Recent Comments

Prev  1132  1133  1134  1135  1136  1137  1138  1139  1140  1141  1142  1143  1144  1145  1146  1147  Next

Comments 56951 to 57000:

56951. Tom Curtis at 10:27 AM on 14 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       doug_bostrom @4, McIntyre's hurt feelings are entirely unwarranted. It was not he, but one of his commentors that noted that there may be a problem; and the commentor did not identify the problem. They merely indicated that they could not reproduce the results without specifying what they had done, or what part of the results she could not reproduce. All the heavy lifting in actually identifying the problem was done by the authors.
56952. Tom Curtis at 09:54 AM on 14 July 2012
       Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
       Alexandre @119, your respondent was quite correct, there are several other potential causes of a cooling stratosphere and a warming troposphere. The include: 1) A declining reflective particulate (Sulphate) layer in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere; 2) Declining ozone (O3) layer in the stratosphere; and 3) Increased methane (CH4) and the chemical decay product of methane, water (H2O) in the stratosphere. We can ignore (3) because the known quantities of methane and water in the stratosphere are too small to cause the observed cooling (see the figure below). Further, methane is itself an anthropogenic greenhouse gas, so its implications are much the same as that from increased CO2. (Note that there has been an increase in water vapour in the stratosphere only because of the increase in methane.) Both (1) and (2) are known causes of a similar effect to CO2, and are known to have occurred recently. There are, however, important differences in their effects. Specifically, a declining ozone concentration will cool the upper stratosphere and warm the lower stratosphere. That is because reduced ozone means less UV radiation is absorbed in the upper stratosphere, and so is absorbed in the lower stratosphere or troposphere instead. (Source) In fact, what has been observed is very strong cooling in the upper stratosphere, and weak cooling in the lower stratosphere where CO2 and O3 have opposed effects which indicates that both effects are occurring as predicted. (Source) More importantly, warming of the troposphere by both ozone and sulphates work by modulating solar radiation. Consequently they are strongest when the sun is strongest, and weakest when the sun is weakest. That means for both, we would predict greater warming in summer than in winter; greater warming in daytime than in night time; and greater warming in the tropics than in the arctic. Greenhouse warming makes exactly the reverse prediction, ie, greater warming in winter, at night, and in the arctic. In fact, what has been observed is greater warming in winter than in summer; greater warming at night than in day; and greater warming in the arctic than in the tropics: (Source; note that two coauthors of this paper are well known deniers. Further, this paper used data known to be strongly contaminated by stratospheric data, weakening the effect being observed. They do not note this, nor take it into account in their conclusions. Never-the-less, the data speaks for itself.) (Source) Unfortunately in science things are often complex. In this case a complexity arises because a primary feedback on rising temperatures, the water vapour feedback, has the same temperature signature as an increase in CO2 in the troposphere (although it does not cool the stratosphere). The water vapour feedback on a greenhouse warming will reinforce the expected pattern of temperature changes in the troposphere. In contrast, it will counter the expected effect from solar related forcings such as changes in ozone or sulphate levels. Never-the-less, if the feedback is very strong, the feedback pattern will dominate. Therefore the patterns seen above do not by themselves prove the source of warming to be an enhanced greenhouse effect due to increased CO2. What they do prove is that either it is an enhanced greenhouse effect; or that climate sensitivity is high. As the initial warming effect of increased CO2 is well established science, however, a strong feedback also shows that the enhanced greenhouse effect is a genuine danger.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed html.
56953. Doug Bostrom at 08:40 AM on 14 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       I'm very sorry to hear that, David. Presumably the instinct to dig into your dumpster means McIntyre's argument with your science is equally as nonexistent as ATI's beef with Mann, Hansen, Hayhoe, Dessler, etc.? I remember that McIntyre's feelings were hurt because he felt he wasn't properly credited with noticing a fault in a recent paper you coauthored but surely he's not taking out his resentment in such a drastic way? Does he offer any clue as to what's motivating his waste of your time?
56954. dkaroly at 08:06 AM on 14 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       This is a very welcome initiative. The threats of legal action and FOI requests are not just occurring in North America. In Australia, I have just received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre in Canada and am currently dealing with 6 different FOI requests.
56955. Alexandre at 04:37 AM on 14 July 2012
       Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
       Hi guys, I presented the well-known fact of stratospheric cooling as evidence of AGW at ResearchGate, and one commenter posted the answer below. I gave Jones 2003 (from the Guide to Skepticism) as a reference. My knowledge does not allow to follow it. Is anyone here able to understand and put it into context? I'm sorry, but the assertion combined stratospheric cooling and tropospheric is consistent only with enhanced GHG's is simply incorrect. Even reference (6) by Alexandre states something quite different when you read the relevant sections of the paper. Quote: "For the stratosphere SO is by far the most dominant, cooling by 1.20 ± 0.11°C. As S has no influence on the stratosphere the stratospheric ozone component of SO causes this temperature change. [Tett et al., 2002]. The other forcings have much smaller contributions in comparison (The warming from G in the stratosphere is due predominantly to a warming region in the model over the North polar region [Tett et al., 2002])." SO here refers to the "combined response to changes in sulphate aerosol and tropospheric and stratospheric ozone". G refers to responses to changes in well-mixed greenhouse gases. S refers to responses to changes in solar irradiation. The effect of increased well-mixed GHG's on stratospheric temperatures is much smaller in amplitude and not distinguishable (yet) in the stratospheric temperature record. This is well established in scientific literature, see for example recent work by Polvani and Solomon [2012, submitted]: quote: "The effect of ozone depletion on temperature trends in the tropical lower stratosphere is explored with an atmospheric general circulation model, and directly contrasted to the effect of increased greenhouse gases and warmer sea surface temperatures. Confirming and extending earlier studies we find that, over the second half of the 20th Century, the model's lower-stratospheric cooling caused by ozone depletion is several times larger than that induced by increasing greenhouse gases." http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/polvani+solomon-JGR-2012-revised.pdf But it is not well known outside of scientific literature.
56956. JoeRG at 03:24 AM on 14 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       Tom, if I have offended you, I truly apologize. I never meant to do so. @55: For a radiative energy budget on TOA the heat distribution of the atmosphere does not play an important role. Remember that we speak about a (radiative) fully transparent atmosphere where no radiation upwards get lost. It transports the energy to a different location where it will be radiated, but due to the small heat capacity compared to water the effect is not that large. The heat distribution of the oceans is far more important and happens even if no atmosphere is present. Your model and equation require a system which is without any heat distribution downwards below the ground (and backwards). This of course happens (nearly) on the moon. There you have a layer (the uppermost 2 cm of dust) that works as a heat shield. If you would go down only one meter, the temperature is stable independently from the surface temperature. So, heat distribution plays no role at all. But, does this happen on Earth? Obviously not. The thermal conductivity of the Earth surface ist much higher, especially if you look at the oceans. But even for solid ground it is neither comparable to the moon. Therefore another variable must be taken into account: time. No energy will be transmitted in zero time, therefore the rotation as a function of time is also a part to be considered. @56: The missing air pressure is compensated at about 1m depth. Besides, the boiling while freezing will end at the moment when the resulting water vapor forms an adequate atmosphere with the appropriate pressure by itself - and it will, because of the gravitation the water get not lost, except you have a source that blows it away. So, all about the boiling while freezing or an atmosphereless earth can only be purely hypothetical. A final question regarding your last passage: Do we compare the equilibrium temperature of the atmosphereless planet with the equ. temp. for the radiative balance on TOA? If so, why is it feasible to use the amount of radiation which results from a reduction of an atmospheric effect (clouds) - or did I just misunderstood your comment? To do otherwise is to assume that while the clouds no longer contribute to the Earth's albedo, the incident sunlight at the surface (and hence the reflected sunlight at the surface) does not increase. IanC, yes I had it wrong about SB, sorry for that. If you assume a thin layer of water for the outgoing radiation, you should be aware that the absorption for the SW is about 1/10 to 1/100 of the emission of LW - depending on the frequency, of course. So, to be able to radiate the same amount of incoming radiation it is necessary that the uppermost layer must receive the required energy from the deeper layers. This takes time and assumed that the oceanic currents are running, most of the energy disperses. So, the energy balance will be given, but with a different temperature distribution and therefore with a higher average temperature. That's why we see larger differences in net radiation over sea than over land.
56957. vrooomie at 02:38 AM on 14 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       Composer99@ 59: Given it was my lack of understanding of the temperature of an airless Earth (hey, I know about the *rocks*, not the black body temperature!) that was the proximate cause of the thread drift, I apologize. That said, I've learned a HUGE amount from that bit of drift, and I suppose the mods felt it was at least tangentially related to the OP. As always, I learn heaps here. I agree with your assessment, of Dr. Giaever's somewhat stunning admission of ignorance of the subject, then going off on what really amounted to a rant about it, speaking authoritatively on a subject he himself professed little interest in. It was that, and the aforementioned reference to his having done perfunctory "reasearch" on the GoogleBox that intially put me off anything else he had to say. Sadly for those of us who actually do want to engage in a scientific, rational discussion of this whole AGW topic, all it tales is one Nobel laureate to spew, then we (our) job of refutation of it just gets mearsureably that much more difficult. Though the thread did stray a bit, much was imparted in the ensuing discussion, much of which put the lie to a number of incorrect assertions Dr. Giaever posited. I believe that, over all, all our knowledge bases were increased, and we all have a few more "tools" in our toolkit to blunt the deniers' campaign against rational, fact- and data-based climate science.
56958. Composer99 at 02:07 AM on 14 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       I realize that the whole conversation on what the Earth's global mean temperature would be like follows from one of Dr Giaever's comments, but at this point it seems to me that it's not really pertinent to this post any further. ----- On topic: Dr Giaever's comment

       I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it.

       is yet another mystifying one. As far as I can tell, what we know about global warming stems in no small part from knowing the radiative physics of greenhouse gases. Other important findings in climate science which relate to global warming also come out of physics, particularly atmospheric physics.
56959. Dikran Marsupial at 00:18 AM on 14 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Hi Tom, I'll have to give the example a lot more thought (and simulate it a bit on my computer - adding stochastic behaviour and temporal correlation makes it very much more difficult to think about). However I have a few observations from my first reading: You write "doesn't really address the question that we are interested in (what causes CO2 concentrations to increase). Should we treat Un and En as separate entities in assigning causality in this model? Yes, without question." For me the real question is "is the rise anthropogenic, or is it natural, or is it both?". Thus to me it makes no sense to consider En separately from Un, as the effect of the natural environment on atmospheric CO2 depends solely on the net flux. This is one point where I am in complete agreement with Prof Salby - it is net emissions that affect CO2 concentrations. It is important to consider En separately from Un if you are interested in the origin of the molecules comprising the excess over equilibrium level, but that is not at all the same question. I think this model shows that if you define "opposes the increase" such that it is true whenever Un > En, you have deprived the term of its intuitive relation to assertions about causality. I disagree. It may be that this definition does not fit with assertions about causality in a theory of knowledge/philosophy of science sense, but I would say those are hardly intuitive. It fits in very well with normal everyday intuition about causality, as my financial example shows. I would prefer to stick with the original financial example until we have reached and understanding about why we appear to disagree about whether I am causing or opposing the rise in the balance. IT may be that causality may be easier to assign in your extended analogy, but then again it is a different analogy, so it still doesn't explain the contradiction exposed by the first. Essentially it seems to me that your are asking whether the increase is caused by natural emissions, whereas I am asking whether the rise is caused by the natural environment (including its response to anthropogenic emissions). These are not the same question, and it is the latter that is relevant to climate change as far as I can see. I'll run your new scenario through the computer and get back to you once I have understood it.
56960. Tom Curtis at 23:46 PM on 13 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Dikran @53, consider the model where, initialy: Ea = 0; En = k; and Un = k + 1.1Ea, where the later relationship is a strict causal relationship. That is, increasing Ea above zero is a necessary and sufficient condition to increase Un above k, and will always increase Un to 1.1Ea + K. Suppose also the En(t+1) = 2En(t)-En(t-1) + Rand, where Rand is a random number between 1 and -1, except that where this would cause En < k, En = k. Finally, suppose that Ea varies in the same way that En does, except that its "floor" is 0 rather than k. In this model: 1) If En = k + 0.1 Ea, C'= 0 2) If En < k + 0.1 Ea, C'< 0 3) If En > k + 0.1 Ea, C'> 0 4) If k + 0.1 Ea < En < k + 1.1 Ea, C'>0 so that the CO2 concentration is increasing, but your mass balance argument is satisfied, ie, En < Un. In this situation, that En > k + 0.1 Ea is a necessary and sufficient condition for the C' > 0. Therefore it is the cause of the increase in CO2 concentration even when the mass balance argument is satisfied. Further, because there is a causal link between Ea and Un, increasing Ea always opposes the increase in CO2 concentration because it directly results in a still greater increase in Un. Therefore, on those few occasions when the mass balance argument is satisfied in this model, you would still not be entitled to say that an rise in CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions. Would you be able to say the combined effect of Un and En oppose the increase when the mass balance argument is satisfied? Yes - but I think that is a very technical point which doesn't really address the question that we are interested in (what causes CO2 concentrations to increase). Should we treat Un and En as separate entities in assigning causality in this model? Yes, without question. I think this model shows that if you define "opposes the increase" such that it is true whenever Un > En, you have deprived the term of its intuitive relation to assertions about causality. It sounds like you are saying that Un + En do not cause the increase; but there are conditions where it is true that Un + En "oppose the increase" under that definition, but in which Un + En cause the increase because En is the sole and sufficient cause of the increase and hence En + x causes the increase for all x. We can in fact set up this model very easily in your financial analogy. Just add the following two facts to the analogy: a) Whenever I feel like investing, I steal a sum of money from your wallet, deduct 9% for my personal expenses, and invest the remainder; and b) Whenever you have an unexplained shortfall in your wallet, you make up the lost money by withdrawing it from the joint account. These together set up the direct link between Ea and Un; and change the whole situation. Given these additional facts, nobody would doubt that you, not I am responsible for the full increase in our joint account even during those times when your withdrawals exceed your deposits. Of course, developing a scenario like this for CO2 would require incredible contrivance or the assigning of magical properties to CO2. I apologize if this is confusing, or if I have confused myself (which is quite likely) as it is late here and I am quite tired. I look forward to seeing if what I just wrote still makes sense to me tomorrow.
56961. Jeffrey Davis at 23:27 PM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       re:9 Tillerson's remarks that AGW is an engineering problem is "void for vagueness". All of the possible engineering solutions might involve drastically curtailing carbon energy. The simplest ones definitely do.
56962. IanC at 22:58 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG, The Stefan Boltzmann (SB) law, S=εσT^4, describes the emission, not absorption of radiation. It holds over ocean as well as land. Note that it is true regardless of the source of the energy: it can be absorbed solar radiation, or it could be energy transported from below. The fact that solar radiation can penetrate deeper down does not invalidate the SB law. To elaborate on my post @52, suppose the ocean to consist of a thin surface layer and the deeper layer, the energy absorbed by the layer is (1-α)*f*S_0 + S_T where S_0 is the solar radiation, α is the albedo, f is the fraction of solar radiation absorbed by the surface, and S_T is the energy transported from the deeper layer. The energy leaving the surface layer is simply εσT^4. At equilibrium we have: eq1: (1-α)*f*S_0 + S_T= εσT^4. Whatever solar energy that is not absorbed by the surface layer must be absorbed in the deeper layer. At equilibrium it must be balanced by the energy transported to the surface layer, and hence the energy balance in the deep layer requires that eq2: (1-α)*(1-f)*S_0=S_T Combining the two equations by eliminating S_T yields: eq3: (1-α)*S_0 = εσT^4 Which is the exact same equation for the surface. Using α=0.08 as the albedo, and emissivity ε of 0.984 yields T = 273, right at freezing temperature. Source for emissivity.
56963. Dikran Marsupial at 22:25 PM on 13 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Tom@52 - I would say that the step from En < Un is not inductive, but merely what is for me one reasonable definition of "opposing the increase" rather than "causing the increase". Would you agree that if Un > En that the natural environment could reasonably be said to be "opposing the rise"? I also agree with what you say about Humes rules, and I agree with the conclusions, under that definition of causality , I agree that the mass balance argument is insufficient (I have done some work on probabilistic causal reasoning in the past, so I understand what you are saying). Having said which, it is questionable as to whether En can be treated as a separate entity from Un in assigning causality. If we are concerned with attributing the rise to anthropogenic and natural influences then surely En and Un should only be considered together as they jointly describe "natural influences". However, as the financial analogy shows, that definition of causality isn't necessarily the correct one. In the financial examples, my deposits are also a necessary and sufficient condition for the rise, so for Hume I would be the cause of the rise. But on the other hand most would recognise that my deposits are not the cause of the rise in the balance, and that actually I am syphoning money out for my own benefit (and hence reducing the rate of the rise). I note however here I am not separating En from Un and are consdering them together, whereas you are only considering En in isolation. I should add that I am finding this a very useful and productive discussion; many thanks Tom for your efforts so far.
56964. Tom Curtis at 21:23 PM on 13 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Dikran Marsupial @50 and @51: Clearly we are talking past each other to an extent. You take the Mass Balance argument to infer from the fact that C'-Ea is negative that En < Un, which is indeed deductive. I take the argument to include the additional inference that the rise in CO2 levels is anthropogenic, which is inductive. Using your terminology we would say the Mass Balance argument is a deductive argument that supports a further inductive inference, but I prefer my terminology as it is that further inference which really interests us (or at least me). I agree that your financial analogy is relevant, but as you appear to realize in your 51, the language of causation is such that, regardless of that analogy it could be said that the increase in natural emissions. If we used Hume's rules to clarify the situation, we would say that En is both a necessary and sufficient condition for the increase, so that it is the cause of the increase; but that En is not sufficient for the early timing of the increase, so that only En + Ea together can be considered the cause of the earlier timing of the increase.
56965. Dikran Marsupial at 20:37 PM on 13 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Tom, a good point about your scenario is that at least in that case atmospheric CO2 levels would still be rising (albeit with a delay of a year or so) even if there were no anthropogenic emissions. That could be used as a reasonable definition of "causing the increase" (although in that case, the mass balance argument would correctly show that to be the case). But then taking in more CO2 than you emit is also a reasonable defintion of "opposing the increase", so in your scenario the natural environment is both "causing" and "opposing" the increase in atmospheric CO2! Perhaps the problem lies in language, rather than science?
56966. Dikran Marsupial at 19:49 PM on 13 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Thanks Tom. I can see what you are getting at, but in this case, I would still say that the mass balance argument is correct. I would not agree that in this case the rise was due to natural emissions. I find it useful to recast the problem into a financial setting, which is more intuitive. If I proposed a business proposal wher you put in Ea = 0.25K per month and I put in En = 0.5k + t*k/10 per month, but took out Un = Ea + En if En + Ea < k and otherwise took out Un = (En + Ea - 0.2k), would you say that I was responsible for the increase in our assets? If I suggested that we let the scheme run for 10 years, and you could keep all of the assets at the end, would you take the deal? Surely you ought to if I were respondible for the increase in the balance? I don't know why, but many people seem to apply different meanings to the idea of "causing the increase" in the two scenarios. To me they seem equivalent. You can only be the cause of an increase by putting in more than you take out, otherwise you are using a rather subtle and counter-intuitive definition of "causing the increase". [incorrect statement snipped for clarity] I would agree with something like "natural emissions were allowing anthropogenic emissions to cause atmospheric CO2 to increase", but I can't see how the rise is caused by natural emissions in this scenario. I don't really understand how mass balance is an inductive argument, since we start with premises (conservation of mass and that observed increase is less than anthropogenic emissions) and deduce from that that natural uptake must be greater than natural emissions. Unless the pemises are false, or there is an error in the deduction, then mass balance is sufficient as far as I can see.
56967. Esop at 19:26 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       So Giæver is holding a presentation in front of Nobel Laureates based on information that he found by googling? Was the conference held on the day that takes place between very late March and very early April?
56968. Dikran Marsupial at 19:14 PM on 13 July 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       angusmac (i) Yes, of course the required runs could have been performed earlier, but what would be the point. IN those years, climate modelling has also moved on, so the time, money and energy would be better spent running those models instead. The only value in re-running the original Hansen models would be to answer "skepic" claims that the models performed poorly, which quite rightly waslow on the agenda (as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that NO answer will ever satisfy them while there is ANY residual uncertainty). I suspect running the original set of models was extremely expensive. Running the ensemble 5-6 years later would be equally expensive (i.e. at the limits of what was possible). Who do you think should have paid for that, and at the expense of what other climate project? These days computing power is sufficiently cheap that it would make an interesting student project for the purposes of public communication of science, but if you think validating 30 year old models, where we are already aware of the flaws is actually science then you are deeply mistaken. If you think it is so necessary, why don't YOU do it? The main uncertainty that I can find when Hansen refers to his 1988 model is that sensitivity is likely to be 3±1°C. In that case you fundamentally don't understand the issue. Climate sensitivity is uncertainty about the forced response of the climate. The difficulty in determining whether there is a model observation disparity is largely due to the uncertainty about the unforced response of the climate. Until you understand the difference between the two, you will not understadnd why Figure 1 is the correct test. It isn't in any way unusual that runs were not done. Go to any research group and ask them to ru-run their 5 year old studies again taking advantage of greater computing power, and they will tell you to "go away". Science is not well funded, scientists don't have the time to go back and revisit old studies that have long since been made obsolete by new research. Expecting anything else is simple ludicrous.
56969. Tom Curtis at 18:42 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG @54 cont.:

       "As well, you ignore that water has an anomaly, what means that the highest pressure always guarantees liquid water at 4°C (pure), respectively at about 0°..-2°C (salinity level dependent). High pressure also lowers the freezing point of water (which is naturally the lower the higher salinity is)."

       (My emphasis) I find this defense of your claims utterly baffling. Water at the surface of the Ocean with no atmosphere is not under "the highest pressure", it is under no pressure. And because of that it boils while freezing. Because of that,it does not matter if the water remains liquid in the ocean depths. Either those depths will become the surface as the water above it progressively boils away; or the surface will become ice covered, thereby preventing the ocean from boiling but also insulating the surface from warmer liquid water beneath the ice and massively increasing the planetary albedo. Equally puzzling is your claim that:

       "in your last passage you again ignore the cooling of clouds (what is an amount of ~80W/m² according to Trenberth's energy budget) as well as the radiative behavior of water, what never can be like this of a black/gray body."

       First I note that anything that is neither a black body nor a grey body is perfectly reflective by definition. That is certainly not the case of water, and were it the case its albedo would be 1. Second, in my final comment of the post in question I supposed the Albedo of the Earth to be 0.1. A reduction in albedo from 0.3 to 0.1 represents a 70 W/m^2 warming effect due to reduced albedo, and by hypothesis the only reduction in albedo is the clouds. How then have I ignored them? Worse for you, according to Trenberth the surface itself reflect 23 of 184 W/m^2 of incident radiation. In other words it has an albedo of 0.125 If, then, we where to assume no increase in albedo due to extended ice sheets of sea ice; and no increase in albedo due to loss of vegetation, we should assume an albedo for the Earth of 0.125. To do otherwise is to assume that while the clouds no longer contribute to the Earth's albedo, the incident sunlight at the surface (and hence the reflected sunlight at the surface) does not increase. So, rather than ignoring significant factors in my final calculation, I have been excessively generous to your assumptions.
56970. bill4344 at 17:27 PM on 13 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       The link in first and in the third-last paragraph is missing a '/'.
       Moderator Response: Thank you for pointing that out-- several other URLs were also mangled.
56971. Tom Curtis at 16:40 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG @54, I concluded that radiative cooling would be more efficient not because of the lack of the atmosphere per se, but because of the absence of heat distribution that follows from the lack of an atmosphere. If you have a planetary body tide locked to the sun, and with no atmosphere or ocean, than the side facing the sun will rise to a very great temperature. Assume the body is at the distance of the Earth from the Sun, and has an albedo of 0.11. Then the side facing the moon will receive an average insolation of 1368*0.89/2 W/m^2, or 608.9 W/m^2. Converting that to a black body temperature, we have (608.9/s)^0.25 where s equals the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, which equal 321.9 degrees K. Ignoring geothermal energy and the background radiation for simplicity, the temperature of the other side of the body will be 0 K, which means we have a global mean temperature of (321.9 +0)/2 K, or 160.95 K. For comparison, the mean surface temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 K, and that at 85 north is 130 K, which means the global means surface temperature of the moon is around 180 K. As can be seen, the formula does much better at predicting the surface temperatures of airless planets than does the standard equation for planets with atmospheres. That equation makes the simplifying assumption that all points on the globe have the same surface temperature - an assumption that is not too much of a distortion on the Earth, but would be absurd on the Earth with no atmosphere as it is on the Moon. Please do me the favour of actually looking at the Lunar temperature data and telling me how you reconcile that data with your predicted lunar temperature (using the standard formula for planets with atmospheres) of 270 degrees K. If you cannot reconcile the data, and as that is at minimum 20 K above the mean temperature for the Moon's equator, then you should recognize that your theory has been falsified,and admit it.
56972. WheelsOC at 16:04 PM on 13 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       See this statement from the ATI's David Schnare as quoted by Popular Science: David Schnare heads the Environmental Law Center at the ATI, which since its inception in 2009 has sued the employers and former employers of a number of climate scientists, including Mann and James Hansen, the outspoken head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The ATI wants the researchers’ correspondence and research records. “We are not a venal organization,” Schnare says. “Our law center seeks to defend good science and proper governmental behavior and to expose the converse. Citizens have the right to know how government money is spent. Scientists who feel they shouldn’t have to respond to these requests shouldn’t be working in a government institution, because this is the price of entering.” The whole thing could basically be re-worded as "Anybody thinking of getting into climate research had better get used to our legal harassment!" Given their inability to assess the scientific content of any communications that fall into their hands, they clearly aren't able to live up to Snare's description of the mission. The whole operation is pretty transparently about intimidation and the threat of harassment through the courts rather than making sure scientists aren't trying to pull a fast one. The message is clear: get into climate research and they'll try to make your life harder for it. So we've had Jim Inhofe publicly call for investigations of climate scientists (and succeeded in at least one case), Ken Cuccinelli (now a gubernatorial candidate) leading the way with baseless fishing expeditions, and obsessed lawyers picking up where he left off. This is what it's come to for climate scientists today; death threats from the peanut gallery; persecution from legislators and state AGs; a crusade of self-styled litigious vigilantes. All putting their cross-hairs on any researcher who speaks openly to the public somehow, regardless of how impeccable their scientific output (which should be all that matters). Something to remember whenever fake skeptics try to claim the plight of oppression for themselves.
56973. JoeRG at 14:39 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       Flakmeister @51: 29% of surface is solid. Only for this the 270K can be valid. The other 71% are oceans where the regular blackbody equation cannot be used - as explained, there is a huge difference between SW and LW, but the blackbody equation requires that both are similar. IanC @52: The albedo increase would be true for land, but not for the oceans. There the average equilibrium temperature would be between 280k and 300k. Remember, that you cannot use the cloud albedo to reduce the incomming radiation and that you require much more energy to reach the required surface temperature to re-radiate the same amount of it beacuse heat transport in water works as well to the depths, not only to the top. Tom Curtis @53: Your argument in @40 is wrong, because with the IR transparent atmosphere you have alredy the most effective state of re-radiation, means that nothing at all will be blocket and you get 255K. How did you come to the conclusion that the re-radiation would be even more effective without an atmosphere when there is already nothing that can hinder radiation to go out in this fully transparent atmosphere? Highly illogical and physically an impossibility. Your equation in @42 is of course wrong. The Stefan-Boltzmann-Equation for the equilibrium temperature is: T= (P/(A*[sigma]))^.25 where for P (1-a)*(TSI/4) is to use what already covers the surface of an orb including day/night. Otherwise the 255K were wrong and no energy budget would work. As well, you ignore that water has an anomaly, what means that the highest pressure always guarantees liquid water at 4°C (pure), respectively at about 0°..-2°C (salinity level dependent). High pressure also lowers the freezing point of water (which is naturally the lower the higher salinity is). The deeper you get the temperature will always converge to the respecting temperature, depending on the salinity of course. So, there is no chance to "boil away" or, in the other case, for a deep freeze. Without an atmosphere the water will be lost anyway, but by evaporation. But, if we speak about equilibrium temperatures of the current state (and exactly this matters), this is not of importance. Even if the albedo of the solid content is higher than this of the oceans, this counts only for 29% of surface and does not matter at all for the oceans. Finally, in your last passage you again ignore the cooling of clouds (what is an amount of ~80W/m² according to Trenberth's energy budget) as well as the radiative behavior of water, what never can be like this of a black/gray body.
56974. scaddenp at 14:27 PM on 13 July 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       "Hansen or his colleagues at GISS at any time during the last 5 or 6 years". Just possibly, GISS have better things to do? (Like AR5 models). What would be the gain to science by doing this? Would you change your mind on anything? Does any climate scientist need this? That said however, I am interested in getting Model 2 running on my machinery for my own entertainment but it wont happen before the end of month of earliest. The "scenario" is the emission(forcing) scenario. "Unusual that is wasnt done" - um, how about a lot more useful to run it through latest version of modelE instead?
56975. Tom Curtis at 13:38 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       dissembly @49 a person with $18,000 a year taxable income in 2011/12 would pay $300 tax after taking account of the 15c per $1 over $6,000 tax rate plus the $1,500 low income tax offset (LOTO). That same person would not be eligible for any tax in 2012/13, a compensation of $300 dollars, of $50 dollars more than the compensation paid to pensioners. What is more, in 2012/13, taking into account the LOTO, that person would not start paying tax until their income rose over $20,400, at which point their advantage would have increased to $660, approximately the maximum compensation under the scheme. Thereafter the compensation progressively declines until it reaches zero at an income of $80,000. Your claim that people on $18,000 per annum "... will get nothing from the carbon tax compensation" is simply false, and can only have been made by ignoring the available evidence from relevant government bodies, not to mention all the daily newspapers when the tax was passed. There is no justification for asserting such easily checked falsehoods.
56976. angusmac at 12:50 PM on 13 July 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Dikran Marsupial @ 77 Your comment appears to argue two threads, namely: • Hansen's lack of computing power to depict uncertainty. • My lack of understanding of the physics. I shall deal with lack of computing power and uncertainty here and physics in a subsequent post. Computing Power Given Moore's Law and Scaddenp's post @39 that Hansen's model, "could probably run on their phone these days", I would have thought that the required spread of model runs could easily have been done by Hansen or his colleagues at GISS at any time during the last 5 or 6 years. These runs would have the additional advantage that they would have the GISS stamp of approval and there would be no need for the 0.9*3.0/4.2 kludge (fudge factor) used by Gavin Schmidt at RC or Dana1981 in the SkS spreadsheet. Uncertainty The main uncertainty that I can find when Hansen refers to his 1988 model is that sensitivity is likely to be 3±1°C. However, the public pronouncements do not emphasise this, not insignificant, degree of uncertainty. For example: • May 1988 (publication acceptance date) Hansen stated that Sceanario B is, "perhaps the most plausible." • June 1988 congressional testimony Hansen emphasised that Scenario A, "is business as usual." • Hansen (2005) states that Scenario B is "so far turning out to be almost dead on the money." • Schmidt (2011) states that Scenario B is, "running a little high compared with the actual forcings growth (by about 10%)." All of the above statements are statements of near certainty. Error bars or other sources of uncertainty are underplayed. I reiterate that the increase in computing power from 1988 through Hansen (2005) to Schmidt (2011) could easily allow for the required model runs and the error bars to be shown explicitly. It is unusual that this wasn't done.
56977. Sceptical Wombat at 12:34 PM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       I like the way that adaptation is a simple matter of engineering whereas mitigation is seen as impossibly expensive and civilisation destroying. If we can adapt to a mush hotter world why can't we adapt to a carbon free economy?
56978. dissembly at 12:03 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       "I'll also point out that low income people who don't receive welfare will get nothing whatsoever in compensation. I'm not sure I raised that specific outcome yet. There's just so much to cover on this topic." - to clarify that statement; the reason for this is that the lowest income brackets are immune (to various degrees) to tax breaks. Those earning under 18,000 a year in Australia (the tax-free threshold), who are not on welfare, will get nothing from the carbon tax compensation. They will still have the pay the same price rises as everyone else. Those in slightly higher tax brackets will get something back, but depending on which bracket you look at, the amount you get back can be proportionately less than those earning more, who pay more tax which can be returned to them.
56979. dissembly at 11:55 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       @#45 scaddenmp; "There is almost no practical barrier to the pigovian tax other than government will want to take a portion to cover admin. Other jurisdictions have done it (eg BC). This is what you want to fight for." BC is an interesting example for you to raise (not just because the carbon tax was political suicide at a federal level for the party that raised it - resulting in no action on global warming at all - as is likely to happen next election here). It has been in place a few years now (approaching half of the ten year period that has been estimated as a realistic timeframe for the change to alternative energy infrastructure within Australia), and there has been very little sign of any substantial change in the nature of energy production. But it's also resulted in employers using the tax as an excuse for sacking workers. This underlines a flaw in the carbon tax model that I haven't yet harped on about. Market-cased measures lack co-ordination. Under a hypothetical public scheme, job losses in polluting industries can be made up for in a coordinated way with job growth in alternative energies; but a market-based scheme relies (assuming it works as intended) on a market-based death for polluting industries, with little chance of sacked workers being offered re-training or public compensation packages. "If you are on low income side, then probably not jetting round world etc. so very likely on the lower-than-average side of carbon usage. Works that way." I think that's an unrealistic assessment of the spread of impacts on low-income people. Prices for average goods go up, even in the best-case-scenario. That's what people are worried about, rather than being slightly-less-likely-than-before to go to Paris. I'll also point out that low income people who don't receive welfare will get nothing whatsoever in compensation. I'm not sure I raised that specific outcome yet. There's just so much to cover on this topic. I wrote "every competitor is incentivised to do exactly the same thing right now" and you said, "That's a "markets-dont-work-to-keep-prices-down" statement implying business conspiracies" - but it isn't. There is no conspiracy in the fact that business owners have n incentive to raise prices when they are given the pretext for it, it's a basic law of how markets function in practice. There's also no conspiracy (well, not a cloak-and-dagger sort) in the fact that most soft drinks or snacks you'll see when you walk into a 7-11 are owned by a single company, or most of the goods in supermarkets are distributed by a couple of large companies; again, it's just a result of how the market works. I'm not saying there's any secret cabal sitting around deciding things like this, it's just the way the incentives work in the real world, outside of university econ textbooks.
56980. dissembly at 11:32 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       @ #44 Sphaerica; "I have no idea how your ideas would go over in Australia, but they'd never, ever get past square-one in the USA." The political party I'm affiliated with has a U.S. section that puts forward similar demands, and does get an echo for them. I'm not saying they're winning elections, but it wasn't that long ago in the US that these ideas did have a much greater influence. Times change. But the key thing is, if you get a solid plan in place, hold rallies, talk to people (in a way that takes their economic concerns into account), you'll get a response (and i'm not just talking out of my back-end here, this is exactly what me and a few others have started to do; we've had 400 people sign up to our campaign in 4 months, a pretty striking rate of growth). I've seen it happen; until the carbon tax came in, the anti-global warming movement was actually growing in my city. This is how governments are ultimately pressured to do anything at all, regardless of which party is presiding. You wrote: "What I did mean is that nationalization is inefficient. It is more prone to corruption and waste than the free market, because when you remove the profit incentive, people just stop trying, or start trying in in favor of the bribes that give them personal profits." I don't believe the evidence backs that up at all. I know this is a common belief (especially in the US, but throughout the western world post-Reagen/Thatcher-era), but i've yet to see any empirical example that supports it. I live in a state (Victoria) in which both electricity and public transport have been partially privatised, and both have seen massive wastage, over and above anything seen under public ownership. I don't have the exact figures on hand for electricity, but for public transport, the cost of running the system rose by 200 million a year (just short of doubling) in the years immediately after privatisation, and has now blown out to around a billion annually (from a pre-privatisation level of about 350 million, adjusted for inflation). At the same time, services have declined, and, more frightening, assets have been sold off completely, meaning we'll have to spend even more to ever actually recover the infrastructural capacity that we once had. The country-next-door (New Zealand) had a similar experience with a raft of privatisations. They've actually suffered fairly significant energy shortages as a direct result of electricity privatisation (in the most famous case, private owners decided to sell off energy generating capacity while rainfall was high (and hydroelectric power was ample), causing energy shortages as soon as the first drought hit; interestingly for our discussion, some of the generating capacity that was done-away-with was geothermal power :/ ). On a smaller scale, the municipal council in which I live privatised (outsourced) previously in-house services, and we've seen dramatic drops in quality and service (one example involved mulch with fragments of glass and metal being spread onto playgrounds), while costs continue to rise. This isn't even using the model of public ownership i would advocate (a transparent, more democratically accessible one, with positions in the bureaucracy being publicly recallable); - this is comparing a typical Western bureaucratic model to private ownership, and the latter still costs more and delivers less in every case. You wrote, "when you remove the profit incentive, people just stop trying, or start trying in in favor of the bribes that give them personal profits"; i don't think that's true at all. To begin with, the majority of people running any given service don't operate on a profit incentive to begin with - only the highest levels (and the owners) do so. I work within the public transport sector, and train stations were always run better when the staff where involved in decision-making. These people don't simply not-care about their work - apathy only sets in when all their say over their work is taken away from them, as it has been, increasingly so, as parts of the system have gone into private ownership. Then you see real apathy develop. My partner works in the public sector as well, and her entire department care profoundly about what they are doing. The idea that it is the profit incentive that inspires creativity or good work is just a legend, as far as I have seen. Whereas the idea that it encourages scaling-down necessary operations, losing co-ordination between different parts of a service, putting up prices whenever possible (regardless of any operational necessity), is something proven in practise time and time again. This is all extremely relevant to the goal of building zero-to-low carbon energy infrastructure!
56981. Tom Curtis at 10:39 AM on 13 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Dikran Marsupial @48, you are correct, I forgot to retain the condition that En-Un < 0. Try this: En = 0.5 k prior to 1850, and increases by 0.1k per annum after 1850. Ea = 0 prior to 1800, and increases 0.25 k at 1800 If En + Ea < 1k, Un = En + Ea If En + Ea > k, Un = (En + Ea - 0.2k) In this scenario, atmospheric concentration begins growing in 1851, and continues to grow thereafter; but at all times Un > En, and during the period of growth is always greater by 0.5 k. Never-the-less, the growth in CO2 concentration is, intuitively, caused by the growth in natural emissions rather than by the anthropogenic emissions, which are not growing. This, of course, is rather irrelevant. We both agree that bizarre non-physical scenarios can falsify the mass balance argument, and that therefore it is an inductive argument rather than a deductive argument. We also both agree that no scenario that has actually been presented seriously does falsify the mass balance argument; and that alternative explanations to anthropogenic emissions are falsified by other evidence in any event.
56982. Tom Curtis at 10:01 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG @47, you are ignoring the points raised in my post @40 and in my calculation @42. Had you paid attention you would notice that your argument does not fly. Using the formula corrected for an albedo of 0.3, the expected mean surface temperature would be 151 K; corrected to 0.1 albedo (less than the moons) the result would be 162 K, still equal to a reduction in global mean temperature of >120 K. I notice in your 59 that you continue to assume the existence of liquid oceans for heat transport, but liquid water cannot exist in a vacuum at Earth surface temperatures. Therefore with no vacuum, the Ocean must either boil away, or be frozen. In either event it will not longer contribute to heat transport; and in the later event it will massively increase albedo so that albedo is likely to be above 0.3. Even if you allow your model to be unphysical by retaining liquid oceans, you are neglecting the fact that bare rock has a much higher albedo than does grassland, which has a higher albedo than forest. In fact, observations have shown the Sahara (with effectively no clouds) to have the same albedo as the Amazon (with a massive cloud cover). Further, with any decline in global mean temperature, sea ice extent will increase, increasing albedo. Your assumption that albedo will decrease, is therefore dubious at best even in an unphysical model. Finally, even if the albedo were to decline to 0.1 (less than the Moon's albedo, so certainly a generous assumption) and with retained heat transport, global mean surface temperature would decline by about 20 C, more than enough to initiate a massive glaciation such as at the Last Glacial Maximum, and probably enough to initiate snowball Earth. In other words, any low albedo condition is dynamically unstable with cooling.
56983. skywatcher at 09:00 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience, you're demonstrating a fair bit of missing elementary knowledge on your part. Some examples - not understanding glacier mass balance (#158), confusing glaciers with sea ice (#158), not understanding what a feedback or forcing is and their implications (#159), or not having even read or comprehended the studies involved (apparent from e.g. #140, #148, #158). These may or may not be intentional, but in this light, it is hard to take seriously your various hints that Mann et al, and the dozen or so papers that followed his, have not just followed the data. You've suggested, directly or indirectly, that they have either deliberately muted the MCA signal, or that they have failed to take into account the full body of evidence, yet it's apparent that you're unaware of the contents of the full body of evidence. We have some idea of the forcings involved during the MCA - see Figure 6.13 in IPCC AR4. You might note that the forcings all have a magnitude in watts per square metre. That means that if we are to accept your hypothesis (despite the lack of supporting evidence) that the MCA was globally uniform and large, we still need to find a large enough forcing that operated in the MCA but not today. As detailed by many people, not least in some detail by the IPCC in Chapter 6 above (and more recent papers continue to support this), the MCA is now well-known to be spatially and temporally heterogeneous, consistent with smaller solar/volcanic forcings. Esper's recent paper, another regional study, didn't change this (good discussion at RealClimate). At least I'd agree with you that: "I would not expect that our best average estimates [of equilibrium climate sensitivity] would strain far from 3 degrees c for a doubling of CO2." I'm very glad we agree on that. I'll add a further example of a climate response that has been greater recently than during the MCA - Arctic glaciers and ice shelves, a number of which are exposing land or breaking up for the first time in several thousand years (see section 4.4 in Polyak et al).
56984. IanC at 07:20 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG, The 12% figure is the average albedo over the entire surface, ocean included, so 270K will be the average surface temperature. When you cool the average surface temperature from 289K to 270K you are bound to significantly increase ice coverage over land and ocean, so the albedo will have to increase significantly as well. As for the rest of your argument, it appears that you are arguing that sea surface temperature must be higher than land temperature, but your argument is not correct. While the differential absorption in the ocean will affect the vertical profile, the sea surface temperature, which is relevant to sea ice formation, is set purely by the incoming solar radiation. You can go through a detailed model with layers, but the crux is that at equilibrium, whatever solar energy that is not absorbed by the top layer must be balanced by heat flux of an equal magnitude from the deeper ocean, so it is no different from the case where all of the solar energy is absorbed at the surface. Your last point doesn't really prove anything, as during the day the land the temperature is much higher than the ocean,
56985. Daniel Bailey at 06:36 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Would you like a red pill with that...or a blue pill?
56986. scaddenp at 06:17 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       "people like the Idso's prey on people's ignorance to create a false impression of the MWP" Not to mention relying on them believing what Idso tells them the papers say instead of actually reading them.
56987. Rob Painting at 06:13 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience - The best global paleo-temperature proxies, the great polar ice sheets and tropical glacial ice disagree. These are all currently melting at an accelerating rate and significantly contributing to sea level rise, yet in the roughly 500 year-long Medieval Period, global sea level never rose at all. In fact, sea level rise stopped around 4-5000 years ago and was static until humans began to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels - releasing planet-warming greenhouse gases. Current sea level rise, and consequently current global warmth, is anomalous within the context of the last 7-8000 years.This refutes the notion of a warm Medieval Period. I note that you dodged this issue when I previously raised it. For a person with such a pseudonym you don't seem particularly interested in real science.
56988. Flakmeister at 05:58 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       @47/49...JoeRG Maybe it's the sun or I am getting old and thick, but I keep getting 25% in my head and not 29%... What am I missing?
56989. Roger D at 05:23 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       sorry - just a clarification to my comments above: the report itself was from "the late 1980's or early 1990's", not the anticipated seriousness of AGW. That was in the future.
56990. Roger D at 05:19 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       An interesting observation (maybe) that I recall from reading Naomi Oreskes' and Erik Conway's book "Merchants of Doubt": It is from a part of at the book about US government sponsored reports on the likely seriousness of AGW during late 1980's or early 1990's, and the response of those who got to write the summary (I'm going from my memory of the book, so apologies for not remembering specifics regarding specific personalities, committees, official report names). Anyway, what I recall is that the book documented that when the climate science was largely confirming what is more certain now some 20 years later, the then-proponents against contemplating mitigation did not argue against a synthesis of the science. Instead, they accepted it and simply attached a summary, without any references to support it, stating that we can just adapt by picking up and moving to more preferable living/ growing conditions. The difficulties and specifics involved with this "plan" were not elaborated on. Thanks to Mr. Tillerson, Exxon Mobil is back to where the anti-mitigation proponents where something like 22 years ago. It seems like Déjà Vu all over again.
56991. Daniel J. Andrews at 05:06 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       I feel a bit like a broken record, but we adapt to the consequences, not before the consequences. That means if adaptation is the plan, it will be after there's been massive floods, droughts, famine and loss of life--much of that loss could have been avoided if we decided to reign in our fossil fuel dependency.
56992. vrooomie at 04:37 AM on 13 July 2012
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       For sphaerica@66...>;-) Head bangingly good!
56993. vrooomie at 04:29 AM on 13 July 2012
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       muoncounter@55 and scaddemp@60...methinks you reference this, in your comments... 'Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed, Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant; But over its terrible edge there had slipped A duke and full many a peasant. So the people said something would have to be done, But their projects did not at all tally; Some said, "Put a fence 'round the edge of the cliff," Some, "An ambulance down in the valley." But the cry for the ambulance carried the day, For it spread through the neighboring city; A fence may be useful or not, it is true, But each heart became full of pity For those who slipped over the dangerous cliff; And the dwellers in highway and alley Gave pounds and gave pence, not to put up a fence, But an ambulance down in the valley. "For the cliff is all right, if you're careful," they said, "And, if folks even slip and are dropping, It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much As the shock down below when they're stopping." So day after day, as these mishaps occurred, Quick forth would those rescuers sally To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff, With their ambulance down in the valley. Then an old sage remarked: "It's a marvel to me That people give far more attention To repairing results than to stopping the cause, When they'd much better aim at prevention. Let us stop at its source all this mischief," cried he, "Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally; If the cliff we will fence, we might almost dispense With the ambulance down in the valley." "Oh he's a fanatic," the others rejoined, "Dispense with the ambulance? Never! He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could; No! No! We'll support them forever. Aren't we picking up folks just as fast as they fall? And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he? Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence, While the ambulance works in the valley?" But the sensible few, who are practical too, Will not bear with such nonsense much longer; They believe that prevention is better than cure, And their party will soon be the stronger. Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen, And while other philanthropists dally, They will scorn all pretense, and put up a stout fence On the cliff that hangs over the valley. Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old, For the voice of true wisdom is calling. "To rescue the fallen is good, but 'tis best To prevent other people from falling." Better close up the source of temptation and crime Than deliver from dungeon or galley; Better put a strong fence 'round the top of the cliff Than an ambulance down in the valley. -- Joseph Malins (1895)
56994. Rob Honeycutt at 04:08 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience... My biggest objection to your comments is that you've inferred that Dr Mann was somehow attempting to hide the MWP. That's not at all accurate. If you read Mann's recently published book you find out that he was actually skeptical about global warming, like any good scientist. The whole point to his research was to understand what role natural variability played in climate change today. He says that the hockey stick is merely what arose from the data. And in fact, what he was trying to do with his work was to "contain" the MWP, as in, get statistically significant data that reached back to before the MWP. That is what Tom's chart at 153 shows.
56995. Mike3267 at 03:57 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       As the denier camp morphs into the staller camp the arguments for mitigation will get trickier. Economic models are not reliable. It is one thing say 97% of climatologists think X, but quite another to say most economists think we should do something about X. It is even easier to troll out pseudo-economists before the public than quack scientists. (Just look at the budget debates.) We've spent a lot of time thinking about how to explain the science but very little on how to explain policy choices. Among those who favor mitigation some are for cap and trade while others are against this approach; some are pro nuclear power while others are anti-nukes; some see natural gas as a helpful bridge while others do not. It will be very easy for the stallers to use divide and concern tactics.
56996. michael sweet at 03:22 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Realscience, As I recall, Mann used over 2000 proxies in his 2009 analysis. Do you really think that adding 3 more will make a significant difference? Will they overcome the hundreds of other proxies that suggest the MWP was a local anomaly? Your assertion that Mann is somehow in error because he does not publish a reanalysis every time a new proxy is published is simply uninformed. New proxies are published every month. Mann has undoubtedly added the data you like to his data base and looked at the new graph. It is not worth publishing yet. Mann will likely publish a new reconstruction around 5 years after his last paper (earlier or later depending on how interesting it is). He will include all the new proxy data. If for some reason Mann is not able to publish an update, someone else will.
56997. Rob Honeycutt at 03:11 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience @ 159... The papers I've read say that the MCA was "heterogeneous." So, while you can find proxies all over the globe that had a MCA you also find proxies that show no MCA, or you find temporal shifts in when the MCA occurred. What often happens, and is even presented on the Idso's CO2now CO2science website, without reading the literature people see regions of a strong MCA at widely distributed points around the globe and come away with the assumption that the MWP was global and warmer than today. They don't know enough to look closely at the time frame during with warming in each proxy occurs and they don't know that there are 100's of other proxies that show no warming or even cooling during medieval times. In that way, people like the Idso's prey on people's ignorance to create a false impression of the MWP. But what you never get is the Idso's or McIntyre ever producing a real multiproxy reconstruction.
       Moderator Response: [RH] Correction: The Idso's site is CO2science.org, not CO2now.org.
56998. Esop at 03:09 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       It truly is sad to see Giæver putting so much effort into thoroughly destroying his future reputation as a brilliant scientist. Interestingly, he only achieved mediocre to poor grades in college. Could seem that he is extremely talented in a very narrow field, but much less apt at absorbing knowledge in others.
56999. LarryM at 03:04 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       Tillerson: "We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around -- we'll adapt to that." I wonder how farmers (not to mention coastal inhabitants and others) like the cavalier attitude that their individual livelihoods and lives don't matter at all...they can just adapt. Also, by analogy to the reckoning that ultimately came to the tobacco industry, one day there will be lawsuits assigning blame for the damage caused by industry obstructionism and lying, and we need to remember facts such as ExxonMobil's 20 years of climate modeling that indicate they knew what their product was doing to the planet.
57000. JoeRG at 02:29 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       IanC @48: As told, the 270K are only valid for 29% of the surface. Given the current conditions, the value for the other 71% would be somewhat higher because SW radiation is absorbed at greater depths down to several tens or even hundreds meters. Contrary, LW can be radiated to space only from the uppermost layer. So there must be a transport of heat to the surface before it can be re-radiated. The energy remains in the system and therefore the inner temperature raises to a level where a freezing is impossible for most of latitudes - remember, the cooling effect of clouds is not existent. Given that oceanic currents are running as we know it, this heat (OHC) is transported to the poles too. Therefore the albedo would not be as high as you expect. You can prove the behavior of water quite easily: Imagine a coast where the surface temperatures of water and the shore are equal at dusk. The water will always be warmer during the night because of the stored heat. With or without an atmosphere doesn't matter at all.

Prev  1132  1133  1134  1135  1136  1137  1138  1139  1140  1141  1142  1143  1144  1145  1146  1147  Next