Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 Next
Comments 51801 to 51850:
-
Rosco at 09:28 AM on 13 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
As an interesting thought experiment - would a cubic blackbody have a different temperature to a spherical one ?Moderator Response: [DB] Please note that Rosco has recused himself from further participation in this venue (essentially a meltdown/temper tantrum). -
Kevin C at 06:57 AM on 13 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Brief update on my analysis at #70 and #71: Despite the convincingness of the p-values, the method fails on the robustness tests I've been performing. Results should be treated with extreme caution. More tomorrow. -
littlerobbergirl at 05:56 AM on 13 November 2012About New research from last week series
I'm glad to see another 'lurker' was brave enough to 'de-lurk' to support you - for every poster there are 100s of readers :) -
IanC at 04:42 AM on 13 November 2012New research from last week 45/2012
Mark, The Stephen et al. paper is basically an update to the global energy budget (e.g. Trenberth et al.), in light of newly available new satellite measurements. The main changes occur in the surface budget instead of the top of atmosphere (TOA) budget. The biggest change is an increase in the estimation of downwelling long wave radiation (a.k.a. back radiation), over previous estimation given by Trenberth. The reason given by Stephen et al. is that the Trenberth estimation is largely based on reanalysis models that have a known lack of low clouds. It should be noted that Stephen et al. compared the measurement to the current CMIP5 models, and they are in fact reasonable agreement (given the large uncertainty). As pointed out by Gavin Schmidt on realclimate, the Stephen et al. paper in fact brings the estimation of longwave radiation closer to the current generation of climate models. The main point, I think, is that the Stephen et al. paper is in no way contradictory to our current understanding of climate, nor does it fundamentally change any of our current understandings. -
Lanfear at 02:51 AM on 13 November 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
Tom Curtis@63 "Never-the-less, I think you need to support your claim a bit better." No strong evidence, only my own perception of that the actual problem that the engine-engineer have been trying to solve is (as you also note) the even distribution of the fuel with the intake air. Incidently (if the linked Wikipage is accurate), the O2-level of the diesel exhaust would indicate that the issue is not asmuch O2, rather some other factor. OTOH there is not any O2 in the gasoline(petrol) exhaust, but a sizeable amount of CO which could be the result of too rich mixture resulting in O2 'starvation' and incomplete oxifidation of the carbon, or reversely, not enough O2. Hmm... if only Vroomie had done some exhaust analysis on his Suburban in the different configurations, then his example would not be up for speculation. Regarding the rockets, I still am of the view that they are apples, since sincam's original claim included a possible design with high efficiency and zero emission (carbonwise I presume). Hence the rocket (in any form my limited imagination can procure) is out of the question since it does in effect rely on having the combustion gases immediately expelled to the environment as a mean of propulsion. His reference to rockets is thus an irrelevant distraction. -
Mark Harrigan at 02:25 AM on 13 November 2012New research from last week 45/2012
Hi Ari - have you, or anyone, carried out an analysis on this paper from Late September in Nature Geoscience? An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations The abstract says, in part "In light of compilations of up-to-date surface and satellite data, the surface energy balance needs to be revised. Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm−2, than earlier model-based estimates. Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface." I have scanned on here and can see any reference to it. I also can't get behind the paywall to read the actual paper but a number of "sceptic" sites are claiming that it is a serious blow for AGW and associated models. I'd like to be able to read it and reach my own conclusions on that but would also really appreciate some of the more expert posters on this site and their views if they have read it? -
Kevin C at 23:09 PM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
JRT: I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't think I understand your question. None of the ACE analysis we've been doing in the comments or the figure in the article includes Sandy since the current ACE data only runs to 2011. Apart form that, for Sandy to become a post-tropical cyclone (as opposed to a mid-latitude formed extratropical cyclone) it had to first be a tropical cyclone. The frequency of formation of tropical cyclones is therefore a relevant factor (although not the only one) in the chances of a Sandy-like event recurring. If that's not what you were asking, please feel free to clarify. -
Tom Curtis at 21:55 PM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Michael Sweet @91, if no heat was stored in the Moon's regolith, temperatures would fall to 2.7 degrees K at night, that being the temperature of the cosmic background radiation. The near constant night time temperature contrasts sharply with the presumed behaviour of a "simple black body". (Of course, there is nothing in the nature of black bodies per se from retaining heat, and therefore not instantaneously matching incoming radiation with outgoing radiation with the same power.) As a matter of interest, I have googled Roscoe's quote and found it on several denier documents without citation. Therefore, the attribution of the quote to NASA must be considered suspect until the source of the quote is cited and linked to. -
michael sweet at 21:21 PM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Roscoe, I see no conflict between your quote from NASA and the article. According to you, the article states "the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C". NASA says "in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation" A black body would drop to -110C almost immediately. If it takes "several hours" as the article says, that is "significant warming" as NASA says. The problem is you are reading the articles incorrectly. Perhaps you should read the article again to clarify the data. Just because you do not understand the data does not mean everyone else does not understand it also.Moderator Response: [DB] All parties please note: Rosco's Moon comparison has been previously rebutted, most recently here. As such, it is to be treated as sloganeering and subject to moderation. -
Ari Jokimäki at 21:11 PM on 12 November 2012About New research from last week series
Thank you for the interest! :) -
JRT256 at 21:09 PM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
I was wondering why you are treating Sandy as though it was just a hurricane. IIUC from NOAA/NASA, the category 1 hurricane Sandy never actually made landfall but became a extratropical cyclone (which did) after it merged with a large cold front. -
Tom Curtis at 21:07 PM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
emperical_bayes @72, the PDF of the paper is here. The data for the paper can be downloaded in Excel format here. -
Brosz at 19:35 PM on 12 November 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
First time reader here. Very informative. Thanks. BTW CBS Sunday Morning did a cover story yesterday that showed climate is real, is human caused, and there is scientific consensus regard that. http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=sundaymorning&catid=57548138&feed_id=35 I am encouraged that the media, starting with Frontline is starting to find the courage to address this. GWB -
empirical_bayes at 15:27 PM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
@BWTrainer, I'd say your characterization of Piekle is a "reverse ad hominem". In fact, the only way Pielke Jr is "clever" is in his crafting an argument out of the shards of denialism that remain which are likely to obfuscate, confuse, and distort the true argument. I have seen this in person at conferences featuring many TV meteorologists as well. I wonder why Pielke appears to be the "house favorite" of the WSJ, but don't expect a forthright answer from anyone. I'd also say that Pielke's study (anyone have a free, direct link to it?), as near as I can tell, neglects to compensate for the clear positive correlation between economic and population growth and storms damage and losses, even without any mechanism in mind. One could as readily drive the hypothesis into Pielke's view of the world which says that the increased economic and population growth are directly causing the losses, even if we know better because of lags and other interactions. The point is, if his analysis cannot differentiate between these two modes, what real good is it? -
Doug Bostrom at 14:53 PM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Rosco, what happens at the top of the atmosphere-- where convection ends? Also, you need to do some research on why the ISS employs radiators. Start with something simple, like the Apollo spacecraft. Try here: history.nasa.gov. -
Tom Curtis at 14:14 PM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Rosco, the mean surface temperature of the Moon at the equator is approximately 206 degrees Kelvin. For comparison, the mean daily temperature in August (the coldest month) at Vostok Station (the coldest place on Earth)is 205 degrees Kelvin. In other words, the means surface temperature of the hottest location on the Moon is the same as the mean surface temperature of the coldest location on Earth when it is at its coldest. The mean annual temperature at Vostok Station is actually just over 10 degrees K warmer than the mean annual temperature of the Moon at the equator. As it happens, the Moon has a lower albedo than the Earth, so all else being equal, it should be warmer than the Earth, yet it is colder. Can you explain how your theory that the Earth's atmosphere cools the Earth is compatible with these facts? -
Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Rosco - Your comments here are interesting, but perhaps not in the fashion you intended. Rather, they show what errors occur when you don't take all factors into account. Convection and latent heat indeed cool the earth, pushing heat into the upper atmosphere where it can be radiated. If the atmosphere lacked convection, we could readily expect temperatures perhaps another 40-45°C warmer than currently exist. We are indeed fortunate that convection exists, that atmospheres become unstable and convect with warming, that evaporative processes move energy away from the surface. But without the greenhouse effect (in a Gedankenexperiment consideration, as certainly other things would change with such a physical modification), without significant radiation from high in the cold atmosphere rather than the warmer surface, the Earth would be ~33°C colder than current temperatures, on the order of -16°C to -18°C. Heating and cooling of the lunar regolith are indeed factors in the moon's average temperature. But that average is quite a bit cooler than the Earth's temperature (in fact, if the Moon had an equivalent atmosphere, it would be warmer, as the albedo of the Earth is rather higher - 0.3 as opposed to the Moon's 0.12). If you take all of these factors into account, rather than focusing on a single factoid (defined as a piece of information smaller than a useful fact), the radiative greenhouse effect has just the influence predicted by the physics of spectroscopic absorption, emission, and the atmospheric lapse rate. And that's ~33°C warmer than we would be without the greenhouse effect if that was the only change. -
Rosco at 12:34 PM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
doug_bostrom - it is not my analysis - I have quoted NASA. (-snip-).Moderator Response: [DB] All parties please note: Rosco's Moon comparison has been previously rebutted, most recently here. As such, it is to be treated as sloganeering and subject to moderation/snipping. -
threadShredder at 12:11 PM on 12 November 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #45
Is anybody else having trouble with the RSS feed on SkS? I keep getting: The address (http://www.skepticalscience.com/feed.xml) does not point to a valid HTML or XML page. "An error occurred while parsing EntityName. Line 83. Position 52. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:53 AM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Rosco, your remark is unlikely to be deleted and your enjoyment will probably be brief. :-) Starting with: based on Rosco's analysis, may we conclude that Earth's moon has an atmosphere comprised of regolith? -
Rosco at 11:23 AM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
There is a basic flaw in the paragraph Empirical Evidence for the Greenhouse Effect We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees F), when the sun ‘goes down’ on the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F). The flaw is that the cooling rate on the Moon is significantly slower than your article suggests and even NASA state :- “During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick. As the moon passes into night, the radiation from the sun quickly approaches zero (there is still a bit of radiation from the earth) and, in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation.” Contrast this with the fact that Earth's atmosphere obviously reduces the heating "power" during the day and you have empirical evidence that atmospheres reduce surface heating of planets - not the reverse.I expect this comment to be deleted but it was enjoyable posting it. (-snip-).Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped; moderation complaints struck out.
All parties please note: Rosco's Moon comparison has been previously rebutted, most recently here. As such, it is to be treated as sloganeering and subject to moderation.
-
Alpinist at 10:33 AM on 12 November 2012Fred Singer - not an American Thinker
[snip]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Inflamatory snipped. Please keep the discussion strictly to the science. Name calling (whether justified or not) detracts from the argument being made, and hence is best avoided. -
Riduna at 10:10 AM on 12 November 2012Fred Singer - not an American Thinker
PBS in general and Frontline in particular have a question to answer: Why is it in the public interest to provide a platform to people like Singer who deny basic science for financial gain funded by those who produce and use fossil fuels? -
piet.zijlstra at 08:09 AM on 12 November 2012About New research from last week series
Dear Ari, Yes I am a regular reader too and I also cannot respond. I am studying climate science for only one year now. (after retiring Thanks for your effort! Sincerely yours, Pieter -
Kevin C at 07:32 AM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Here's an idea: I added a trend term to both regressions. They will now both give identical results, since the only difference between AMO and sea temp is the detrending term. However, the values of the trends will tell us something. Here are the stats on the trend term using AMO: TREND 0.24495 0.09866 2.483 0.0143 * And here's what you get using temps: TREND -0.1346 0.1138 -1.182 0.239 The additional trend that has to be added to fit ACE using AMO is different from zero by about 2.5 sigma - that's significant at the 95% confidence level. So there is a statistically significant trend over and above what is predicted by AMO+ENSO. When using temperatures, the additional trend is only 1.2 sigma (in the opposite direction). The ACE trend is slightly less than would be expected from temps+ENSO, but the difference is not statistically significant. Sea temperature certainly seems to play the dominant role. Whether there is an AMO component over and above the temperature component is inconclusive. -
Kevin C at 07:19 AM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Brian B: I had noticed the same thing - that the trends are dependent on the point in the AMO cycle. So I've spent the last couple of days looking at more sophisticated analyses. The literature is clear on the link between both AMO and ACE, and ENSO and ACE. We can examine this in detail. I ran a multivariate regression of AMO and MEI (using the extended MEI which runs back to 1872, supplemented by the normal MEI from 1950). Here are the stats:Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 93.613 3.985 23.491 < 2e-16 *** AMO 150.013 21.829 6.872 2.04e-10 *** MEI -20.963 5.294 -3.960 0.00012 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 - *** - 0.001 - ** - 0.01 - * - 0.05 - . - 0.1 - - 1 Residual standard error: 47.03 on 137 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.2932, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2829 F-statistic: 28.42 on 2 and 137 DF, p-value: 4.73e-11As expected, ACE is positively correlated with AMO and negatively with MEI. The coefficients are also highly significant. Now, AMO is simple detrended Atlantic temperature. The interesting question is whether hurricanes are actually influenced by AMO, or by temperature. So I took the raw temperature data before detrending and used it in place of AMO. Here's what I got:Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 95.552 3.937 24.270 < 2e-16 *** AMO_temp 136.179 18.597 7.322 1.88e-11 *** MEI -24.318 5.276 -4.609 9.18e-06 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 - *** - 0.001 - ** - 0.01 - * - 0.05 - . - 0.1 - - 1 Residual standard error: 46.24 on 137 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.317, Adjusted R-squared: 0.307 F-statistic: 31.79 on 2 and 137 DF, p-value: 4.571e-12Now that's interesting! The fit against temperatures is rather better. Temperature+ENSO is a better predictor of ACE than AMO+ENSO. Is the difference statistically significant? As a crude measure, the difference in log likelihood suggests the latter model is about 10x more likely than the former, but I need to do a bit of digging to find the proper significance test for this kind of comparison. That has implications. If ACE is controlled by AMO and the correlation with temperature is incidental, then when AMO flips back around 2020 we should see a reduction in hurricanes. However if ACE is controlled by sea temperature, then things are likely to continue to get worse as the Atlantic warms. And the data appears to point in the latter direction, I'm just not sure how strongly. This is very preliminary - as well as the significance tests I need to investigate lags between the different terms. A lot of tedious analysis I'm afraid. -
Dave123 at 07:14 AM on 12 November 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
I just noticed this question about why- why do faux skeptics hang on to Hansen's old work? Why do they obsess about Mike Mann's original paper? For Hansen's paper the answer is that 30 years have elapsed. If Hansens models are seen as right and valid, they constitute a prognistic, falsifiable test of climate modeling and thus are consistent for the need to act NOW. But if you can trash Hansen, then you can say "well, models may have improved, but we won't know until we "freeze" today's models and see how they come out 30 years from now. Taking today's models, starting them 30 years ago and seeing how they read forward to today isn't good enough, because we already know the outcome. We need to make the scenario forecast without knowing the outcome. The Hockey stick (which is off topic for this thread, I know) is a matter of needing a MWP that no one can explain. If we've got an unexplainable MWP, then our current warming could be from the same unknown source...regardless of all the physics and laws of thermodynamics. It's a complex system and we just don't know enough. Motivated reasoning. It's fun ain't it? -
littlerobbergirl at 07:12 AM on 12 November 2012About New research from last week series
Thank you for your efforts ari its appreciated. i read several of your picks each week but dont feel qualified to comment - i imagine i'm not alone. -
dana1981 at 05:49 AM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
idunno @68 - yes, Ridley and the WSJ is a bad combination. Rob Painting is working on a response to that article. Suffice it to say that like everything Matt Ridley writes related to the climate, it's riddled with errors. -
dana1981 at 05:47 AM on 12 November 2012Vision Prize Results
dvaytw @19 - the IPCC looks at changes since 1750 (approximately 250 years) - I think it's just chosen as a reasonable "pre-industrial" date. -
dvaytw at 03:50 AM on 12 November 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Curious if anyone's heard of this fellow and his paper on worldwide hurricane activity: http://www.leshatton.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/HurricaneActivity1946-2010.pdf Best I can tell, he's not actually a climate scientist and his paper isn't actually peer-reviewed, but Google his research links to about a thousand denier sites. -
dvaytw at 02:57 AM on 12 November 2012Vision Prize Results
Quick question: why 250 years? -
idunno at 02:50 AM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
More content from the WSJ here: http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-medieval-heat-cool-warming-worries/ ...in which CO2Science's collection of academic papers is cited as the go-to source for information on the subject. No mention of the SkS debunk. -
Alpinist at 01:52 AM on 12 November 2012Fred Singer - not an American Thinker
Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Roger Pielke Jr. and the other [snip] need to get out and look and see what actual scientists are finding: In the Northern Rocky Mountains it means temperatures are getting hotter, extreme precipitation events have increased, there’s a winter shift from snow to rain at lower elevations, late spring snowpack is decreasing, the average date of annual peak streamflow comes earlier, annual streamflow is decreasing, summer stream temperatures are increasing, fire season starts earlier in the spring and continues longer into the fall for a fire season that’s now a month longer than it used to be. If Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Roger Pielke Jr. and and the WSJ editorial board want to send in the clowns and propose some alternate explanations, we’re all ears.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Inflamatory snipped. -
Lionel A at 22:05 PM on 11 November 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #9
Working link to the Huffington Post article cited above: Dramatic Impacts of Rapid Climate Change on the Antarctic Peninsula .Moderator Response: [JH] Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The link in the OP has been fixed. -
Sapient Fridge at 20:42 PM on 11 November 2012Earth's five mass extinction events
Bolandista, the only problem with your hypothesis is that there is no evidence to support it. If small shifts in CO2 levels caused major metabolic changes, or cancer, then it would have been spotted long ago. Can you point to any research to back up your ideas? You are also lacking evidence that life arrived on earth 2.5 billion years ago in a "cosmic event". There is evidence that life was around at least a billion years before that. -
Tom Curtis at 11:41 AM on 11 November 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
Lanfear @62, space rockets certainly carry oxidizing agents in part because it is hard to find oxygen in a vacuum. However, rocket cars also carry oxidizing agents, and that is certainly not the issue for them. The need for very rapid combustion to produce maximum power, however, is. With regard to diesel engines and soot, whether or not they produce soot will depend on a number of factors including their cycle (two stroke engines will always have uncombusted fuel), and age (worn engines will admit sump oil which burns poorly and produces soot). As it happens, I have seen diesel engines in which I could not detect any soot by eye (or nose), but that may not be the relevant test. Never-the-less, I think you need to support your claim a bit better. With regard to pure O2, you are quite correct. Indeed, ordinary grease can spontaneously explode in a pure oxygen atmosphere (one of the safety hazards boilermakers need to be warned of). -
Russell at 11:03 AM on 11 November 2012The Climate Show #30: Obama, Sandy and the rabbit
It was painful to watch :Quelle Naufrage ! -
Doug Bostrom at 09:43 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Leaving aside the problem of teasing a signal from a TS record imperfect in many ways and influenced by more than one factor, there's still the problem of the trend in surge, compounded by John's point. Nobody yet seems to offer a persuasive argument that sea level is not rising, or that Grinsted's id of trend in surge is false. Pielke seems be signed on with surge trend. Interestingly, at Pielke's Brian (same Brian?) says there is both no trend and a trend, so let's count that as no opinion. If your house is flooded or falls into the ocean, how much do you really care what caused the problem? -
K.a.r.S.t.e.N at 09:07 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Brian B #61/#62 The last 100 years of AMO are very likely the result of anthropogenic forcing changes, namely in sulfate aerosols (with a subsequent AMOC response which we otherwise wouldn't have seen with the same magnitude). Your argument therefore presumably seriously flawed. Would you be so kind as to point us to a source which supports your claim that Pielke Jr. ever explicitly acknowledged that other damages than hurricane damage could potentially be linked to AGW (if not yet identifiable as a signal in the noise, then as a future threat)? To seize the opportunity, could you also provide a link to a source where Pielke Jr. criticize his father (Pielke Sr.) for misrepresenting the science? Thanks! -
John Hartz at 09:05 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Speaking of sea level rise and what lies ahead... "Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming, due to critical feedbacks missing from earlier models, according to the University of Colorado." Source: Why sea levels are rising ahead of predictions FutureTimeline.net, Nov 7, 2012 -
John Hartz at 08:55 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Hmmm, Jeff Masters is listed as an author of the article listed below. It is reasonable to assume therefore that he concurs with its contents and its title. Did climate change contribute to Sandy? Yes. by Bob Corell, Jeff Masters, and Kevin Trenbereth, Politico, Nov 5, 2012 -
John Hartz at 08:44 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Per usual, Chris Mooney hit the nail squarely on the head when he wrote: “Following this debate, I’ve been struck by the strong impression that people are making things too complicated. Here’s the simple truth: Leaving aside questions of systemic causation—and sidestepping probabilities, loaded dice, atmospheres on steroids, and so on—we can nevertheless say that global warming made Sandy directly and unmistakably worse, because of its contribution to sea level rise.” Source: Climate Change Made Sandy Worse. Period. by Chris Mooney, Climate Desk, Nov 8, 2012 -
Brian B at 08:07 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Albatross (#60), Regarding your quote from Jeff Masters, Roger Pielke has said exactly the same thing many times. He has always insisted that hurricane damage is not the place to look for AGW signals, and that there is plenty to see elsewhere. (I challenge you to find evidence that Pielke has ever said anything different from that.) So how does that make Pielke the bad guy? He does insist--correctly--that others (politicians, media, activists) should not use hurricane damage as a pretext for action on AGW. Scientists and those concerned about AGW should join Pielke in decrying this false use of data, which is damaging to science. Such hyperinflated claims have done far more to hurt the AGW action agenda than Pielke ever could. -
Brian B at 07:59 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Kevin C (#19 & 38) and Albatross (#49), I've looked at the Atlantic basin ACE data shown above myself. Kevin had given the trends from 1850, 1900, etc. and showed statistical significance. I accepted those numbers. I must now retract my acceptance. In fact, the ACE trend in the Atlantic is not significant at the 2-sigma level. My original statement was correct. Kevin's numbers are not wrong, but they give a false impression. Note that the effect of the AMO is obvious in the data. The 2011 is near the AMO peak but the 1850, 1900, and 1970 data points are all near the AMO minimum. The trend for those years is really just the AMO trend from min to max and not a long-term climate trend. This can be seen from the trend from 1970, which is 2.3 over 40 years. Spread over 160 years this AMO change would be 0.58 +- 0.20, consistent with the trend from 1850. The correct way to calculate the long-term trend is to do it from AMO peak to peak, roughly 1880 or 1890 to 2011. The trend from 1875 to 2011, for example, is 0.16 +- 0.12. And this result is not cherrypicked. There is no significant trend at the 2-sigma level for any starting year between 1865 and 1893, corresponding to the years of the AMO peak. No trend can be claimed over any interval if the trend from the late 1800s, when global temps were 0.9 C lower than today, is not significant. ***Let me state clearly the importance of this result. If there is no long-term trend in the Atlantic ACE and no trend for landfalling hurricanes, there is no basis at all for claiming an effect of AGW on hurricane losses, nor is there any observational basis for expecting an AGW signal in hurricane trends in the future.*** Just to dig down into the ACE data a bit more and to avoid charges of cherrypicking, I did a fit of the data to a cosine with a linearly growing baseline over the 1851 - 2011 interval. The AMO oscillation period shows up nicely at 58.7 +- 2.3 years. The residual linear trend is a mere 0.046 +- 0.002. This is statistically significant for the data as given, of course, but the trend is likely not real. First, note that it's far less than the previously calculated trends. Second, the trend corresponds to an increase in ACE of just 7 over the last 160 years (less than 10%). Given that the early ACE values are at best approximate, may be missing hurricanes, and are definitely more uncertain than 10%, this trend cannot be considered real. It is likely an artifact of the low variation seen in the 1850 - 1875 data. Finally, please note that if the 0.046 trend is real, it would take roughly 350 years to emerge from the ACE noise. There really is nothing to see here, so let's please give up any talk of AGW contributing to hurricane damages, either now or in the future. There's no observational basis for this claim. -
Lanfear at 07:07 AM on 11 November 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
sincam@60 and Tom Curtis@61 Sorry if I'm being thick here, but I thought the reason why (chemical space-)rockets are carrying oxygen with them is that they go to space, where notoriously there is no air/oxygen/anything (almost). Otherwise I think that comparing internal combustion engines to rockets is apples to oranges, since the rockets do not have to deal with the created heat in the same way. FWIW I think that even supercharged (or turbo) diesels do produce some soot, which would imply that not all the fuel is converted into CO2 and H2O. I am however skeptical whether this behaviour could be inproved by enriching the intake air. Oh, and I don't recommend mixing 100% O2 with anything carbon (including the lubricant of the piston) especially with alternating pressure. You will get an uncontrolled detonation. In fact there is a rule in the diver world where the first and second stage has to be 'oxygen clean' when using mixes stronger than EANx40. -
Bolandista at 05:27 AM on 11 November 2012Earth's five mass extinction events
A New Understanding When I was 28, in 1971, I developed a theory on the evolution of animal life, nothing that would go against Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but it could explain the environment in which evolutionary changes would take place. The theory is this - if the partial pressure (pp) of carbon dioxide is above a certain level, at least that partial pressure of the gas is found in animal tissue and that puts a limit on the metabolic rate possible. Any lowering of the CO2pp allows greater quantities of tissue-produced CO2 to be removed from the cell, hence an increase in pH of the cell environment. This change allows a slightly higher metabolic rate to be accommodated in the animal and within a short period of time genetic modification results in a different genotype to appear thanks to epigenetic changes. Epigenetic theory is the key to my theory that movements in the partial pressure of CO2 either reduction = greater metabolic possibilities, or increase = disaster for the phenotype, either directly or via the genotype, through inheritance. Any increase in the level of CO2 at the resting state results in a lower pH. If that happens then modification to tissue occurs through epigenetic changes, a fairly new understanding of sets of switches within a gene sequence that can be reversed to alter the expression of the gene from the expected to an undifferentiated cell, cancer being the most common result. The Development of Life on Our Planet The Lag Phase A cosmic event about 2.5 billion years ago deposited large quantities of genetic material onto our planet. The full expression of that genetic material took a very long time, starting with single photosynthesizing cells, through oxygen utilising single cells to multi-cell creatures which became visible in the geological record about half a billion years ago as undifferentiated calcium agglomerations. This was probably the first direct evidence of both animal life and a major reduction in CO2pp. These creatures had been using calcium as part of the mechanism for removing CO2 from their tissue. Calcium, as a cation, combines with CO2 and a bit of oxygen to form calcium carbonate, a solid particle the animal could manipulate to the margin of its tissue, where it fell away to form limestone or chalk. This simple mechanism helped photosynthesizing cells in reducing the CO2pp even further until the CO2 was low enough to permit the speeding up of the generation of CO2 within its tissue and thus calcium carbonate to such an extent that the mechanism for its removal was overwhelmed, the animal dying because it became choked by its own waste product. Many strange calcium carbonate remains are seen in the Cambrian strata. However, it was not long before the deposition of this material came under genetic control to provide either defence or attack structures on the animals, we also see their remains a very short time after in the same strata. The Log Phase This very important point in the geological record marks the end of one phase in the chemical reaction called Life on Earth and the beginning of another, the end of the lag phase, where chemical change is slow and the beginning of the log phase where chemical change is rapid. The geological record shows a rapid reduction in CO2 via the deposition of vast amounts of carbon over a very short period of (geological) time compared to its rate of deposit during the lag phase. Accompanying this deposition of carbon there is a consequential increase in the metabolic rate of life as expressed in life forms that become larger, more complex and faster in water, on land and also in the air. Not all animals took advantage of these new possibilities and as a result, they were taken advantage of by those that had. A quick look at the various life forms ranging from fish to birds mapped against the deposition of carbon confirms the linkage – removal of carbon, in the form of CO2, from the atmosphere – increase in metabolic rate – increase in utilization of that metabolic rate by important changes in animal form and capability. Sadly, not all the animals that lived on the crest of the development curve of metabolic rate are with us today. Remember the word, “epigenetic”, that word is the key to the development of this vast array of life forms. As the pH increased, more switches were moved and more adaptions made, some successful in the sense that they were able to survive and pass on their genes, others would fail to do so. Those that did survive went on to make the most of their metabolic rate, either in terms of size, speed or internal heat generation or in some cases in combinations of two or three of these effects. Life at the leading edge of the development curve was always in the best position to exploit all other life forms. However, such life was also the most exposed, especially for those which had taken on all three of the effects of increased metabolic rate, size, speed and internal heat generation, should the partial pressure of CO2 go into reverse by increasing to a level greater than when their metabolic rate had come into being. The lowering of the pH following such an event would cause epigenetic switches to throw and loss of differentiation would follow. It matters not what the cause of the increase in CO2 turns out to have been, as long as the boost was great enough to take its pp back to a level that was present before the level of the metabolic rate with which the animal was born. In such a circumstance Life’s development curve stopped and effectively dipped to a lower level. Life effectively went into reverse with the highest metabolic rates no longer supported. In terms of geological time, such events take up very little space on the horizontal scale, even if the effect of the reversal is massive in terms of the number of species wiped out. Therefore, such reversals would look like minor ripples on the curve. The development of animal life would soon get back on track when the boost of CO2 had been absorbed by plant life. Animal life produced even more forms to take advantage of the possibilities offered by reductions in CO2pp. This cycle of increase in metabolic rate and a subsequent reversal happened many times in the geological record but thanks to plant life being there to remove more and more CO2, Life continued to follow the log phase of the development curve. Until the advent of Man. This animal first removes vast swathes of CO2 sinks, trees and other green foliage. Then having found industrial uses for fire digs up coal, the main fuel for his endeavours, then extracts oil and gas to make his endeavours run smother and better. He is responsible for putting more CO2 into the atmosphere in the last couple of thousand years than anything else – this, along with the diminishing ability of plant life to restore the CO2pp to what is safe for its own existence is bringing the planet to a disaster. There are many epigenetic switches being thrown that resulting in more and more genetic disorders happening to all animal life – remember those animals at the leading edge of the log phase of the development curve of Life on Earth, well they are once again being hit by the increase in CO2pp. In our species, we see rapid increases, year by year, of the numbers of cancer cases, why? Because their scientific advisors tell our politicians that global warming, just global warming is the biggest problem we face from increasing CO2 in our atmosphere –WRONG! You know the biggest problem faced by the planet is the extinction of multiple layers of life thanks to increased CO2pp. There is no doubt about it, the development curve of Life on this Planet is about to plateau and possibly move to a termination trajectory. Is it already too late? Possibly, even probably, because it will take too long to achieve what really needs to be achieved – reducing CO2pp to pre-industrialisation levels once again. Bolandista -
Albatross at 04:43 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
An appropriate quote by Dr. Jeff Masters from January 2012: "So, looking at disasters losses to make an argument that climate change is affecting our weather is difficult, due to the rarity of extreme events, and the changes in wealth and population that also affect disaster losses. We are better off looking at how the atmosphere, oceans, and glaciers are changing to find evidence of climate change--and there is plenty of evidence there." Not surprising then that Pielke Junior continues to use this obviously flawed and imperfect method to draw (overstated) conclusions that can then be used to muddy the waters and feed fodder to the fake skeptics and those who deny the theory of AGW. -
John Hartz at 01:32 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
@Physicsgirl #57: You would do well to cast a wider net. “The most obvious aspect of climate change to Hurricane Sandy is not necessarily that storms ave gotten bigger or more intense,” said Sallenger, the Geological Survey scientist. “It’s that the seas are definitely rising – we can see it and measure it.” Source: North Carolina's coast is 'hot spot' for rising sea levels by Bruce Henderson, The Charlotte Observer, Nov 4, 2012 -
chriskoz at 22:27 PM on 10 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
idunno@56, I think your "investors" are just market components that care not about why AGW nor about the ethics of AGW. By definition, those "investors" are not interested in environmental sciences, therefore not interested in SkS. They are interested in possible parametric changes on the market that would shift the money flows, but those changes are coming from policymakers and advisers (such as Pielke Jr). Therefore talking about or addressing investors is like poking the symptoms. They are just symptoms of AGW problem (e.g. if they're overinvesting in coal mining), and they will never drive/influence the climate policies. They will always adapt to the policies devised by climate experts and policymakers.
Prev 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 Next
