Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 Next
Comments 55601 to 55650:
-
dana1981 at 01:42 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
vroomie @3 - thanks. I should note that Albatross tried to comment on Pielke's blog but was unable to sign in, so he emailed his comment to me, which I then posted. So my first comment is my own, the next is from Albatross. I didn't bother to make the distinction since I agreed with his comments, but I don't want to take credit for his efforts. As for Pielke, I think 'lukewarmer' is a good description. He doesn't dispute basic climate science, but seems determined to believe/argue that the consequences won't be terribly bad. At least that's my impression - I don't read his writings very often. I wouldn't call him unique though, for example Lomborg seems to argue from a similar position. I can't think of any 'lukewarmer' climate scientists off the top of my head. -
shoyemore at 00:01 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
vroomie, An excellent example of Pielke Jnr's incoherence, attacking a climate scientist's exposition of the facts in order to "protect the integrity of the IPCC". It is a bit like calling your own character witnesses liars. Maybe the guy is a natural contrarian and won't join any club that would have him as a member. As far as I can see, the deniers don't want him, so he seeks to join their club. -
jake7351 at 22:49 PM on 8 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Has anyone ever seen Pielke Jr give any kind of substantial criticism of sceptics (links please)? I searched his blog for the most blatant of serial misinformers (Monckton, Plimer) and came up with nothing. -
vrooomie at 22:16 PM on 8 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Reading Pielke's blog, referenced in the main essay, was...*illuminating*. The lengths these folks go to deny science and justify their ever-increasingly unteneable 'fake skeptic' positions leave me gobsmacked; take for instance this quote, from Pielke. "But let's be clear about one thing. Christy was cherrypicked by Republicans to deliver a certain message that they find convenient. The IPCC does not have that luxury. Field was representing climate science, Christy his personal views of the science." "But you'll pardon me if I have decided that the integrity of the IPCC is far more important than whether I agree with an individual scientist or not." Um...sure, OK. Thanks to both Albatross and dana1981, for the excelent article, and especially dana, who tried to refute Pielke on Pielke's blog. Sigh..... -
Ari Jokimäki at 21:24 PM on 8 August 2012New research from last week 31/2012
It's my pleasure, thank you. :) -
Ari Jokimäki at 21:24 PM on 8 August 2012New research from last week 27-30
It's my pleasure, thank you. :) -
Kevin C at 21:21 PM on 8 August 2012The GLOBAL global warming signal
KR: Excellent question. I've done it using the NCEP data as a basis, and masking the map series down to match the coverage of the corresponding month from either Hadley dataset. (Before 1965 I loop the temperatures from years 1965-1975.) This is a harder and more realistic challenge than a random holdout, because the correlation structure means that extrapolation over larger distances is harder than smaller distances. I can then compare the interpolated reconstruction with the value from the complete data. Results: 1. Once the Antarctic stations become available, the Krig, nn1200km and spline methods all give much lower noise and bias than ignoring the missing cells. 2. Going back before the Antarctic stations are available, the spline approach becomes noisy. Unlike the others, it does not degrade gracefully as coverage reduces. It tends to produce extremes a long way from the nearest station, where the other methods are both conservative and revert to the global mean if you get too far from the nearest station. 3. Going back to 1880 the performance of the Krig and nn1200km reconstructions degrade gracefully with time. At 1880 they don't provide much benefit, but they never make things worse either. Kriging is formally more correct, and the effective area of influence is determined by the data itself, but in practice there is not much to choose. Thus I think the GISTEMP results are already pretty close to optimal (given the SST data they are using). Caerbannog's observation that you can get a similar result to GISS by just (for land data) using the CRU method and 20 degree boxes highlights this result - almost any global reconstruction method gives the same answer. This kind of test, where you try and find tough challenges which can potentially falsify your approach, is precisely the thing which differentiates real science from blog science. It goes back to Popper: A theory which has survived multiple severe tests is a fitter theory than one which has yet to face a severe test. Applying severe tests like this is the kind of thing I need to do to make this publishable. -
Martin Lack at 20:24 PM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Dana@10 Thanks for the response. Albatross@15 Unlike McIntyre (who has disavowed detailed involvement), Christy has self-identified with Watts. This is why his credibility should be heading the same way as President Assad and shares in Standard Chartered... -
shoyemore at 18:59 PM on 8 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Albatross, excellent post. Pielke Jnr seems a phenomenon. As far as I can evaluate his position, he accepts mainstream climate science, but believes that exposing the full facts to the public is counterproductive. Hence he tends to downplay (or malign) witnesses like Field who are not afraid to talk about what the science is actually saying. If we give him credit for having some sort of principled position, this seems to justify him ending up siding with questionable characters like McIntyre. Peilke Jnr actually believes this will help positive action on climate change in the long run. As you say, we hardly have time for this. Here Pielke and McIntyre are just shifting ground: ... climate contrarians appear to be retreating more and more away from the "it's not happening" and "it's not us" myths, toward the "it's not bad" fallback position. Would Skeptical Science do a longer post on Pielke Jnr and his unique position, sometimes known as "lukewarmer"? -
Albatross at 15:47 PM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Dana @16, You are probably right. I was doing my best to be as fair as possible to Christy. However, as you note, no matter how one looks at this it reflects incredibly poorly on Christy and those who invited him to testify. It is really troubling that "skeptics" and contrarians like Christy are permitted to grossly and repeatedly mislead Congress without any consequence whatsoever. Policy makers need the best science to make informed decisions, not seriously flawed manuscripts such as the one prepared by Watts, Christy and McIntyre. -
Albatross at 15:38 PM on 8 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
To keep the post as short of possible we could not include all of the examples of Pielke Jr. misleading people. It is highly hypocritical of Pielke Jr. to accuse others of misrepresenting the IPCC, when he did just that in his attack on Field. In fact, we know of at least one example in which Roger Pielke Jr. (to use his own words) "completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings" when attacking Field. Ignoring Pielke's strawman argument in his point 5 for now, we note that Pielke does not provide the whole sentence when he quotes from p. 269 of SREX. Pielke states: "What the IPCC actually says (p. 269 PDF): "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses" But that is not all that the IPCC says on page 269, there is a second half of that sentence that Pielke Jr. ignores. The whole sentence reads as follows (my highlights): "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses (Pielke Jr. and Downton, 2000; Downton et al., 2005; Barredo, 2009; Hilker et al., 2009), although some studies did find recent increases in flood losses related in part to changes in intense rainfall events (Fengqing et al., 2005; Chang et al., 2009)" So to recap. It is in fact Roger Pielke Junior who misrepresented the IPCC when attempting to discredit Field. We thus have yet another example of Pielke Jr. misrepresenting the facts. Given Pielke's history and this latest shameful example, journalists should perhaps think twice as to whether or not Roger Pielke Jr's can be trusted. This file is simply too important to have the games played by Pielke Jr. (and others of his ilk) promulgated by the media when seeking (false) balance. -
dana1981 at 15:32 PM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Albatross - I can't imagine that Christy would be referencing the results of a paper on which he's listed as co-author without being intimately aware of the details. In fact I suspect that Christy pressured Watts to release the paper before it was ready because he was afraid Muller would be testifying in the same hearing and he wanted the Watts results to undermine Muller's testimony. That's just speculation on my part, but either way, if you're presenting the results of a paper on which you're co-author to Congress, you'd darn well better be very familiar with how those results were generated. Though I guess it's true, it wouldn't reflect as poorly on Christy if he were ignorant about the flaws in the paper whose results he presented to Congress. In that case he was just being grossly irresponsible as opposed to being both inept and irresponsible. -
Albatross at 14:55 PM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
What I find troubling and puzzling about Christy being listed as a co-author on the awful manuscript is that Christy was once the state climatologist for Alabama. So Christy should be very familiar with time observation bias (TOB) issue and the importance of adjusting for it. Now to be charitable to Christy (and the best possible scenario for him ) it may be that Watts included him as a co-author without first consulting with Christy. If someone has not already asked him if this was the case, they need to and Christy needs to clarify the degree of his involvement in analyzing the data and preparing the manuscript. Regardless, Christy promoting a seriously flawed and grossly misleading manuscript before Congress is inexcusable. -
Tom Curtis at 13:49 PM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
A final comment on the dispersion of sulfates. Fiedler et al, 2009 discuss the observation of a SO2 pollution plume just of the west coast of Ireland. That pollution plume came from China. In fact, it was not the only plume they found at that location. They found another, lower plume from North America as well, as shown in this diagram:
You will notice the Chinese plume has approximately half the concentration North American Plume. Its greater altitude and thickness, however, suggests it would have greater than half the cooling effect of the North American plume. This suggests that it would make an appreciable impact on the atmospheric energy balance at that time and location.
Below is a modeled distribution of Chinese SO2 based on known weather patterns at the time of observation. Again, notice that the concentration of SO2 in the plume is only around 40% of that over China, again signifying an appreciable impact on the energy balance:
Despite the high concentration of the plume half way around the world, occurrences of plumes from China at that location would be sporadic, whereas the plume over China itself would be constant throughout the year. As a result, averaged over the year, concentrations over China would be large compared to those over the North Atlantic. But that in no way justifies Krisbaum's rather silly claims, and it certainly does not justify his supposition that SO2 concentrations in Greenland ice cores are a poor proxy of SO2 emissions over Europe and North America.
As we have seen, there is no question that SO2 plumes can be carried more than half way around the world - let alone half way across the world's narrowest ocean to Greenland.
-
krisbaum at 13:39 PM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
[finish the work you have claimed for yourself in comments 81 and 94 above.] I just did and you deleted them.Moderator Response: [DB] Comments deleted were due to inflammatory/ad hominem comments and sloganeering. You continually focus on newspaper accounts of what Pachauri is reputed to have said. You continue to fail to show (from 81) where the IPCC has stated that it only bases its work on peer-reviewed literature. It is clear you posture. -
krisbaum at 13:07 PM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
(-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] This has gone on long enough. As has been noted several times already, finish the work you have claimed for yourself in comments 81 and 94 above. You will be allowed no further podium to waste the time of others here until that work is completed.
Argumentative and sloganeering snipped.
-
krisbaum at 13:03 PM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
DSL; My original assertion about aerosols was to do with a lack of records pertaining to their levels - hence the high amount of high uncertainty in their values. [Anthropogenic] Aerosols are concentrated at their source and depending on their type (eg. Sulphates or Black Carbon etc) - they travel varied distances from their source but a geo-spacial representation of their concentrations in the atmosphere is required to estimate their impact on climate change.Moderator Response:[DB] Actually, your original assertion about aerosols was made here and was this:
"Has anybody actually investigated further, for example the findings on Aerosols and why the IPCC believe what the range of aersol forcing is thats stated in their 4AR?"
You did not make the assertion about aerosols that you claim until 4 ½ hours later, here.
-
DSL at 12:40 PM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
krisbaum, I'm not going to immediately discard your claim. I do, however, want to see some evidence. What you claim is not common knowledge. Here's a study that casts doubt on what you say just from the abstract. The study measures the 72 hour trajectory of a cloud of SO2 that extends 1600 meters from the surface. If the mass of SO2 travels for 72 hours and only goes 10km, that means it is traveling at the extremely fast rate of about 139 meters per hour. Possible, but not probable. This study worries about an oil refinery being built 30km away from the Taj Mahal and what the emissions will do to the structure. Why did they even perform the study? It's common knowledge that human-sourced aerosols only travel 10km. These were just two of the first few on google scholar. I can do more of your work for you if you require it. -
krisbaum at 10:46 AM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
'Greenland aerosol measurements tell you nothing, it is fairly common knowledge that aerosols do not travel far from their source typically 10km or so. You need localised measurements to get any kind of global pattern.' It is fairly obvious from recent discussions that my quotation above still applies, everbody is correct in disputing '10km' - as an arbitrary number like this, argue you may but the point still stands that (-Snip-).Moderator Response:[DB] It is very obvious from recent discussions that your quotation above is still invalid. The intercontinental reach & dispersion of aerosols has been amply demonstrated.
Either finish your homework from comments 81 and 94 above or cede those points by declaring your position invalid.
Off-topic diversion snipped.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:30 AM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
DSL does have a point. Krisbaum, the figure of 10km is not only arbitrary, it's also ludicrous and baseless. None of the papers you have referred to can allow to support this number. It is obvious you made it up on the moment to serve your argument. I see nothing in your various arguments that deseves any consideration and I'm done wasting my time on them. -
Tom Curtis at 08:46 AM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
sauerj @11, Roy Spencer, Christy's collaborator on the UAH satellite data explicitly disavows any fossil fuel, or even private sector funding of his research. Presumably that means that Christy receives no private sector funding for any of their joint research as well. With regard to his projects in which he does not collaborate with Spencer I have no information. As DB has pointed out, however, this is a non-issue. The question is the quality of Christy's science, not the nature of his funding. As it stands, his testimony to Congress was very bad science. -
Tom Curtis at 08:39 AM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
MarkR @5, Christy and Spencer use a 1981-2010 baseline to calculate anomalies for their lower troposphere (T2LT) product. The switch to a very short 1979-1983 baseline is, therefore, anomalous (forgive the pun). As that baseline is not his standard practice, and for very good reason, its use requires explanation. As, apparently, the use of that baseline significantly distorts the comparison between T2LT records and model projections, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that it was a deliberate cherry pick. -
CBDunkerson at 08:14 AM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Sauerj, like most of the 'skeptics' Christy is ideologically opposed to all forms of government intervention in the environment. Government action is always bad... therefor any problem which would require government action must not really be a problem. In almost all cases it is a massive ideological blind-spot rather than any consciously chosen reason. -
sauerj at 08:06 AM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Off Subject: Are there known financial connections between the FF industry and UAH (or its alumni) that is motivating Mr. Christy's tactics? Or is this a simple case of "saving-face" pride (due to Mr. Christy taking a hard stance years ago, too soon)? ... Snip if this is 'out of line'.Moderator Response: [DB] General speculations into motivations are generally frowned upon. Specifics get snipped. This is a science-based site and Mr. Christy's science is very much fair game. -
Daniel Bailey at 07:45 AM on 8 August 2012Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction
Perhaps. I know it had to do with the "triple point of water" fiasco thread. -
scaddenp at 07:33 AM on 8 August 2012Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction
Not to mention the famous claim that CO2 falls as snow in Antarctica (was that what got him banned from WUWT?). -
dana1981 at 07:05 AM on 8 August 2012Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction
ditto what michael said @5. Goddard doesn't provide a reference for where he's getting his data, so we can't verify if he's plotted it correctly, or correctly labeled what he's plotting, or why he chose Oklahoma (how many different regions did he have to plot before he found one that looked problematic, I wonder?). Let's just say Goddard is not known for his stellar data analysis skills, to put it as kindly as I possibly can. If Goddard says something, odds are the opposite is true. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:21 AM on 8 August 2012‘It’s not looking good for corn’ - new video from Peter Sinclair
The biggest impact this drought will have on people in the USA is the price of meat. Corn is primarily used as feed for animals. First the price of smaller animals (chickens, pigs) will rise, then cattle. Beef Poultry Pork -
michael sweet at 05:48 AM on 8 August 2012Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction
Shoog, Stephen Goddard was banned from WUWT because he made so many false and unreliable claims. Imagine being so unreliable that you are banned from WUWT! I agree there is not enough information to evaluate his claim. You will waste your life trying to find the actual data to show Goddard is wrong. It only takes a moment to make up this stuff and it takes hours to find the real answer. In any case, it is a blog post (cherry pick) about a single location out of thousands in the USA. All the adjustments have been fully documented and passed peer review. -
citizenschallenge at 05:40 AM on 8 August 2012Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
FYI, I’ve linked to this excellent post over at SkepticForum Why Dr. Lindzen is mistaken re. CO2's 'climate sensitivity' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thanks for all these incredibly informative articles you folks have written and posted. -
vrooomie at 04:58 AM on 8 August 2012‘It’s not looking good for corn’ - new video from Peter Sinclair
Out where I live, I am surrounded by thousands of acres of corn, most of it irrigated (by center-pivot irrigation, draining the local aquifer, but *don't* get me started....) but some corn is dry land; I can confirm that that corn is in really bad shape. Our (Colorado) precipitation is down by 50% over last year, which wasn't a great year, and in a average year, we'll see ~26 cm of precipe per annum. It has been so dry that my weeds have literally died from lack of moisture. It could get *interesting,* sez he who depends on a well..... -
vrooomie at 04:53 AM on 8 August 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #31
Close: they didn't *quiiite* get the ostrich correct. I submit a more accurate version... Our ostrich be *cooked*! -
Shoog at 04:34 AM on 8 August 2012Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction
Hi there, First post here so go easy. I have a goof handle on the TOBS issue but was countered in a discussion with the following blog by Steve Goddard; http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/smoking-gun-that-tobs-adjustments-are-garbage/ The jump in the graph at around 2000 seems real enough, but there doesn't seem to be enough information to assess the validity of his claim. Can anyone take a look and tell me what is going on. Stephen -
dana1981 at 00:57 AM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
I don't know how Christy selected his baseline period - it's probably a poor choice. That's why I discussed the trends in the post, which I don't believe he mentioned in his testimony. It's very easy to make a misleading graph, but trends are much more difficult to manipulate, other than by cherrypicking start and end points. Martin - I'm sure the politicians who invite Christy to speak (Republicans) know exactly what they're going to get. From the question and answer session when Senator Barbara Boxer (Democrat from California) was peppering Christy and exposing some of his myths, it's clear that the other side was not fooled. -
Composer99 at 00:12 AM on 8 August 2012‘It’s not looking good for corn’ - new video from Peter Sinclair
The corn crop quality graph in the video was not a good sign at all. -
Jeffrey Davis at 23:48 PM on 7 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
H2O is plant food, too. So, apparently according to Christy nobody can drown. -
Martin Lack at 21:56 PM on 7 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Excellent analysis as usual but, exactly how much notice do policymakers take of Christy? Are they fooled by him? Do they still see this as a debate? As well as the incredible spectacle of a "distinguished professor" (of the FFL-funded University of Abdication) asking politicians to rely upon Anthony Watts, I found his endorsement of the "we skeptics are like Galileo" fallacy and/or victim mentality astonishing. As for claiming that fossil fuels are good for us and/or that mitigation is hurting the poor; this is quite simply reality inversion: The problem with inverting reality (31 March 2012). -
CBDunkerson at 21:55 PM on 7 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
It would be interesting to see what the surface temperature results would look like with the 'corrections' in the Watts/Christy paper... and then compare that to Christy's UAH satellite record and ask him to explain the discrepancies. -
Lars Karlsson at 21:13 PM on 7 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Regarding the model vs observation comparisons, notice that Christy writes: "The two satellite-based results (circles, UAH and RSS) have been proportionally adjusted so they represent surface variations for an apples-to-apples comparison." -
MarkR at 20:44 PM on 7 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
#2 and #4 KevinC and skywatcher, I can see why Christy would choose to start the baseline in 1979. It seems a reasonable thing to do as the measurements start then. But a bit of thought and some further looking would point out that choosing a starting point for comparison where the multi-model mean ENSO would be zero and the observations are net positive is poor analysis. Similarly if a 7 year mean were baselined using a 4 yr average. I suspect that because it helped give Christy the answer he was looking for, he didn't bother to look into it much more - simple confirmation bias. At least I hope that's what he did, rather than actually doing tetests and choosing to mislead Congress. -
skywatcher at 17:59 PM on 7 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
#2 Kevin C - I think you're right about the baselining. If the 1979-83 observations are aligned with the 1979-83 model mean, the graph is skewed. By selecting just 1979-1983 as the baseline, Christy is able to align the model mean with a period (1979-1983) where UAH and other temperature series was running distinctly above the 1979-2012 trend. In the graph, there is also the question of how Christy calculated the 1979 datapoint for his running UAH mean. Given the UAH dataset runs from 1979, a centred average on 1979 will only have four points (1979, 80, 81 and 82), instead of the seven that most of the other points would have. The same issue is at the end of the dataset (How many datapoints contrinuted to the 2011 point?) That's a real problem in a graph presented as "7-year running averages". You should only have averages from 1982 to 2008 (Lowess smoothing can fill in the ends, but that's not what's presented). Consequence: The observations will run well below the model mean for the entire series, as the baseline period has a disproportionate influence of "El Nino" on the series. By setting the baseline to a peak in the observations (a peak not present by design in a multi-model mean), there is an offset of ~0.1C between the multimodel mean and the observations. Aligning the baselines properly over longer periods (at least through a couple of ENSO cycles), and I suspect this offset will disappear. The above graph is thus very deceptive. I can think of many descriptions for people who would produce a graph like this and present it before lawmakers, but I would fall foul of the Comments Policy. -
Kevin C at 16:18 PM on 7 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Is it easy to get the CMIP5 data for that figure? It would be interesting to look at longer timespans to address the baseline issue, and also to include my new HAD4krig reconstruction (a global version of HadCRUT4 using Kriging). -
Kevin C at 15:36 PM on 7 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Looking at the model-data discrepancy figure, Christy also seems to have done something odd with the baselines. The surface temperature records are lower than the model values for the entire (and ridiculously short) 1979-1983 baseline period. I'm guessing that the reason is the 7 years smooth. If those 5 years were hot (80, 81 and 83 were), and the years around them were cool (74-76 and 84-86 were cool), then the 7 year smooth will produce lower values. However it's looking as though the baseline period was a careful cherry-pick. -
Estiben at 15:20 PM on 7 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Forwarding this article to my senators. Every politician needs to see this, just in case they aren't already aware of Christy's bias. -
DSL at 13:01 PM on 7 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
This has to be the most pointless discussion I've encountered in several years, and that includes the engagement with Tim Curtin at OM, the SLoT thread, and everything Dan H has started at RC. What will be the ultimate bottom line if krisbaum is correct in feeling misled by Pachauri? Would it mean anything where WG1, WG2, or WG3 are concerned? And although it's probably against comment policy, I'll wager krisbaum has no problem with (-Snip-), and those are much more damaging than anything Pachauri has to say about bloody grey literature (as one can see from the variety of mainstream media outlets that are seemingly plugged directly into WUWT).Moderator Response: [DB] Comments policy violation snipped. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:07 AM on 7 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
Very interesting, there are actually two different versions of this paper. The one that krisbaum cites includes the sentence about short atmospheric lifetime, etc. The version I found was published in GRL specifically has that line deleted. It looks to me like kris is citing from (maybe) a pre-press version of the paper (?). I find it interesting that that line was removed. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:52 AM on 7 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
It is duly noted that krisbaum blatantly is ignoring the tasks he has given himself in 81 and 94. Just as he ignored the text description for the animated GIF found on the host page:"The animation below shows the fire activity and smoke plumes in Russia and China in June/July 2012 and the consecutive transport of smoke across the Pacific. The MACC GFAS assimilation of Fire Radiative Power observations are superimposed over the combined organic matter and black carbon fields in the MACC global aerosol assimilation, which combines the smoke emissions calculated in GFAS with inventories of anthropogenic emissions and aerosol optical depth observations from space. Both types of observations are performed by the satellite-based MODIS instruments and NASA has provided the observation data."
Also note that aerosols travel enormous distances across continents and oceans. And note that they are not evenly-mixed or distributed, unlike CO2:
[Source]
-
Tom Curtis at 10:48 AM on 7 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
krisbaum @106, I explicitly referred you to the top center image for the discussion of aerosols. You will notice that it is labelled "AOT", standing for Aerosol Optical Thickness. There are certain minimum standards of conduct necessary for any rational discussion - honesty, consistent standards for your self and others, a willingness to cite relevant information etc. You have shown yourself consistently unwilling to abide by any such standard. Consequently my discussion with you is over. Until you undertake to show why it was reprehensible of the IPCC to cite Agassiz as the originator of the theory of ice ages; or to cite Newton's letter to Hooke in 1675 as the source of the famous quotation about standing on the shoulders of giants (two more of the supposedly dubious citations according to your favourite source), or admit that the quality of citations cannot be determined simply by looking at the immediate source and that your favourite source used a massively flawed methodology which is completely unable to justify the conclusions you, and they draw from it, there is nothing more to say. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:40 AM on 7 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
krisbaum @ 109... We are clearly not looking at the same paper. You said the title of the paper was, "Large historical changes of fossil-fuel black carbon aerosols." http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb/July-2004/Historical-changes.pdf -
krisbaum at 10:34 AM on 7 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
Rob @107 - CO is not an aerosol.
Prev 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 Next
