Recent Comments

Prev  1114  1115  1116  1117  1118  1119  1120  1121  1122  1123  1124  1125  1126  1127  1128  1129  Next

Comments 56051 to 56100:

56051. CBDunkerson at 08:50 AM on 4 August 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       Falkenherz, ok yes a 'magical CO2 sink that absorbs 100% of human CO2 emissions and 0% of natural emissions' could 'disprove' the mass balance argument. However, even if it weren't inherently impossible... it would be contradicted by half a dozen other lines of evidence. That is, if a magical human CO2 sink existed then the strong correlation between human CO2 emissions and atmospheric accumulations (both in timing and rate) would be anomalous. Likewise, the C12/C13/C14 ratio changes indicate that fossil fuels are the source of the atmospheric increase... which would be odd if a magical sink were removing all the fossil fuel carbon. Et cetera. So even if we allow for one 'leprechaun' to invalidate the mass balance argument we'd still need to throw in a pixie, a couple of unicorns, and a bandersnatch in order for it to hold up in the face of the other evidence. 'It is not technically impossible'... well, no... but you'd have to be crazy to think otherwise.
56052. VictorVenema at 08:44 AM on 4 August 2012
       Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction
       Thank you Bob. You are right, it is a short 4-page letter. I have corrected this on my blog and also made the doi link more user friendly. I hope an admin can do the same here.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Updated post accordingly.
56053. Bob Loblaw at 08:20 AM on 4 August 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       Falkenherz: A sink that only reacts to fossil, not natural CO2 is not speculation - it's fantasy. When the the CO2 from this "natural" source has the exact same characteristics (isotope ratios, O2 reduction, etc., which are required as a result of the other evidence) as the fossil source, how is the natural sink supposed to know to suck up the fossil CO2 and not the natural source? "Not very probable" is in the rhealm of "when monkeys fly out of my butt".
56054. Falkenherz at 08:15 AM on 4 August 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       Ah, sorry, maybe I should have mentioned that I continue that same discussion from under a different article ("human fingerprint"), where a comment relayed me to this article here.
56055. Bob Loblaw at 08:14 AM on 4 August 2012
       Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction
       Minor correction: the last reference should be Geophysical Research Letters, not Journal of Geophysical Research. It's wrong on the original web page. Volume number, etc. are OK, and DOI leads to the correct spot (if it's an exact copy of the original web page).
56056. Falkenherz at 08:10 AM on 4 August 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       John thanks for the nice link, it always good to talk in pictures. KR, CBDunkerson, the flexible sink would react only to fossil, not to natural CO2 input. That is where I would map the analogy. E.g. because of a yet unknown mechanism, sinks are taking up fossil sources faster than from natural sources, and in place of fossil CO2, the increase in atmosphere really comes from some more arbitrary methane belching. This is of course speculation, as there is no knowledge about something like this, and I only do this in order to understand sceptics like Julian. It is sort of an "maybe we don´t know everything about it" point, which you can never ever totally deny. Your response here is, well, we do know a lot and nothing makes this kind of speculation very probable. E.g. the mechanism of oceans' uptake could be not so selective that it would priority-process the fossil CO2; the increase is proportional to increased fossil output so that breaking that obvious connection would require more than just abstract speculation; etc. That´s why I agree, it is indeed about LGM or Leprechauns. But who knows, maybe they are real, anyways... ;)
56057. Falkenherz at 07:31 AM on 4 August 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       Ah, this is a pity... I had to suffer through the whole video and argue with sceptics about his ridiculous claims all by myself, because I did not find this website in time... For me this shows that either Nobelpreis can sometimes be given to the wrong persons, or Nobelpreis really says nothing about the winner's personal scientific integrity.
56058. KR at 06:38 AM on 4 August 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       With tongue firmly in cheek, and full credit to Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal and to "Jeremy" on Realclimate for pointing this out: The Life Cycle of Physicists
56059. dhogaza at 05:40 AM on 4 August 2012
       Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction
       Good to see this post by Victor given additional visibility by reposting it here ...
56060. newcrusader at 04:26 AM on 4 August 2012
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       C02 at near 400ppm is totally not acceptable- and we are near that now- though the effects of this are 25 years away- what we are seeing now is C02 just past 350ppm. The weather extremes in years to come will become worse- far worse. How society is able to hold up to an increasing erratic climate is an unknown. But it is likely to be chaotic. Over the long haul we we are likely to see C02 near 650ppm- perhaps higher and at least 3.5 degrees C in warming over the PI era- we will not see 350ppm again for at least a thousand years- perhaps longer.
56061. CBDunkerson at 03:54 AM on 4 August 2012
       Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
       Falkenherz, no I didn't mean to imply that no portion of Greenland other than the summit melted in 1889 (or whichever year it was). Rather, the study with the '150 year' (on average) melt events was looking only at melting near the highest point... and thus doesn't tell us anything about the rest of the ice sheet. Each of previous occurrences could have been extremely localized, covered a significant portion of Greenland including the summit (most likely), or have been similar 'nearly all of Greenland' events. Basically, we know that the summit melted every 150 years on average. We don't know how often the entire ice sheet has melted. JohnB, the 'melting could stop' paper seems to me to sail right past the fact that the previous 'melting stop' they base their conclusions on happened during a cooling period before the main effects of global warming had kicked in. The ice sheet didn't just magically stop declining... it was due to climate factors which are no longer possible.
56062. Philippe Chantreau at 03:50 AM on 4 August 2012
       IPCC is alarmist
       Tom Curtis addressed the claims in post 25 above, I thought I'd add that, historically, the serious study of atmospheric aerosols dates back to the time when atmospheric sciences started being a field of their own and separated from geology, inthe late 1800s. Seminal work on the subject was published by Aitken in 1888, 1891, 1894, 1895. As of today, aerosols are the focus of intense work, and several scientific journals are exclusively dedicated to the subject.
56063. Daniel Bailey at 03:38 AM on 4 August 2012
       Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
       Without knowing which specific glaciers & portions thereof the aerial recon imagery covered, and having not read the study itself but just the abstract, I would caution against overly broad interpretations of the study. It covers a specific sub-region of a region of the world, the NW portion of the GIS. There is no mention of ground-truth comparisons of the dted's, a must-have to ensure accuracy (from personal experience working with such models). Also, differing topographies and differing season with differing deposition rates produce dynamically different responses in flow rates of the ice. Given that, I fail to see how anyone can derive anything scientifically useful out of the abstract alone, as there simply is not enough context for meaningful interpretations of the results vs the area of coverage itself, let alone the rest of the GIS. Therefore, the newspaper article is nothing but disinformationist overhype. Wait for the assessments of real glaciologists for proper understandings.
56064. CBDunkerson at 03:38 AM on 4 August 2012
       It's not us
       Falkenherz, the problem is that your example assumes we only know one variable... the total atmospheric accumulations (the end result of each of your calcualtions). That is incorrect. We know accumulations and human emissions. The mass balance argument only works when using both of those values. Thus, your counter argument is 'correct' only if we ignore some of the data we have.
56065. CBDunkerson at 03:27 AM on 4 August 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       Falkenherz wrote: "Again, this thought experiment is just to point out that mass balance is not an argument for itself that rising CO2-levels in the atmosphere automatically attribute to man made CO2." No. The mass balance argument is sufficient, in and of itself, to show that rising atmospheric CO2 levels have been caused by humans. For each of the past ~50 years we know the amount of CO2 released by human fossil fuel burning and the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. In all of those years the amount we released has been greater than the amount which accumulated. Thus, the various 'analogy possibilities' you raised are not not possibilities. The only way that human emissions exceed atmospheric accumulation each and every year is if the net of other (i.e. natural) factors is taking some of the carbon out each year. It doesn't matter if the various components increase, decrease, or do the lambada... so long as we emit more than accumulates we are unquestionably responsible for 100% of the accumulation.
56066. MA Rodger at 03:16 AM on 4 August 2012
       Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
       JohnB @18 There's some comment on the same paper at CarbonBrief that is perhaps a little more balanced than TheRegister post you link to. The paper in question Kjær et al 2012 examined aerial photos to obtain local melt data back to 1985 giving 27 years rather than the 10 years of satellite data. Their findings is suggesting to them that rising Grennland temperatures, rather than resulting in a new regime of ice-loss, may result in a melt event lasting a few years followed by a new regime with less extreme ice loss, or 'stabalisation'. They suggest recent data from the likes of GRACE is too short a record and may only be seeing the melt events, not the longer term stabalisation. The language used by the lead author appears designed to attract attention. "It is too early to proclaim the 'ice sheet's future doom'..." is one of the quotes CarbonBrief got from him.
56067. ranyl at 03:16 AM on 4 August 2012
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       Micheal and Dana, What is safe? and over what time period? Crux questions I suppose. Maybe safe is the amount that means that we can adapt enough to prevent civilization chaos. 2C above pre-industrial seems the highest limit of safety for me due to complex interactions of everything, e.g. Bangladesh has ~100 million people, they will have go somewhere as sea level rises, deluge flooding increases and glacial melt flooding, make it irrational to stay, and so the knock effects go on. Not because of the possibility of inducing tipping points, they are wild cards that become more likely over 2C, but sudden 2C transition isn't looking that pretty in itself if 0.8C can induce these weather extremes being experienced, and we have been that hot for long (what will a natural 1:200 year event amplified by this warming be like?) Lots of ill-health and deaths occur after the acute flood and are rarely recorded, people from Pakistan are still not in permenant shelter after the floods, even here in the UK after the 2010 floods people are still displaced. And then of course there is all the costs of clear up, all the additional white goods to be made (positive feedback on CO2 emissions due to embodied energy and waste disposal), and the huge insurance costs, all picking away at fincancial security which isn't exactly that secure at present. And then there is the lack of water security after a flood, loss of crops, etc, etc... Is safe a level where food and water security can be maintained to a level that doesn't induce civilizations breakdown generally, although that is already in some areas. 350ppm however doesn't seem conservative safe to me, it seems at the edge of the safety, and still below the 95% safe that any medical practioner would accept as acceptably safe for the treatment of a patient. Why? Well as the Pliocene had CO2 about 350ppm, and was 3-5C hotter, all things being equal that is were we will end up with 350ppm, and although that will 1000years or so, about 60-80% is meant to occur in 100years, which seems reasonable as any heating event has a linear rise followed an expotential decay. Therefore 350ppm by 2100 induces 1.8C to 3C warming in a 100years, if GHG CS and Ice melt CS included. Although the carbon sinks are keeping at present as just reported in Nature, most feel this won't continue much longer and several sink areas are looking dodgey, like the Canadian Boreal forest seems to be source at present due fires and Pine beetle problems, and ofcourse there is the general fact that CO2 increases naturally by ~14-20ppm per 1C of warming and permaforst and permaice on the Arctic ice shelf are melting. 450ppm for me is really not safe in anyway, that is CO2 levels not seen for 20-40million years and means >2C for definant eventually and 2C by 2100 very likely indeed and >1.8C a certainity and 100ppm is a lot of CO2 to remove as 350ppm looks more appealign as events continue to occur. And it is all about the rate of change for eco-systems and crop growing potential, faster we go the less chance things can adapt or move and when looking at the fishery changes for PDO and Nina changes, eco-systems acutely react poorly to sudden changes in the prevailing regime. The desert regions will shift and are already, wet areas will become drier and so on. Then weather extremes which have a far deeper effect than just the acute event as highlighted above. How frequent to 1:100 events need to become for them to impinge on safety all round? Presuming the potential extreme events (flooding, heat waves, droughts) track the shift in temperature mean, a shift of another 0.8C, may be very significant indeed. How many SD from the mean is a 0.8C shift and what will that mean for severe events? Very hard to say as for the last 2000 years the mean has been shifting up and down, from the MWE, the Roman period and the LIA. But we are currently hotter than all these, indeed Hansen says hotter than the Holocene Thermal maximum, and the general noise arround the shifting mean for the last 2000yeas is about ~+/- 0.4C 95% range. So taking the 1900-2000 as a mean we have shifted from, we have shifted ~1.5-2 SD's...USA has only just shifted in the last 10 years due to the 1930-40's heat periods an dwhy the droughts are just becoming as severe as then now (Texas 2011, now 2012). So another 0.8C is lots of SD above, ~4 to 5, and intuitively doesn't that mean that 100 year heating events will basically be cold events and 1:1000, events occur every 10 years or so, and those sort of extremes do directly impinge of water and food security everywhere. Shift the mean by 2SD and doesn't that mean that the previous mean is now a cold extreme at the 95% range and the previous 95% hot limit is the new mean and thus the new 95% range (1:20 year events) include events that were basically 4SD from the mean previously or 1:500 events and 1:100 events become very extreme compared to now? Look at the mega droughts of Medeival Warm Event in the western USA, can these return as we warm, or were they due to more persistent La Nina periodicals due to increased equatorial solar irradation at the time? How will the changing Arctic sea ice effect weather events? Sudden out pourings of cold in winter and heat in summer due to blocking events seem to be already occuring more often and the irregularity of this is not helping, very warm March UK, cold wet April with frost, and the fruit tree crop was impacted severely. The American crop this year must be hard to predict at least, with the drought and the storms, the recent Austrailian drought and 2011 floods must have impacted things. What is safe? Well impossible to say for sure, but we are about to find out? The El-Nino is building, sunspots are rising, sulphur emissions are just about starting fall globally, and Arctic sea ice loss is racing away, all meaning the this next twleve months - 24 months should be hot? I don't really feel that safe at the 390ppm of now to be honest, these weather events are clearly extreme, and it is quite hard to break an extreme in a long record and gets harder with every year and there is clearly more heating to come, suggestive that these extremes will become more severe and more frequent. And what about all the heat of the last 30years that has been subducted to the middle depths of Atlantic in the last 30 years, when does that find its way to Antartica peninsula, the bottom warm water on the Antartic shelf is already heating significantly, if that heat returns to surface how sensitive will the CS be then? It takes ~30years for the Argus current heat to reach the North Atlantic so by push and shove thinking (push it in one end at a certian rate and it has flow somewhere else the North Atlantic sea level would rise and it has out of the other at a similiar rate), what is the transit for the heat accumulation of heat in the THC from the Indian Ocean, Southern Atlantic, Tropcial Atlantic and North Atlantic back to the Southern ocean upwelling? Would heat returning to the surface would turn the heating up rate or just get lost in the latent heat of undermelting the WAIS under Pine Island? What is safe? Not a lot for as Dana says 550ppm is looking almost inevitable unless things change, and no one can let go of our addiction to power despite the carbon costs of all power generation even wind turbines have a large carbon cost when you have a budget as tight as that needed to actually get to 350ppm. Could go on and on about what is safe, however for me it is wha tis safe for everyone, and therefore 350ppm is not really that safe but the best we even dream about.
56068. John Hartz at 02:36 AM on 4 August 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       The bathtub analogy is illustrated and explained quite nicely in The Carbon Bathtub posted on the National Geographic website.
56069. KR at 01:50 AM on 4 August 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       Falkenherz - (paraphrase) "...and what if a leprechaun jumped into the tub?" Explanation by analogy is very useful. But reasoning from an analogy back to a system under investigation is only plausible if that portion of the analogy holds - it's much better to work matters out directly in the system of interest. In this case expansion and contraction of the bathtub is something you have not mapped to the carbon cycle. I would note, in addition, that mass balance/CO2 discussions are more relevant in the How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions or possibly the Murry Salby CO2 source threads. This discussion is on CO2 rise rates and interactions with atmospheric residence time...
56070. Falkenherz at 01:24 AM on 4 August 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       Sceptical Wombat at 11:56 AM on 1 March, 2012, and Michael Hauber: I find the bathtub analogy very intruiging. I am not sure whether the mass balance argument really is prove alone for man-made atmospheric increase. To continue the bath tub: What if the sink can widen or narrow, according how far you open the hot water tap only, but the cold water tap opens, too? This is a reactive system and the mass balance seems not to apply so front-up as explained here. So we could have the situation that cold water increases its flow, you also add some droplets of hot water, and the sink expands to flush an amount equivalent to the additional hot water, but not to the arbitrary additional cold water. Water level would rise. If you stopped the hot water, the sink would narrow back to normal, but the water level would still rise because of the arbitrary additional amounts of cold water. Right? Wrong? Again, this thought experiment is just to point out that mass balance is not an argument for itself that rising CO2-levels in the atmosphere automatically attribute to man made CO2. Which means we need more linked evidence to that.
56071. Falkenherz at 01:17 AM on 4 August 2012
       It's not us
       Thanks, I will be commenting over there.
56072. dana1981 at 01:12 AM on 4 August 2012
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       pauls @17 - yes, the nights warming faster than days is one of those 'fingerprints' that is consistent with AGW, but not necessarily indicative only of AGW. There are a number of those 'fingerprints' that could hypothetically be explained by other effects, but when you consider them all together, the fact that they're all consistent with what we expect to see from AGW is what's really convincing. Tony @ 18 - most of the studies illustrated in Figure 5 are model-based. So they generally perform model runs to try and match the observed temperature increase, and then determine how much of the modeled increase is due to each factor. But the models don't perfectly match the observations, so for example if they show 10% less warming than observed, the numbers will add up to ~90%. The graphics show what percentage of the observed warming was attributed to each factor. If it showed how much modeled warming was attributed, then they would add up to 100%, but I think that would be less informative.
56073. dana1981 at 01:07 AM on 4 August 2012
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       Lots of good comments here. ranly @16 - I agree that 3°C sensitivity is middle of the road. I tried to be careful to call it "relatively" high, that being relative to the climate contrarian claims of climate sensitivity < 1°C. I didn't want to say "not low", though middle of the road may have been a better choice of words. As for what CO2 concentration is safe, we can't really answer that question. For one thing it depends on your definition of "safe", i.e. how much damage are you willing to accept. I'd say 350 ppm is a good conservatively safe value, but I'd be reasonably happy with 450 ppm, since I think that's the best we could possibly achieve at this point. As to where we'll most likely peak, my guess is somewhere around 550 ppm, but it could easily be much higher. A lot depends on how long the natural carbon sinks can continue to keep up with our rising emissions. So far they've been up to the task, but we can't expect that to continue forever.
56074. michael sweet at 00:57 AM on 4 August 2012
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       Ranyl, You ask what a "safe" maximum ppm of CO2 is. Safe for who? I live at 70 feet above sea level. I would be safe at a much higher level than millions of people in Bangladesh. Many of them have already been forced from their homes by sea level rise. Ask the farmers in Oklahoma what level of drought and heat they can stand. Can you define what you mean by "safe"? Or do you mean "less than a catastrophe for the USA"?
56075. Tor B at 00:17 AM on 4 August 2012
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       George Marshall (of the British Climate Outreach and Information Network, not of George C. Marshall Inst.) identifies in his Irresistible Story of Richard Muller post that Dr. Muller's change of heart is a cultural transformation, not a scientific one, dispite what Dr. Muller writes.
56076. michael sweet at 23:14 PM on 3 August 2012
       IPCC is alarmist
       Krisbaum, There is ample opportunity to challenge the "experts" appointed to write the IPCC reports if you can document that they are not qualified. Can you provide an example of a single one who was not qualified? Please do not waste my time claiming anyone who has a different opinion from you is unqualified, suggest only people who are really not experts in the field. The entire IPCC report is put online for comments before the final review. You, Exxon-Mobile, Anthony Watts and anyone else interested can comment and ask for changes in the wording or conclusions. How could you get more unbiased review than that? The SPM is reviewed word by word by representatives of all the countries. It is released in advance so that anyone interested can read it and develop their arguments (the draft of the scientific report is already on line for review when the SPM is written). Are you suggesting that the Bush Administration did not look out for oil interests and keep in mind the deniers arguments in this word by word review? In fact, the governments of oil producing countries, with help from the USA, diluted the conclusions of the scientists in the SPM. Your suggestion that the IPCC is alarmist is backwards, it reduces the conclusions to make AGW seem less of a problem. Are you suggesting a committee to review the work of the IPCC (which is essentially a big committee)? Who will appoint the members of this committee? If not the governments (who set up the Intergovernmental PCC) than who? Maybe you can select the members of this duplicate committee. Perhaps I can appoint a committee to oversee the one you appoint. Your suggestion is absurd. Please consider your arguments before you present them here and make sure that they make sense. Do you realize that the IPCC has only a handful of employees? The work is all done by volunteer scientists. The IPCC only coordinates the process.
56077. vrooomie at 23:11 PM on 3 August 2012
       Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
       Dana@43: Every so often, and against my better instincts, I'm compelled to go read up at WUWT, especially in cases such as yours, where someone on a rational blogsite mentions it. I really gotta stop that....it's like whacking meself in the head with a illogical ad hom hammer....! Thanks for your attempt to be rational and helpful: Reading the responses to your well-reasoned post on WUWT reminds me that: -This website is invaluable to those of us who actually do follow and understand the scientific method, and; -Reminds me NEVER to even try to post anything that smacks of logic and reason there. To the topic, as I read Watt's paper, I see precisely where it falls *way* short of being accepted in any decent journal, and even so, I look forward to its analysis by those much more qualified to interpret it than I. To Martin@47: You're a better man than I, Gunga Din.....
56078. JohnB6223 at 22:05 PM on 3 August 2012
       Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
       Would anybody like to comment on this report. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/03/greenland_ice_sheet_not_about_to_disappear/ From my lay reading it suffers from the fact that it only looks back 30 years -difficult to reach any reliable conclusion in such short a time frame. Also there is no mention of the effects of fast rising atmospheric CO2 concentration on ice melt. Regards.
56079. Daniel Bailey at 22:05 PM on 3 August 2012
       Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
       Any one melt season typically melts less of the GIS ice sheet than the thickness of your topmost layer of skin. In the case of the GIS, the majority of that melt is compacted snow, not ice. Extreme melt seasons of the GIS mean that instead of the lower reaches being the ablation zone (where mass is lost) and the upper reaches being the accumulation zone (where the sheet packs on weight), much of the entire sheet is an ablation zone. So no growth in those years, just losses. Expected increases in mass loss of the GIS will be primarily due to calving at the marine-terminating outlet glaciers, such as Jakobshavn, Petermann and Zachariae.
56080. Tom Curtis at 21:44 PM on 3 August 2012
       IPCC is alarmist
       The sulfate measurements over the last few centuries krisbaum @25 claims do not exist: (Source)

       "Figure 1: (a) Sulfate concentrations in several Greenland ice cores and an Alpine ice core. Also shown are the total SO2 emissions from sources in the US and Europe. The inset shows how peaks due to major volcanic eruptions have been removed by a robust running median method followed by singular spectrum analysis."

56081. krisbaum at 21:28 PM on 3 August 2012
       IPCC is alarmist
       scaddenp - when i investigated the whole aerosol problem, i discovered that the IPCC dont have any solid science to base their estimates of forcing on. there are no solid papers on the aerosol effect - that definitively tell scientists whether aerosol levels have increased or decreased and by how much over the last 100 years. This is because we didnt record aerosols around the world until recently. Go find me one that has historial records. It does not exist.
56082. krisbaum at 21:25 PM on 3 August 2012
       IPCC is alarmist
       This page lists the process; http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml#.UBu0NqBs6Yk as you can see, the government chooses 'experts', a 'bureaux' selects authors.. tbose authors produce a 2nd draft which then goes to a combination of the expert panel & government officials and a final review!!! it is NOT a purely scientific publication / report. if it was, you would have absolutely no government involvement until the document has been produced. even better, you would have a group of people or committee completely divorced from the IPCC that would review what they had produced - and have the ability to deny publication pending changes or review. this does not happen. the SPM also gets written by the plenary. It is released BEFORE the main report.
56083. krisbaum at 21:19 PM on 3 August 2012
       IPCC is alarmist
       scaddenp; the review process does not work like that... yes, the material is sent out to people to review, but the lead authors collect the reviews and decide which ones are to be included and which arent. even the Interacademy Council recommends this extra step of transparency and scrutiny. there is no separate body that is responsible for reviewing and approving or scrutinising the end result of what the IPCC produce. the Summary For Policymakers is a combined political & scientific production - this is how the process works!! I am not making up anything here.
56084. Tony Noerpel at 20:18 PM on 3 August 2012
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       Dana great post. I have a question regards the labeling of figure 5. If these are contributors to "global warming" shouldn't they add to 100%, i.e., human (sum of warming and cooling forcings) and natural (sum of warming and cooling forcings) influences? I don't know if I'm describing my confusion clearly. Thanks again Tony
56085. pauls at 19:50 PM on 3 August 2012
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       Regarding 'nights warm faster than days' on your Fingerprints infographic: though commonly stated (it's mentioned in the new BEST paper) this is not really a fingerprint of anthropogenic warming. Direct CO2 forcing is not considered to have anything other than a negligable effect on diurnal temperature range (DTR). In terms of forcing, the primary anthropogenic cause of decreased DTR (nights warming faster than days) is aerosols, which reflect or absorb solar radiation, holding back Tmax while both Tmax and Tmin warm due to an increasing greenhouse effect. So, looking just at forcings, decreased DTR would actually be a fingerprint of anthropogenic cooling. However, some of the main factors involved in decreasing DTR are likely to be feedbacks - water vapour (the primary effect is absorption of solar radiation reducing Tmax, and not the greenhouse effect increasing Tmin), clouds and soil moisture. Unless it could be shown that the specifics of these feedbacks are unique to greenhouse warming, I don't think they could be regarded as fingerprints of anthropogenic effects. On the other hand, I assume that solar-induced warming would have an effect on DTR (make days warm faster than nights), at least at first order, so perhaps it could be considered a fingerprint for distinguishing solar and greenhouse warming. Refs: Stenchikov and Robock (1995) Stone and Weaver (2003) Zhou et al. (2010)
56086. Falkenherz at 19:46 PM on 3 August 2012
       Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
       Thanks for the clarifications! I just think stuff like this needs to be pointed out more, well, pointedly. BTW, in earlier times only a melting at the top and not on the whole Greenland, seriously?
56087. Martin Lack at 19:32 PM on 3 August 2012
       Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
       Dana #43: Following the intervention of Lucy Skywalker, I seem to have been allowed to comment on WUWT (just so long as I don't mention the D-word, call Watts a hypocrite, remind readers of his egotistical sensitivities, or point out the misleading nature of his World Climate Widget). As such, my moderation failure rate at WUWT is down to about 25%, so I would recommend perseverance. Most recently, I have succeeded in getting through with a comment encouraging Watts to either address criticisms or embrace oblivion.
56088. ranyl at 18:58 PM on 3 August 2012
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       Good post and graphics, thankyou Dana. With the comments above, lead to some thoughts and questions, hope that is ok. "Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." To establish skeptical view or "denial driven view", is very difficult but it strikes me there are many who fully recognise global warming, but are skeptical of the size for the issue, this can range from a healthy skepticism as part of scientific method to denial in disguise. I find that people that say things like "CO2 isn't even a warming agent", "its all volcanoes" are normally not "skeptics" (whatever that this) as such, more just not prepared to even look for fear of the possibility, for whatever reason. For those who are not skeptical about environmental change what does all this actually mean? "The BEST team also found that the observed warming is consistent with an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.1 ± 0.3°C for CO2 doubling, in line with the IPCC climate sensitivity range, and demonstrates once again that contrary to the persistent claims of Richard Lindzen, the Earth has warmed as much as we expect given a relatively high climate sensitivity." For me this is could be slightly skeptical view, for to say that a CS of 3.1C is relatively high, is slightly underestimating the higher potential of CS, for a CS of 3.1C for me is a middle of road potential possibility of climate sensitivity, and there is a ~50% chance it could be higher. A relatively high CS would be 3.75C-4C, with a 3C mean and 95% range 1.5C-4.5C, SD 0.75C. And with that middle of the road potential Hansen is still calling for 350ppm by 2100. The higher ppm we get to the harder returning to 350ppm becomes and it makes sense that the higher the heating imbalance or the larger the effective heater the faster things will proceed. So my questions are, considering the BEST results confirmations of warming and the size of the CO2 problem. What is a safe peak ppm? a) 400-410ppm b) 410-420ppm c) 420-450ppm d) 450-500ppm e) 500-550ppm What is most likely CO2 peak, all things considered? Just wondering what people think?
56089. George Montgomery at 17:52 PM on 3 August 2012
       Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
       This is a bit OT but has numerous parallels to Watts and BEST not crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's before they commit to print, etc. In brief, there is a fair bit of excitement in the skeptic blogosphere already agog with the Watts et al 2012 press release. Their perceived problem with temperature records has now expanded from less than 2% to more than 25% of the earth's surface. This post on John O'Sullivan's blog says it all Breaking courtroom chaos as New Zealand skeptics rout government climatists. Or does it? Richard Treadgold who runs the NZ skeptic blog Climate Conversation Group has posted two comments on O'Sullivan's blog. The second comment includes each of O'Sullivan's post's paragraphs and has square brackets at the end of each paragraph which have been inserted by Treadgold and include a correction or clarification of the O'Sullivan paragraph. Here's an example: New Zealand skeptics of man-made global warming score historic legal victory as discredited government climate scientists perform U-turn and refuse to allow a third party peer-review report of official temperature adjustments to be shown in court. Skeptic lawyers move for sanctions likely to prove fatal to government’s case. [Incorrect.] Note: The third party peer-review report mentioned above involves the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Why the attention to detail and accuracy by Treadgold which leads to a plethora of corrections to the reported details. The answer lies on his blogsite: With friends like these we need no enemies. Wherein there is the following paragraph: The problem is that the judge hasn’t even made his decision, which my recent posts have made clear. We run a distinct risk of contempt of court if we appear to endorse the wild claims about the state of the case, of legal moves, even of victory, that are beginning to sound around the world. (my emphasis) There is a rich irony in at least one of the other paragraphs penned by Richard Treadgold. I'm not sure he's even aware of the hidden meaning in his words: This morning my inbox was filling up with requests to explain and I could sense some people becoming distinctly over-stimulated by the imaginary achievements of the brave Kiwi sceptics. (my emphasis) Treadgold then lists, in an easy to read format, each of O'Sullivan's paragraphs with a refutation or clarification of each. Gut wrenching stuff but hey that's peer review! There are already references to the O'Sullivan post in the comment section of newspaper opinion pieces in Oz. These faulty references will probably reverberate around the internet for years and become an entrenched part of skeptic folklore. Similarly for non-peer-reviewed press releases that may sink in a sea of irrelevance.
56090. Kevin C at 17:39 PM on 3 August 2012
       Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
       A couple of comments on my simple python temperature record program from the post, given that it is getting a bit of attention. Python has 2 dialects, the 2.x series and the 3.x series. You need 2.x (latest version is 2.7.2). I suspect that the only change for 3.x is the final print statement. Save the code as ghcn-simple.py. Usage is:

       python ghcn-simple.py inv-file dat-file polulation-class

       Population class is any combination of RSU (rural suburban urban). e.g.

       python ghcn-simple.py gncnm.tavg.v3.1.0.inv gncnm.tavg.v3.1.0.dat RSU

56091. WheelsOC at 15:34 PM on 3 August 2012
       Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
       Watts has always seemed to believe that just about anything NOAA (or any other agency) did to the surface station data was spurious and biased to produce a false warming trend, so it shouldn't be surprising to see the extent to which this assumption drives his study off the rails. Thanks for demonstrating exactly where and why that happens in detail.
56092. dana1981 at 14:30 PM on 3 August 2012
       Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
       Reg - I actually tried to post a very polite comment on WUWT informing Watts of this post as constructive criticism. My comment never made it through moderation, which is not surprising since my WUWT comments are censored about 90% of the time. Fortunately somebody else was able to get a link to this post through the moderation process, but other than a disparaging and dismissive response by a moderator and a couple of other flippant responses in the comments, it has been largely ignored. So let's just say your confidence that our feedback is welcome on WUWT is not borne out by reality.
56093. dhogaza at 14:25 PM on 3 August 2012
       Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
       Reg "Poe" Nelson: "Anthony encourages constructive criticism of his paper" He's also said that "the physics of heat sinks" proves that the true trend is 50% that of the commonly accepted trend. And that "the physics of heat sinks" is why he *knows* that there's a pony buried in the data. And, of course, when he posted the paper, he didn't say "here's a draft! comments, please"! Instead, he released a PR that said, unequivocably, that 50% of the accepted trend is due to spurious adjustments to the data. Insane. No rational researcher would put that forward without caveats. Compare with those italian physicists who measured particles traveling faster than the speed of light. They said from the beginning it was probably a mistake.
56094. scaddenp at 14:22 PM on 3 August 2012
       IPCC is alarmist
       krisbaum, the list of IPCC and their affiliations can be found here. Furthermore you can see what each said, and what the chapter authors did with there comment. To be a reviewer, all you basically need to do is request a draft and sign an NDA. It's pretty hard to see how you could set up a more transparent and fair way for governments to get a review of the state of climate science. Now what is your evidence for bias? Hopefully a little stronger than "I dont like their conclusions so it must be wrong". Where is your evidence that they failed to examine important papers that would result in a different conclusion? If you are so sure they are wrong about aerosols, then surely you must have a paper that forms that opinion?
56095. Daniel Bailey at 14:11 PM on 3 August 2012
       Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
       Not entirely sure, but an aroma of Poe is in the air...
56096. Reg Nelson at 14:07 PM on 3 August 2012
       Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
       "Here we offer preliminary constructive criticism, noting some issues we have identified with the paper in its current form, which we suggest the authors address prior to submittal to a journal. As it currently stands, the issues we discuss below appear to entirely compromise the conclusions of the paper." Anthony encourages constructive criticism of his paper. I'm sure he would welcome your feedback in his forum, which encourages open debate -- in the true spirit of the scientific method. I think we all agree that science, especially publicly funded science should be transparent. I encourage everyone to embrace the Open Science movement.
56097. Dale at 13:38 PM on 3 August 2012
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       Mod: Apologies, but I thought a discussion on scepticism over attribution was appropriate for the thread considering Muller himself was originally sceptical of attribution and through this study changed.
56098. Bob Loblaw at 13:19 PM on 3 August 2012
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       Dale: it might help your case if you give a name of someone that you consider to be a "serious" skeptic. That will avoid having the discussion bog down in differences of opinion that are based on observations of different groups of "skeptics". Every good scientist is a skeptic, and raises questions about others' research. The set of self-styled "skeptics" (in the climate area) that are good scientists and true skeptics is very, very small (IMHO). Asking questions that have been answered many times (and where the answers are well-established and accepted by nearly all the scientists in the discipline), and asking them again and again because you don't like the answers is not skepticism. Muller and the BEST group had "skepticism" that was ignorant (or unaccepting) of well-established knowledge in climate science. Their results appear to have been a surprise to two groups: - a few of them that have now decided the mainstream climate science had it right - a few more of them that cannot accept the results, because they were never "serious" skeptics in the first place. The vast majority of climate scientists are not surprised.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Please let us return to the OP of this thread; enough chasing after shadows.
56099. Tom Curtis at 12:25 PM on 3 August 2012
       It's the sun
       smoidel @1004, I recently adressed your misinformation about Kilauea's heat output in detail here. I now see that instead of responding, or attempting to show where I was wrong, you have simply restated your same argument in a slightly different form on a another blog post where readers would not be aware that you had been previously, comprehensively rebutted. So comprehensively, in fact, that you were not able to muster a word in your defense. That sort of behaviour is called "trolling", and is not acceptable on this forum. If you think your argument has any merit, defend it where you first raised it, and where it was on topic. As to the small section of your post that is on topic, contrary to your assertions, climate models included the forcing due to changing energy emission from the Sun TSI. Asserting falsehoods (that they do not include it) in no way helps your case. More importantly, TSI has been declining since 1980, and hence cannot be the cause of the sharp rise in global temperatures since about 1975.
56100. Joshua at 11:54 AM on 3 August 2012
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       Dale - I've been hanging out in the "skeptical" blogsphere for a while, and while I'm going to stay away from a discussion of how to differentiate a "serious skeptic" from a "nonserious? skeptic," I disagree with your statement of the distribution of what "skeptics" tend to believe. First, I see quite a number of "skeptics" who either outright reject that CO2 is a GHG or who argue that as a trace gas, ACO2 could never influence global temperatures to any significant extent. Further, there are many "skeptics" who say that they don't doubt that the Earth is warming, and that ACO2 plays a role, but they systematically reject any scientific method for measuring and/or establishing a rise in global mean temperatures or attribution of any rise to ACO2 - so I think that their statement of what they believe is internally incoherent. Finally, FWIW, I have often been told by "skeptics" that the belief of "skeptics" is not monolithic, and therefore can't be easily categorized, only to turn around and read blog post after blog post where "skeptics" categorize what most "skeptics" believe.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Attempted thread-jacking aside, let us return to the topic of this thread, BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming.

Prev  1114  1115  1116  1117  1118  1119  1120  1121  1122  1123  1124  1125  1126  1127  1128  1129  Next