Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 Next
Comments 56101 to 56150:
-
Tom Curtis at 00:28 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger, to establish one simple fact, you claim that:"The trick actually consists of splicing instrumental data onto the reconstructed series (starting at 1980), smoothing the resulting series, then truncating the series at the point the instrumental data had been appended."
(My emphasis) As, according to you and McIntyre the instrumental data was appended from 1980 onwards, this would mean that the smoothed series terminates in 1980. Is that correct? -
Alex C at 00:23 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
@Brandon Shollenberger #167: >>>To put it simply, code has been provided which allows one to exactly replicate the results stated by Steve McIntyre. But if McIntyre did not accurately describe what Mann did then the code he provided to allow others to replicate his results will only cause others to replicate his inaccurately applied description. Tom's point was that Mann used the mean of the instrumental data to pad, not the instrumental data itself. I again propose you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The paper's conclusions would stand with or without the filter and as such the different padding choices would have (a) a marginal effect on the endpoints and (b) no impact on the paper's conclusions. I would contend that choosing zeros for a padding method at the end is the wrong thing to do, too. The tree ring data was calibrated to reflect temperatures of the northern hemisphere, so the better thing to do would be to use actual NH data, if it existed (which it just so happened to). -
Tom Curtis at 00:21 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger @167, code for a purported reconstruction of a smoothing technique is not evidence that that smoothing technique was "Mann's Nature trick". Before the reconstruction of the smoothing technique can be evidence of what is involved in the "Nature trick", you must first establish that the smoothing technique used in MBH 98 was the trick that either Jones referred to or that Mann understood Jones to be referring to. McIntyre provides exactly zero evidence on this point. He merely asserts it. I do not expect you to appreciate this point as your ability to condemn depends on your not understanding it. But so much, therefore, for your commitment to truth. -
Albatross at 00:19 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Hi Tom, Brandon is merely recycling longed debunked claims made by the self-styled "auditor". DeepClimate has long ago addressed McIntyre's efforts to mislead readers of a UK newspaper and do what he likes to do, make mountains out of molehills, and then suggest misconduct by certain climate scientists (oddly, almost never "skeptics") . In fact, McIntyre's missive and distortion of the facts was so bad that DeepClimate had to split up his rebuttal into two parts. The second one can be found here. DeepClimate concludes [my highlights]: "Judging from his recent presentation at the Heartland Institute sponsored International Climate Conference, it appears that Steve McIntyre has not changed his narrative and interpretation of the "climategate" emails of September 1999. Neither is there any indication, as far as I know, that McIntyre has responded to the facts presented above. Based on currently available information, then, McIntyre appears to have chosen option (b) and has ignored the evidence, at least so far." Now had Mann posted such an article as McIntyre's in a newspaper, I'm sure allegations of "fr@ud" would be rampant by the usual suspects who specialize in promulgating misinformation, feeding fodder to the skeptics and attacking climate scientists. It is sad that some are so willing to (knowingly?) defend the mendacious actions and flawed arguments of people like Mr. McIntyre. -
Tom Curtis at 00:15 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger @168, I was merely pointing out that your claim as written contradicts itself. If you cannot recognize the contradiction, that is not my problem. -
KR at 00:03 AM on 28 July 2012It's the sun
curiousd - A more simple argument against increased solar flux is that solar flux has decreased since 1980, as seen here, going in the opposite direction from the temperature trend. But yes, stratospheric cooling is one of the fingerprints of GHG warming - less energy going from the troposphere to the stratosphere due to GHG entrapment, while higher concentrations of GHG's in the stratosphere cause some radiative cooling to space. There are complications in terms of stratospheric water vapor trends, but that's the basic mechanism. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 00:00 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Tom Curtis @166, if you have a question about what I said, I'd be happy to clarify. However, if all you want to do is mock a comment because you think it is wrong, I don't see anything worthwhile coming from it. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 23:59 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Tom Curtis, you claim I haven't provided "substantial evidence" for my description of the trick. The link I provided contains links to exactly that. In fact, one link provides code to exactly replicate what was done. Given that, your points 1-3 are without merit. As for your point 4, you claim "fake climate-auditors" use the term "Mike's Nature trick" to give a false impression. The reality is people like Steve McIntyre have gone to great lengths to explain just what was done, and by who. Your accusation here is without basis, just like the rest of your disagreement has been As for your point 5, it's hard to tell exactly what you're showing when you provide nothing but an image with no legend, caption or source. Since the image you provide is different than images provided with the code needed to replicate them, one could safely dismiss it as is. There is simply no way to know what was actually done in it. To put it simply, code has been provided which allows one to exactly replicate the results stated by Steve McIntyre. Nobody has shown any mistake in that code. Dismissing the results without showing any flaw in them is inappropriate. -
Tom Curtis at 23:49 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger @165:"You can debate whether or not Mann's approach was right. You can say he should have done something else. I won't disagree. However, the point here is given the methodology Mann used, his figure should have been notably different. The only reason it isn't is he spliced instrumental data onto his reconstructed series."
So, given that Mann used a particular method it should have looked one way, but it looks different because he didn't use the method that he used. Got it! -
Brandon Shollenberger at 23:43 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Alex C, you can see the effect of the decision in the link I provided. The visual impact is undeniable. If one uses the method Mann used (including his Butterworth filter) without appending the instrumental series to the reconstructed series, the series ends on a downturn. That's the opposite of what the instrumental series shows. It's obviously something readers should be informed about. As for the data not dropping to zero, you are right. You can find an explanation via the link I provided, but the simple version is when one smooths a series, the ends of the series can't be treated the same as the middle. You just don't have any data on the edges to use for averaging. To address that problem, sometimes "padding" is used. This is a process where data is artificially generated to be used in the smoothing function. There are a number of ways of doing it, but in Mann's case, he padded the series with zeroes (the mean of the instrumental record during the calibration period). By padding the end with zeroes, he forces the data to trend to zero. You can debate whether or not Mann's approach was right. You can say he should have done something else. I won't disagree. However, the point here is given the methodology Mann used, his figure should have been notably different. The only reason it isn't is he spliced instrumental data onto his reconstructed series. And that is "Mike's Nature trick." It is not merely plotting two series together as this article claims. -
KR at 23:42 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
As a side note, due in large part to the changes in funding laws in the US (Citizens United case, US Supreme Court), Koch Industries alone has put more money into the 2012 presidential race than the total of McCain's 2008 campaign expenditures (from NPR). There's a lot of money being applied to denying science, and the attacks on Mann and others are just one part of it. -
BWTrainer at 23:31 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
It's amusing how the skeptics continue to try to bring down the hockey stick as if the entire body of knowledge on global warming rests on a single study done in the 90s. -
Tom Curtis at 23:18 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon Shollenberger @159 and @161, given the nature of your concluding comments, it would be helpful if you were careful with the facts. Let's actually start with those facts: 1) The only person who knows what was meant by Jones when he wrote of "Mann's Nature trick" was Jones himself. Comments by any other person, including most especially Steve McIntyre consist of conjecture only. 2) The person next best placed to know what was meant was Michael Mann himself, who has said:"The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear."
I am unaware of any specific statement by Phil Jones on the issue. Consequently this statement is the only available statement by a principle and should be taken as definitive unless substantial evidence to the contrary exists. Neither you, nor so far as I am aware, anyone else has provided that substantial evidence. Rather, you have insisted that McIntyre's conjecture should trump Mann's word on, apparently little other basis than the desire that Mann should be wrong. 3) Mann did use a technique similar to that described by you in generating the smoothed curve for MBH 98 and MBH 99. Specifically, he appended the mean of the instrumental data from 1981-1997 (MBH 98) and from 1981-1998 (MBH 1999) and use that to pad the proxy data for generating the smoothed curve. Note that contrary to McIntyre, he did not use the instrumental values themselves, but the mean of the values over a given period. Further, and again contrary to McIntyre, he ended the smooth in 1973 (MBH 98) and 1979 (MBH 99), ie, the period determined by necessity when using a 50 year (MBH 98) or 40 year (MBH 99) smooth. Clearly McIntyre has not even got the reconstruction of Mann's smoothing method correct. His supposition that he can deduce from his flawed reconstruction of Mann's smoothing method the nature of the "Nature trick" is absurd. Specifically, McIntyre gives no evidence that the trick relates to the smoothing function as opposed to appending of the full instrumental record as claimed by Mann. 4) Assuming Jones was referring to his graph for the WMO report, he did not do anything like what Mann did in his Nature article (MBH 98). Consequently the name of "Mike's Nature trick" is a complete misnomer. Fake climate-auditors, however, insist on using it, and in trying to suggest that Mann did something similar. Clearly the purpose is not to criticize Jones' techniques, which stand or fall on their own merits. Rather it is an attempt to try and tarnish as many reputations as possible on no substantive basis. 5) As always, the holy grail for so-called climate auditors is to detract from Michael Mann's work. In this case, the absurdity of their attack is shown by the fact that: a) As Michael Mann says:"[The scientific results] were based on comparisons of the individual reconstructed annual values (individual years and decadal averages over 10 consecutive years) from AD 1000-1980, with those from the recent instrumental record (1981-1998), and centered on the fact that the recent instrumental values were outside the error range of the reconstructed values over the past 1000 years and were not related to the smoothed curve."
and b) The smoothing technique used by Mann in MBH 98 and MBH 99 do not significantly effect the visual appearance. (Original text snipped to correct error) Original smooth shown in blue, amended technique shown in green. :
Shollenberger says he wants people to stop saying untrue things about simple facts. We will be able to determine the strength of his desire by whether he in fact stops doing just that.
-
Alex C at 22:45 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
@Brandon Shollenberger #161: Since the NH land instrumental series spans a temperature range of >1˚C, would the effect really be any different than merely plotting the tree ring chronology against the instrumental period with an overlap along the calibration period? I wonder if you're making much ado about nothing. I also don't know much about the Butterworth filter, but how much of the effect seen at the end of the series from the non-smoothed-with-instrumental data, in other words how much of that downward angle, is due to the choice of filter itself and how it behaves at the endpoints of series? Certainly Mann didn't splice instrumental data at the beginning of the time series, but the filter that McIntyre applied certainly seems to drop below what Mann's data shows. The tree ring data also doesn't show such a drop to the zero mark at the very end so the filter's doing something at the endpoint that reflects the trend of the data preceding, but doesn't respond to higher frequencies as might have actually existed at, say, ~1970-1980. Indeed from a brief lookup e.g. here: http://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-6-007-signals-and-systems-spring-2011/lecture-notes/MITRES_6_007S11_lec24.pdf Butterworth filters are low-pass and will suppress higher frequencies. So the ends of the smooth won't necessarily behave as the trend might actually be in the later data.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text per request. -
sime at 22:44 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
"We call on all climate 'skeptic' blogs to condemn the defamatory language from CEI and National Review, and the abuse directed towards climate scientists in general..." The correct, honest and noble path, something most decent, honest individuals with any level of self-respect for them selves and others would do without question. Don't hold your breath waiting for "climate 'skeptic' blogs to condemn the defamatory language from CEI and National Review" you will simply go blue and look like a Smurf. The silence of these so called "climate 'skeptic' blogs" and their outright refusal to condemn actions of this type speaks volumes as to their integrity (or lack there of) and to the sort of individuals who frequent these blogs and perpetuate this kind of nonsense. Simply put hell will freeze over (and Greenland will melt) before these blogs and associated individuals who frequent them will give any kind of condemnation or apology or admit they were then and are now totally and utterly wrong. -
curiousd at 22:40 PM on 27 July 2012Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun
Just to hone a terse anti denialist argument for students, since the fingerprint of increased solar incident flux causing warming is warming throughout the atmosphere and the fingerprint for increased GHG warming is cooling in the stratosphere whilst warming on the surface, does this alone not shoot down the whole "The present is a reprise of the Med Warm period?" skeptic argument? -
Brandon Shollenberger at 22:07 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
CBDunkerson, your response is wrong. In no way does modifying the reconstructed data by using data from another series qualify as "plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data." How could modifying a series possibly be just plotting it along with another series? There are two sets of data plotted in the graph. One is the instrumental series. The other is the reconstructed series modified by using the instrumental series. This is not as you describe, and it's effect can readily be seen in the link I provided. Moreover, you make an untrue remark about Michael Mann. You say, "Mann excluded provably erroneous proxy data in favor of showing the actual global temperature measurement results." You're claim that Mann "excluded" data is untrue in this context. The reconstructed series he had ended at 1980, as did his final result. While data in that series was modified, none was excluded. I assume you are just mixing up this case and a case involving Keith Briffa, but whatever the cause, your claim is wrong. As for the rest of what you say, I don't have any intention of discussing the significance (or lack thereof) of these points. I'd just like for people to stop saying untrue things about simple facts. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:05 PM on 27 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
@angusmac the error bars do not mean the same thing on the two graphs though, hence you are not comparing apples with applies. The error bars on the AR4 diagram are the uncertainty in the forced trend, the error bars on the RC diagram represent the uncertainty in the observations, which includes both the forced and unforced trends. Note that on AR4 Figure TS.26 the observations lie well outside the error bars from the outset (1990), which should be a hint that the error bars plotted in that figure are not an indication of where we should expect the observations to lie. At least seven of the data points plotted on that figure lie outside the error bars. Do you really think the IPCC would pulish a figure that (according to your interpretation) falsifies the pojection, without mentioning it? -
curiousd at 21:55 PM on 27 July 2012It's the sun
Is the following simple argument valid against increased solar flux causing the temperature increases since 1980? (This argument may be elsewhere here, but I have not seen it.) 1. If it were only increased solar flux causing the temperature increase, then the stratospheric temperature deviation would not show stratospheric cooling since 1980. 2. But systematic stratospheric cooling has occurred since 1980. Therefore the temperaature increase at the earth's surface must be due to decreased IR power radiated into the atmosphere. -
CBDunkerson at 21:53 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon, you're describing a difference without a distinction. That is, the process you lay out can be accurately described as "plotting recent instrumental temperature data along with historical reconstructed data"... the statement you are ostensibly 'refuting'. You're just specifying minutiae of how the two data sets were plotted together. Does this focus on minutiae change the conclusion that Muller misrepresented the 'trick' as hiding a decline in global temperature data? No... because the whole point of the trick was to show the global temperature data! There isn't any decline in that data. The decline is a known error in the proxy data from tree rings. Mann excluded provably erroneous proxy data in favor of showing the actual global temperature measurement results. The 'skeptic' claim that failing to show false results is some kind of scientific misconduct demonstrates just how divorced from reality they have become. -
angusmac at 21:53 PM on 27 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
Moderator @33 Both the RC Figure 2 and my version of AR4 Figure of TS.26 refer to global temperatures. Therefore, I am comparing apples with apples. The NH figure to which you refer (AR4 Figure 6 in angusmac @ 28) was clearly a reference to the shading of the diagram; I did not compare RC global temperatures with AR4 NH temperatures.Moderator Response:[DB] "Both the RC Figure 2 and my version of AR4 Figure of TS.26 refer to global temperatures."
Still wrong. Your graphic at 28 above is clearly labeled as AR4 Figure 6.10c (IPCC, 2007). Explanatory text of that graphic:
Figure 6.10. Records of NH temperature variation during the last 1.3 kyr.
You would be better served by admitting that you misunderstood the applicability of the graphic you referenced and also (un)intentionally misrepresented how you presented it. Since you persist in your error the only conclusion one can draw is that the error is willful; the intent, to dissemble and mislead.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
ProfMandia at 21:44 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
At the upcoming AGU conference in San Francisco, Climate Science Legal Defense Fund has convened a formal session along with several workshops in order to educate scientists about their legal rights. When the schedules are set I will let you know. In the meantime one can view the formal session abstract and I hope that you all spread the word so that we can increase the number of submitted abstractss and also make people aware of this valuable program at AGU. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 21:33 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
In following the instructions given in the moderator's response to my #1, I've posted a comment here which discusses a factual error in that appears in this (and that) post. Interested readers should follow the link. -
HS at 21:31 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
I do think it is high time that this practice of wanton accusations of dishonesty - of scientific dishonesty, i.e. of a kind that matters - is challenged and challenged hard. (-Snip-)? And will we also see, ( -Snip-)?Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic & sloganeering snipped. And I'm quite capable of repeating this action as needed. 24/7/365. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 21:30 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Your description of “Mike’s Nature trick” is false. The trick is not merely “plotting recent instrumental temperature data along with historical reconstructed data.” If it were, there’d be no problem. The trick actually consists of splicing instrumental data onto the reconstructed series (starting at 1980), smoothing the resulting series, then truncating the series at the point the instrumental data had been appended. That is nothing like what you describe. For more information on the subject of “tricks,” I highly recommend readers look at this post. -
Daniel Bailey at 21:29 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Phil, since David is either being purposefully obtuse or simply unclear, I clarified my assessment with "if". Hence, if the root argument he makes is based on a misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, the comments could then stay here or go to one of the more applicable GHE threads. If it is based on a misunderstanding of the applicability of the 2nd Law, then it should go as directed. Either way, my comment holds. -
Esop at 21:18 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
#3 (newscrusader): This is absolutely true. The extreme weather events in the US have done massive damage to the denialist cause. They lucked out with the cold winters of 2010 and 2011 and got massive public support, as well as support from the MSN (still the case in Northern Europe due to a few weeks of cold temps in the past winter as well as a cool and rainy summer). Now, however, it has all turned against the US based deniers. Public support is dropping like a rock and a major fraction of the MSN is all of a sudden very science friendly. CNN even stopped calling them skeptics, and started calling them by their real name. This has had a predictable effect: Desperation. It shows. -
Sceptical Wombat at 21:10 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
I wish Mann luck but as I understand it if he counts as a "Public Figure" then the bar for proving libel in the US is rather high. He will need to prove that CEI and Nation Review knew that what they were saying was false. -
sauerj at 20:58 PM on 27 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
Andy S: I'm sorry, but I hastily skipped over your note above (my bad!). Reading both of your comments, clears things up for me. ... Even if the ultimate Tar Sands extraction was 50% or even 25% of 240 giga tons (per your comment above), this potential of 60 gigatons (vs the article's 1 gigaton) is alarming and should be, in my opinion, the reported number. The public needs to know what Tar Sands can ultimately do, not just what will be routed down the KXL. ... Thank you for clearing this up; this is a very important distinction. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:53 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
David Friedman Looking up perpetual motion machine of the second kind gives "2. Also called perpetual motion of the second kind motion of a hypothetical mechanism that derives its energy from a source at a lower temperature. It is impossible in practice because of the second law of thermodynamics. I'm pretty sure that the energy source (the sun) is at a higher temperature than the Earth. ;o) According to Wikipedia, "A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. ..." Well I have a Crookes' radiometer in my workshop, which does just that, so there must be more to it than that. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics. As Tom points out, storms are formed by updrafts over warm water that take warm moist air up higer into the atmosphere, which is cooler. Thus there is no contravention of the second law of thermodynamics, as far as I can see. Your PhD in physics means very littlle. I have a PhD as well, and I am an active researcher in my own field (essentially statistics), and have a h-index over 20. Does that mean that my arguments on statistics have any greater strength than if they came from somebody else? No not really. There is also the point that the authors of the papers on which this article is based also have PhDs, and more importantlty are also experts on this particular topic. You would be better off explaining your scientific objection in more detail in a more moderate manner, the postuting does you no favours at all, it just isn't the way science should be done. -
Phil at 19:39 PM on 27 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
As Tom points out, the divergence into Atmospheric Ozone chemistry is irrelevant and bordering on being off-topic, so I'll try to be brief. I think Chris Machens is confused between free Oxygen radicals and an Oxygen molecule. As Bob points out above, The decomposition of O3 results in the creation of O2 molecule and an O* (free radical). These free radicals are extremely unstable and immediately engage in various other reactive pathways, illustrated in the Chapman Chemistry document. Some of these pathways result in further creation of O2 molecules and some of which "trap" oxygen in Nitrous Oxide. So there are three problems with the statement "Ozone depletion also depletes Oxygen molecules", 1. It assumes one of these pathways is favoured over the other, for which no evidence is presented 2. It assumes that the "trapping" of oxygen in Nitrous Oxide is permanent; i.e. the oxygen is not recovered at some later stage. We know NO2 levels in the atmosphere are pretty constant, I would suspect that ocean chemistry (via acidic rain) would be important in this regard 3. Since we know that Ozone creation depletes O2 then the assertion that Ozone destruction does too should raise the question "How come we're still breathing?" :-) -
newcrusader at 19:31 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Dr. Mann is fighting back against the many ultra conservative organizations and corporations in the USA. This mainly involves the Koch industries & the varied fossil fuel interests. With the Public now beginning to see the link between greenhouse gases and extreme weather (specially after the hellish summer in the US Heartland) The Denial stormtroopers are become excitingly worried. And their first line of attack is against Mann. -
Tom Curtis at 19:30 PM on 27 July 2012Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes
smoidel @46, I can do better than one volcano. The geothermal energy released over one year for the entire globe averages at 0.09 W/m^2. Over the entire globe, that represents 510*0.09*10^12 W, or 45.9 Terajoules per second. Taken over the course of the year, that is 1.45*10^21 Joules of energy. That may seem like a lot, but it must be divided among 1.3*10^18 cubic meters of ocean water, or 1.4*10^21 Kg. In other words, in each year, all energy from the Earth's interior represents just 1.04 Joules per Kg of ocean water. Given that specific heat of water is 4.187 kJ/kgK, that means in an entire year, all heat from the Earths interior could only raise the Oceans temperature by 0.00025 degrees C (0.00045 F) There appears to be a discrepancy between my calculation, and that of your reported geologist. Unfortunately, I do not know the energy released by Kilauea, but I do know that released by the famous eruption of Krakatoa, ie, 200 Megatons of TNT, or 8.4 x 10^17 Joules. That means one Krakatoa explosion, every hour on the hour would generate 7.4 x 10^21 Joules of energy, enough to raise the Earth's oceans temperatures by 0.002 C (0.003 F) in a year. Somehow, I just don't think Kilauea is erupting with the energy equivalent of 1.67 Krakatoa's per hour. Nor do I think that all waters within a kilometer of Kilauea are boiling continuously (which would be the case if it were). Going back to more realistic figures, ie, the total energy released from the interior of the Earth as determined by people who have actually studied the issue, by all means assume it has increased by 50% over the last century. It still is not enough to explain any measurable fraction of global warming. Not, of course, that under water volcanoes have been monitored for the whole of the last century so that claim could actually be based on empirical data. Finally, at SkS we prefer it if you discuss topics where they are most clearly related to the OP. In this case, the discussion should be here. I heartily recommend that you read that post, and if you choose to respond, that is where you should do so. -
Bernard J. at 18:50 PM on 27 July 2012Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes
Any comments?
Oh, most certainly. For starters:"He said that was a good question and when they worked out the numbers using the heat from Kilauea as an example. [volume of ocean, weight of ocean water, joules required to raise 1 lb of water 1 deg F, heat from lava]. We were all surprised as Kilauea puts out enough energy to raise the entire ocean by about 0.005 degree/year."
I'd like to see the actual "numbers" - without them, "0.005 degree/year" is just tinsel."Since Kilauea has been in eruption for 29 years that adds up to 0.15 degrees from a single volcano."
Even if your "number" is correct, your inference is not, because you did not account for any other heat flux... including, for example, the radiation and conduction of heat from the ocean. Big woopsie. There's more, but frankly I'm not sure that it's worth the bother of whacking the mole. -
smoidel at 18:16 PM on 27 July 2012Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes
Gentlemen, I notice that most of the posts here concerning volcanic contributions to the global warming concentrate on the effects on the atmosphere. What about the heating of the ocean due to underwater volcanism We vacationed in Hawaii this summer and visited the Volcano Observatory there. One of the things they mentioned is that underwater volcanic eruption have increased by about 50% over the past century. And that active volcanoes have been found in the Arctic Ocean and a new hot spot has been discovered under the ice in NE Greenland where it appears to be melting the ice. My daughter was curious and asked the geologist how much water was in the oceans and how much heat did it take to raise the temperature of the oceans 1 degree F. He said that was a good question and when they worked out the numbers using the heat from Kilauea as an example. [volume of ocean, weight of ocean water, joules required to raise 1 lb of water 1 deg F, heat from lava]. We were all surprised as Kilauea puts out enough energy to raise the entire ocean by about 0.005 degree/year. Since Kilauea has been in eruption for 29 years that adds up to 0.15 degrees from a single volcano. Find 10 other active volcanoes like Kilauea world wide and you can account for most of the observed ocean warming, which is about 1.5 deg F. over the past century. The geologist also pointed out that current climate models do not take this energy input into account. Any comments? -
Tristan at 17:48 PM on 27 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #29
Seems as good a place as any to put it, it's a week old so you may have seen it already but Rolling Stone published a pretty big piece on Climate Change. -
ajki at 17:37 PM on 27 July 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
@1407: "...eminent German physicists..." This must be a joke. A bad one. My turn: Italy once had one Gallileo. Germany must be truely blessed for it has got at least two. -
Tom Curtis at 17:02 PM on 27 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Chris Machens @34, thanks for the link. It brings out the irony in our discussion that while methane from landfills does not significantly add to the depletion of O2, it still represents a significant environmental threat because of the strong greenhouse effect of methane relative to CO2. -
IanC at 16:49 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
I agree with David that the statement is factually incorrect. A hurricane is a Carnot heat engine, and its efficiency e is dictated by the ratio of the temperature between the heat source (T_H) and heat sink (T_C) i.e. e = 1- T_C/T_H The Carnot engine is the most efficient engine you can have within the limits of the second law. If both T_C and T_H increase with T_C increasing more, you will end up in a situation where more thermal energy actually results in less energy available to the storm itself. The conclusion "more energy to drive storm" therefore violates the second law. Fortunately of course the Tropopause is cooling and the surface is warming, so T_C/T_H is decreasing and the efficiency is going up, and therefore the conclusion holds. The reasoning should however be adjusted I think. -
curiousd at 16:10 PM on 27 July 2012It's the sun
Can you argue simply that if the temperature increase since 1980 were due to increased solar radiation reaching earth then the temperature of the stratosphere would not have been decreasing during that time frame? But the temperature of the stratosphere has been decreasing which shows increased absorption of outgoing IR? -
curiousd at 16:03 PM on 27 July 2012It's the sun
Trying for efficient anti denialists argument. Against any thing about present being like med warm period, or the sun being brighter , why does it not suffice to simply state: 1. If the temperature of the earth were increasing since ~1990 only because of the solar flux increasing for any reason whatsoever, then the temperature of the stratosphere would not have been decreasing during this time frame. 2. The temperature of the stratosphere has been decreasing systematically since 1980. Therefore the increased temperature of the surface is due to increased trapping of outgoing IR from greenhouse gases, and can have nothing to do with increasing solar. QED? -
JohnMashey at 15:48 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
And do not forget Peter Wood of the National Association of Scholars (NAS. He jumped on this one as well, with Culture of evasion. Then, a week later, it was reposted at NAS. Last year Wood tried false association against {climate science, Mann} last year, with a reply by me and Rob Coleman. 'How does CHE support open discussion and still maintain civility? Is the blog section an open free-for-all where people may write anything at all, or should it be moderated? People should be free to express their opinions, but not all opinions are equal, especially about science. Is it acceptable in CHE to state as fact that cigarettes cause no disease? ... Is there a dividing line between legitimate academic controversy and libel? If so, where is that line and who draws it? Academic controversy is not characterized by use of Nazi labels or exhortations that scientists be physically harmed. It is not characterized by baseless, wacky conspiracy theories about worldwide plots by mainstream science. Academic discussions involve data, facts, and justifiable, soundly crafted theories.' Hence, issues were raised with CHE, but they didn't get the message or this message. By the way Richard Mellon Scaife is one of the main funders of: CEI GMI (George Marshall Institute) NAS CFACT (often involving Viscount Monckton) Commonwealth Foundation (Pennsylvania) - which among other things ran attack ads against Mann in Penn State student newspaper See CCC, pp.93-94: ExxonMobil, Scaife, L&H Bradley ... EM F has since dropped out. I didn't know about NAS then, but Scaife & Bradley have been the prime funders for years. CEI and GMI were the 2 main thinktanks in recruiting McIntyre and McKitrick and managing the attack on the hockey stick, and setting up the Wegman Report. See -
Brandon Shollenberger at 15:43 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
(snip)Moderator Response: TC: Brandon Shollenberger, I draw your attention to the comments policy which states:" Some comments, while strictly on topic, may relate to issues discussed in more detail in some other thread. Extended discussion of those points should be carried out in the more appropriate thread, with link backs to reference the discussion as needed. Moderator's directions to move discussion to a more appropriate thread should always be followed."
It is very evident, that, for example, this thread would be far more appropriate to discussing the specific meaning of "Mike's Nature trick". I find, however, that your focus on such trivial inconsequentialities rather than the campaign of abuse and misinformation about climate scientists speaks volumes about your priorities. Regardless, if you want to discuss "Mike's Nature trick", take it to where it is the main point of the discussion. -
Andy Skuce at 15:30 PM on 27 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
sauerj I believe that the one billion tonnes figure was the EPA number for CO2e for the incremental well-to-tank emissions from the Keystone pipeline alone for its expected lifetime. The 240 gigaton value is the total tarsands carbon in the ground. As I argued earlier only a fraction of this is extractable. Further, only a fraction of this volume will be extracted over the lifetime of KXL and only a fraction of that will go through that particular pipeline. And I think the EPA only quoted the well-to- tank emissions, in other words, about 18 % of the total emissions of the well-to-wheels emissions, total carbon emissions. I am going on memory here, since I can't find the EPA report right now, so I am not able to quote actual figures and I should really check some of the assertions in the previous paragraph, but nevertheless I hope that I have suggested some reasons for the big discrepancy that you pointed out. -
prokaroytes at 15:27 PM on 27 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Thanks Tom Curtis for your information, btw CP yesterday just posted this related post Why We Need To Pay More Attention To The Role Of Landfills In Global Warming In fact, landfills were responsible for almost five times more GHG emissions than understood. (from a 2009 report) http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/26/516575/why-we-need-to-pay-more-attention-to-the-role-of-landfills-in-global-warming/ -
scaddenp at 15:17 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Daniel, I dont think David is arguing that "AGW violates the 2nd Law" which is loony tunes stuff. I believe is arguing the mechanism proposed in the article for hurricane formation violates 2nd Law. However, it isnt clear to me why David thinks the argument of "more thermal energy in the atmosphere can create bigger storms" violates second law. The article notes empirical evidence but for discussion of the physical evidence then that cites for: Emanuel, K. (2005), Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature, online publication; published online 31 July 2005 | doi: 10.1038/nature03906 Knutson, T. K., and R. E. Tuleya, 2004: Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. Journal of Climate, 17(18), 3477-3495. in scholar might be worth looking at. -
Tom Curtis at 14:49 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
David Friedman @48, a hurricane is formed by updrafts forming over warm waters. The updraft carries warm water vapour to high altitudes, cooling it in the process. This progressively condenses the water vapour, releasing latent heat. The release of latent heat slows the cooling of the air in the updraft which is cooling due to adiabatic expansion as it rises. This allows the air to rise faster, increasing the rate at which fresh water vapour is drawn into the system and hence strengthening the storm. Should a hurricane pass over land, the lack of water vapour being drawn into the updraft results in a rapid weakening of the storm. With increased heat, there is more water vapour in the atmosphere. This preferentially strengthens storms because in stable air or downdrafts, there is little condensation of water,and hence little release of latent heat. Given this, the brief description in the basic rebuttal is true, if simplistic. It does not constitute a fallacious argument, as you maintain, because it is not an argument. The reason it is not an argument is because there are other significant factors, and it is unclear what the actual effect of this additional available energy in the form of increased water vapour will have. It merely points out that increased energy may have one of (at least) two potential effects without detailing the mechanisms involved. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:48 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
"For what it's worth, I have a doctorate in physics."
That's a crap argument. And I've heard many."it doesn't violate conservation of energy, it violates the second law"
If you are going to argue the 2nd Law meme, take it to the appropriate thread. -
David Friedman at 13:44 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
To Dikran: Look up "perpetual motion machine of the second kind." As I already said, it doesn't violate conservation of energy, it violates the second law--that entropy tends to increase, not decrease. For what it's worth, I have a doctorate in physics. To DSL: As you can see if you read what I wrote, I'm not claiming that the conclusion of the argument is wrong--I don't know if it is. I'm claiming that the argument is wrong. The argument didn't say that global warming would occur more in hotter air than in cooler air, which is what your argument would require--whether it's true I don't know. It said that because there was more thermal energy available, storms would be either more frequent or stronger. That's bad physics, for the reason I explained. -
scaddenp at 13:09 PM on 27 July 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Thanks Bernard. I've seen Girma's discourses on various forums so I wont waste my time. Just about anyone who jumps into this thread has to be viewed with some suspicion.
Prev 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 Next
