lower section, and draw a line across till it intersects with a particular climate sensitivity. From that point you take a vertical line upwards to read of the expected temperature increase and environmental consequences. The graph shows an example of that procedure for the central climate sensitivity estimate at 450 ppmv (dashed lines), showing also the 95% confidence interval on climate sensitivity. The graph needs two important caveats. First, it shows only CO2 increases, but CO2 is not the only anthropogenic forcing in the atmosphere. As it happens, CO2 represents about two thirds of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings, and the negative anthropogenic forcing from aerosols approximately balances the forcings from anthropogenic GHG other than CO2. Therefore, for now, the total anthropogenic forcing is approximated by that of CO2 alone. However, aerosols have a short lifetime in the atmosphere, and it is expected that as China and India develop their economy, they will follow the West in limiting the emissions of aerosol. This will increase the expected anthropogenic forcing by up to 50% above the CO2 approximation by the end of this century. On the plus side, the graph above shows the Charney (or Equilibrium) Climate Sensitivity, ie, the climate sensitivity after equilibrium is achieved with no changes to slow feedbacks like albedo from ice sheets. (Note that albedo change from changes in snow cover and sea ice are considered fast feedbacks.) The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity takes time to be achieved. The immediate challenge is from the Transient Climate Response, which is the approximate immediate temperature impact of a slowly increasing CO2 level. It is about two thirds of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (though estimates vary). This means that the estimate of current temperature increase since the pre-industrial for a 380 ppmv CO2 increase is approximately two thirds of the 1.3 C ECS, or about 0.8 C - which is a reasonably accurate prediction. That is just shy of the point where major impacts are going to be felt, according to the chart, but means there is another 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C "in the pipeline" even with no further increase in CO2. "In the pipeline", however, is an uncertain consequence. It turns out that in the short term (one to two centuries), and with no further emissions, CO2 levels fall at about the rate that the pipeline increase comes through. That means that under ideal conditions the effective increase in temperature could be limited to approximately the transient climate response. Of course, that assumes no further emissions, including from agriculture and construction, or from feedbacks such as methane release from tundra; and ignores the expected increase from reduced aerosol load. It does give us some hope of undershooting the full Equilibrium Climate Response if we genuinely initiate a zero carbon economy. Finally, the BEST temperature indice is a land only temperture, and overstates global temperature increase as a result. You should use (in order of probable accuracy) HadCRUT4, NCDC, or GISTEMP LOTI instead. -
Klapper at 06:09 AM on 6 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Dana1981@27: I looked at your Table 1 from the March post on 2013. I was attempting to reverse engineer to see what baseline you were using for the GISS anomaly. I regressed the observed vs predicted anomaly and got an RSQ'd of 0.29 (2001 to 2011 inclusive). However, looking for the baseline by backcalc'ing from the predicted number and ENSO/TSI/CO2 adjustments, I got a jumble of numbers. If I took the baseline to be 0.427 and redid the prediction through straight addition of your by year adjustments I got a much better RSQ'd (0.63), quite impressive actually. I may have made an error, or your formula may have exponents or coefficients I don't know about. Either that or Table 1 has some errors. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:59 AM on 6 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Klapper @25... No, actually, it has very little impact on the conclusions, if any at all. And, in fact, if we were to turn the question around and apply it to a "skeptical" argument I might wonder why there was a truncation and I might look into it. If it did not change the overall conclusions I would certainly not make any accusations of deceit as you did. -
vrooomie at 01:10 AM on 6 December 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #48
AML, I'll be interested in your thoughts on Stefansson's book. -
citizenschallenge at 00:41 AM on 6 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
Thanks SkS, Daniel, great post. Regarding Pieter Tans "What's Up With the Weather?" ~ ~ ~ "WHAT'S UP WITH THE WEATHER?" PBS Airdate: April 18, 2000 Transcript: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/27gwwarming.html ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ YouTube - Global Warming. Part 3 - Man-made or natural? (1of2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUhP_XJyztE -
JohnL4 at 23:55 PM on 5 December 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
plfreeman? So... what ever happened to plfreeman, who was going to re-analyze your data and come up with better curves?Moderator Response: [DB] That was the only comment ever placed at SkS by that person. -
Gingerbaker at 22:59 PM on 5 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Ever notice how these meticulous folks claim there has been no warming, but never seem to offer an explanation for where all the trillions of calories of heat incrementally added to the system by the Greenhouse Effect may have wandered off to. Cloud Cuckoo Land? Teleported to Venus? Should that not be our first question to these highly ethical gentlepersons? -
Gingerbaker at 22:37 PM on 5 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
As far as I can tell, none of the members of the "Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club" really truly believes in the Greenhouse Effect. Because if they did, when they make claims like "There has been no warming since year xxxx", they would accompany such a claim with a hypothesis about where those greenhouse-derived incremental calories of heat disappeared to. Yet I have never seen such an accounting ever offered. Evidently, energy CAN be destroyed, or at least ignored, comfortably compartmentalized away with an ironic twist of the arm of the Laws of Thermodynamics. -
mspelto at 22:29 PM on 5 December 2012Weighing change in Antarctica
Nicely explained Matt. GRACE does not address the changes in ice shelves which in terms of volume have not been significant in most of the regions. Regions 21, 24-26 in your Figure 4 being the exception. Thwaites Ice Tongueand Jones Ice Shelf for example. What means would you suggest for incorporating the ice shelves? -
curiousd at 21:05 PM on 5 December 2012CO2 effect is saturated
Tom Curtis 174: That is a spectacular graphic you post showing concrete environmental consequences related to climate sensitivity. But I am having trouble figuring out how to interpret this graphic, and I suspect my audience, therefore, would have more trouble. Lets see..Left hand part of the silver section..corresponds to 450 ppm with C.S. of 1.5, right? Then delta t since 1750 is about 1 degree C. The CO2 concentration is really about 380 ppm at present time with BEST showing 1.5 degrees increase at present time since 1750. Therefore BEST shows 3 degrees C.S. with 3 degrees increase since 1750 once one reaches 450 ppm. O.K. so far, since short term c.s. is now experimentally roughly 3 degrees C from many such data sets. But the viewer almost gets the quick, "sound bite take home message" that the lowest 1.5 degree C.S. case is worse than the higher C.S. cases. This I think is because the threshold temperature for the horizontal disaster line at 1000 ppm is, by this graphic, an increase of about 2.8 degrees for the 1.5 C.S. curve but the threshold temperature for the disaster line is higher for the higher C.S. curves. Which, in some sense, cannot be the case. But perhaps the key to the graph is the vertical bands of color? Then different classes of disasters are differentiated. Does bright yellow mean "hundreds of millions exposed to increased water stress"? Then by the graphic, at 380 ppm with 3 degree C.S.we should be there already.....well if you look at the American Midwest Plains these days...could be. Maybe I have that graph figured out now? Took me an hour of study, but there is a wealth of information to digest from the graph so this was study well spent,if I indeed do now understand. Then I wonder if there is away to tweak that graph toward a more rapid comprehension of the reader. If I have now interpreted the graph correctly, I will try to think of a way to do this. -
Bernard J. at 19:28 PM on 5 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
The Pieter Trans video is here: http://access.teachersdomain.org/resources/phy03/sci/ess/watcyc/co2/index.html It requires registration, which is a pain, but I recall that it was also included in one of Peter Sinclair's Climate Crocks of the Week. Perhaps someone can remember which specific episode it was, and provide a link?Moderator Response:[DB] Your link returns a "Page not found" error. After registration, does this link work?
[Dikran Marsupial] Link fixed (as requested)
-
shoyemore at 18:27 PM on 5 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
Bernard J #19, Thanks for the correction. I like Stewart's work. The whole series of documentaries is worth checking out. Climate Wars 1 The conclusions are a bit dated, and apply to the 1990s and early 2000s. No one realised then that climate change denial, having lost on the science, would continue to use the "Tobacco Strategy" in politics and the media. PS Do post a link to Tans' video if/ when you find it. -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:56 PM on 5 December 2012Climate's changed before
Thanks, Tom, that clears it up for me. -
Bernard J. at 16:38 PM on 5 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
Shoeymore at #12. Erm, that's Iain Stewart! And yes, it's a simple and very elegant demonstration. Pieter Tans did a similar one for a Nova production called "What's Up With the Weather?" Although I enjoyed Stewart's version I actually prefers Tans' because he uses his own body warmth whilst narrating. It's also the first one I saw, and I suppose that the whole beauty of the demonstration of the physics stuck with me. I can't find the site for Tans' video from this computer, so when I can access my laptop I'll hunt down my bookmark and post it. -
skywatcher at 15:07 PM on 5 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Klapper #24: For Figure 3 (Fig 1 from Rahmstorf et al 2012) you're guilty of comparing an individual realisation (what we see on Earth) with ensemble means of dozens of model projections. Ensembles of model projections smooth out El Nino/La Nina occurrences, as in the model the El Ninos don't all happen at the same time - this smoothing reveals the forced component of climate change. The trajectory on Fig 3 is ensemble means with their uncertainties, essentially just the forced component of climate change. Unforced year-to-year variations, such as ENSO, which do not have a long-term warming or cooling impact, will vary widely about the forced component of climate change. If you've ever looked at a spaghetti chart of individual model realisations and compare them to the ensemble means, you'll see this. Uncertainties on the range of the ensemble mean must not be confused with uncertainties about the range of temperature for individual ensemble members. The former are much, much smaller than the latter in the short term. Perhaps an analogy, relevant to those who have lived through the topsy-turvy weather in Melbourne, Australia over the past week. November temperature in Melbourne is on average (think ensemble mean) 22.5C. The standard deviation of November averages is 1.4C, so common November max temperature monthly averages range from 21C to 24C. This is like the coloured bands in the Foster et al figure. It might be somewhat akin to decadal global temperature averages, smoothing out the year-to-year variation. December's average is 24.5C (std dev 1.7C), indicative of the warming trajectory between the two months, and akin in this analogy to the global warming we expect over the next decade or so. This year, November's mean temperature (one realisation of the ensemble mean), was 23.3C, nicely within the 1-sigma band. But individual temperatures in November (akin to one single realisation of global temperature at one point) range a greast deal beyond those bounds. For example last week we baked in 39C, today it's just 18C, on Saturday it will be 37C, a few days later it will be back to 20C. These are the daily temperature equivalents of El Nino and La Nina, for Melbourne our "El Nino" is when a north wind blows off the hot continent, and our "La Nina" is when the wind blows off the relatively cool Southern Ocean. The highest single November daily max temperature in Melbourne (1980-2011 data) is 40.3C, the lowest is 12.7C. Does that invalidate the ensemble mean, and the tight uncertainty surrounding it? Of course not! Foster et al show that the general trajectory of global warming is exactly where you'd expect (or the IPCC expects) it to be, despite the swash and backwash of individual El Nino/La Nina events on either side of the trend. Melbourne's temperature is on track where we expect it to be for this time of year, despite the individual swash/backwash of hot and cool days. For global temperatures, we're right where we expect to be having just had a double-dip La Nina, and I would suspect ENSO-neutral conditions will take us pretty close to record temps next year. A question for climate analysts out there .... Has the global temperature record ever been broken in an ENSO-neutral year? I suspect not, but the unusual combined pattern of ENSO and solar activity from 1997 to present, alongside continued rising CO2 forcing, makes this possible next year. -
curiousd at 13:15 PM on 5 December 2012CO2 effect is saturated
Thank you, Doug Bostrom and Tom Curtis. My interest in these measurements has a different motivation than most. I am interested in presentations of the overwheming evidence for AGW and also in effective rebuttals to denialist questions. Here is a common denialist objection with which I have been blindsided.....in effect "The revolutionary treatment of CO2 and the greenhouse effect by Professor X (there exists more than one X) shows that the entire edifice of the present science is wrong. You cannot say that log 2 (Conc2/Conc1) is roughly proportional to temp increase, even for the CO2 contribution alone without feedbacks, because of the discovery of X" Rather than go to the argument that Proffessor X is not published in a standard peer reviewed jounal (will not hack it for lay audience person) or is rebutted by so and so or worse.....getting involved in real time haggling over the physics on the fly, I would prefer an experimental rebuttal. Perhaps there is such an experimental rebuttal in these papers to wit: 1. The veracity of log base two (conc2/conc1) prop to delta temp comes out of line by line computer caculations of the total CO2 absorption in the atmosphere. 2. Particularly in the article by Chen, Harries, et al the difference spectrum for CO2 between 1970 and 2006 is shown to be completely consistent with such line by line computer calculations. Therefore, All such professor X's are experimentally disproven in one stroke. Do you folks think this argument is valid? -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:07 PM on 5 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
Aaron I would also add that may of the most public 'skeptics' have a very long track record of pitching their comments to appeal to different audiences. You might see them state in one place the sorts things Dan has listed. But when someother skeptic then suggests the GH Effect doesn't exist orsome such thing, they are surprisingly silent. Because allowing as wide a range of dissent and confusion is central to their purpose. When they are challenged they can revert back to the sorts of statements here, but when not being challenged, they are perfectly willing to let statements which, by their own admission they disagree with, go unchallenged. Go to a 'skeptic' blog such as WUWT and listen to the range of quite outrageous comments, and take note particularly of how the owners of the blogs - Watts, Nova, whoever, very rarely step in to disagree with those who say things totally at odds with the very thing they claim to accept. It looks like 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Anyone who is opposed to the same thing they are opposed to can say all sorts of things that they totally disagree with and they will stay silent. Because fomenting discord and confusion is their agenda. Then when challenged they retreat back to the positions above.Then when the challenge goes away, like tortoises coming out of their shells they go back to the business of fomenting discord through studious silence. -
dana1981 at 12:56 PM on 5 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
My only prediction was that 2013 will break the annual average surface temperature record. The 0.76C anomaly was a projection based on a particular solar and ENSO scenario. I should probably revise it with more updated data, now that it appears we will get a weak El Nino at best. -
scaddenp at 12:38 PM on 5 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Dana's prediction assumed an El Nino which looks unlikely, so yes, I would say prediction has to be revived. However, while La Nina is predominate at the moment (which stores heat), are you betting El Nino's arent going to happen? When we get one with an index greater than 1, I'd say that will blow the records out of the water regardless of where in hte solar cycle (but not volcano). -
Tom Curtis at 11:46 AM on 5 December 2012Climate's changed before
Doug H @337, tidal stress accounts for 0.0004 W/m^2 of the 0.09 W/m^2 geophysical energy from the Earth's interior, or just 0.44%. And yes, differences between Perigee and Apogee are irrelevant in geophysical terms, though not for oceanic tides. Consequently I believe skywatcher's claim withstands scrutiny. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:31 AM on 5 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
Aaron Edwards @ 8 You saidI am also surprised by your statement, “Of more general interest, the history of climate science is largely the history of what we've learned about CO2.” A more accurate statement would be, “Of more general interest, the history of climate science is largely the history of what we have learned about the chaotic behavior of the ENSO and the redistribution of Pacific Ocean heat into the atmosphere.” CO2 by comparison, is inconsequential in moving heat into the atmosphere.
The heat energy in the atmosphere comes from somewhere, but what keeps it there? Whether you think it comes from the oceans or from leprechauns, there has to be some mechanism which prevents it from being instantly (or at the speed of light, which is pretty fast) radiated out into space and lost. Thus, we can correctly say “Of more general interest, the history of climate science is largely the history of what we've learned about CO2.” -
Klapper at 10:47 AM on 5 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Rob Honeycutt@23: The truncation at 2010 does change the strength of your argument, subtle as the change might be. Tom Curtis had a reasonable explanation. Turn the question the other way around. Imagine you saw a graph published by a skeptic which truncated the data a year short of the record, when you knew that year showed a nice bump in temperature. You would likely want to know why, even if it seemed like a minor point. -
Doug Hutcheson at 10:36 AM on 5 December 2012Climate's changed before
skywatcher @ 335 You saidReal-world geophysical events are not controlled by the Moon, but by much larger forces - motions, stresses and sources of heat within the Earth.
I seem to remember reading that the tidal stress of the moon's gravity acting on our rocky planet generates some of the heat in our core, so some earthly geophysical effects may be contributed to by this influence. Certainly not by the phases of the moon, but could lunar perigee/apogee gravitational differences be enough to have an effect on Terra? I doubt it. -
Klapper at 10:33 AM on 5 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Tom Curtis@22: The pink line in Figure 3 terminates outside what is probably the "ensemble envelope" (the green shade). Your reasoning is that La Nina's are responsible but these events don't count in the longer term. I'm not so sure that is true. I think the major oscillations advance temperature (or not) by changing the ratio/frequency of El Ninos to La Ninas. If I am wrong then there is no need to compensate for ENSO since there will be no secular trend in it after you get past 15 years of trend length or so. As for volcanic influence there is none significant in the last 17 years or so. As for solar, 2013 will be getting into the peak of cycle 24, although it is a weak cycle. All this leads into a prediction for 2013 which Dana has made (GISS = +0.76). I'm not sure if he's going to update that based on the most recent ENSO prediction, but I don't believe 2013 will be that warm. It would be a record by quite a lot. Either way it will be a test of the hypothesis the real warming trend is being suppressed by ENSO/TSI. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:33 AM on 5 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Klapper @20... You didn't answer my question. Would it change the conclusion of the graph? If not, why does it matter? -
Tom Curtis at 09:29 AM on 5 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Klapper @18&20, the most recent years data is not shown in figure 5 for the simple reason that it was prepared in Oct 2011, and only used data to that date. Preparing these graphs is time consuming, unfortunately, slanders to the effect that SkS authors are paid for their efforts are in fact false. Dana's herculean efforts are unpaid, and he must find the time for them between the hours spent in paid employment and independent (peer reviewed) academic research. Consequently graphics are not updated with every reuse, nor with every update of the data source. As it happens, if you do prepare a graph of Gistemp with a 12 month running mean, the result is effectively the same as the pink line in figure 3 above. The decline in temperature is so slight that all of the denier predictions other than Akasofu's are still falsified by the data, and Akasofu's prediction is running on the edge of falsification. If you account for volcanic, ENSO and solar influences (as in the red line in figure 3), it is clear that the temperature increase has been accurately predicted by the IPCC TAR and AR4, and not accurately predicted by any denier. In the meantime, I am left wondering, how often will it be necessary to state the obvious: La Nina events are not the same as the onset of the next ice age. That is so obvious a point that you would think that just once deniers would extract the ENSO signal before discussing whether temperatures have increased or not. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:07 AM on 5 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Rob, This gets so tiring. Is there anything that is not construed by certain types -- let's call them D'ers -- as part of some vast conspiracy? -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:01 AM on 5 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
Seems Aaron gives a pass to the 2nd law but not the 1st... -
Klapper at 08:37 AM on 5 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Rob Honeycutt @19: Why not show the downturn then? Who's going to to offer up the reason the temperature graph was terminated on a high point (2010), while the forecasts continued to 2011? -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:23 AM on 5 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Klapper @18... Do you believe that would change the overall conclusion of what the graph is presenting? -
Klapper at 07:18 AM on 5 December 2012The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
[snip] The GISS SAT record in red appears to end in 2010. I realize it is a centred running average, however the trace could have been extended to 2011, assuming the smoothing was less than 18 months or so. The record should turn sharply down after 2010 but this part of the trace is ommitted.Moderator Response: [RH] Snipped per policy. -
vrooomie at 07:13 AM on 5 December 20122012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #3
Agreed, shoyemore, and for the future, this jetting around the globe to faraway destinations for talks about climate change is, IMNSHO, anathema to the raison d'etre of the COPs: Seems to me that the vast majority, if not all the business at hand could be done using teleconferencing, or at least at the same central location, year to year. That's going to have to be part of 'walking the walk,' for JSP (Joe Six Pack) to even come close to buying what the science is saying. -
vrooomie at 06:21 AM on 5 December 2012It's El Niño
It will be interesting to see if Bob returns to answer the questions he's yet to answer: however, in the meantime, he's back at W**T, galloping along with the same tired, rebutted points that he wouldn't answer here. I was looking forward to his answers. -
shoyemore at 06:01 AM on 5 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
Another resource: I found this paper to be very well written, interesting and useful. Ray Pierrehumbert in "Physics Today" on Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature -
vrooomie at 05:43 AM on 5 December 2012The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
Aaron Edwards@8: it's said that for every problem, there is a simple elegant answer...which is also wrong. Your supposition, "CO2 by comparison, is inconsequential in moving heat into the atmosphere." is one of those wrong ones. Further discussion of ENSO should be taken here. http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=153&&a=57
Prev 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 Next
