Recent Comments

Prev  1145  1146  1147  1148  1149  1150  1151  1152  1153  1154  1155  1156  1157  1158  1159  1160  Next

Comments 57601 to 57650:

57601. Bob Lacatena at 07:24 AM on 23 June 2012
       Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
       vroomie, And yet both Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer continue to pursue it. What does that tell you?
57602. vrooomie at 02:50 AM on 23 June 2012
       Ten Things I Learned in the Climate Lab
       It is indeed the permafrost "issue" that worries me the most: I've a few colleagues who study this and if the decomposition of permafrost, and chlathrates, continue and/or accelerate, my tummy begins to ache a bit too. I'm a scientist: Hope springs eternal.
57603. vrooomie at 02:32 AM on 23 June 2012
       Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
       As Spock would say, "Fascinating." I'm reading this article in June 2012, quite a while after the BEST study was published (*deliciously* funded by the uber-deniers, the Koch Bros) and as such, it all looks a bit....not sure of the word. Suffice it to say, the results of the BEST paper, coupled with its funding source, have essentially laid the UHI effect, at least as a proximate cause of all GW, to its deserved rest, rendering it useless as a viable "fact" for the deniers' pursuit of any small crumb thay can latch onto, to reject all of the published science on AGW. I love it when a plan comes together....;)
       Moderator Response: [DB] Hot-linked quote. :)
57604. dana1981 at 01:50 AM on 23 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Rob @41 - yes, climate contrarians only seem interested in concluding 'Hansen was wrong', hence the final two paragraphs of the above post. Of course he was 'wrong' because all models are 'wrong', but his results are also useful in telling us climate sensitivity is in the ballpark of 3°C. However, I'd describe the study as Hansen trying to model the global climate as best as he could at the time, and then seeing how his model would project future climate changes, temperature changes being the main focus of those projections. The fact that he projected too much warming is a result of the model sensitivity being too high, which is a result of the model being an imperfect representation of the climate. Models will of course always be imperfect, but they have also improved dramatically over the past nearly quarter century.
57605. Daniel Bailey at 21:41 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Indeed. My first computer of that era, a Commodore-64^®, had an available free RAM of just 37k. Despite this limitation, software engineers compiled very playable game code (for what other commercial purpose yields so much potential revenue?) for games still playable today (just today I learned that the old C-64 staple, Sword of Fargoal, is now available for the Iphone!).
57606. Eric (skeptic) at 21:30 PM on 22 June 2012
       Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
       My biggest problem is on a conservative forum that I have been on for 13 years. I pick the worst of the misunderstandings, often repeated by the same commentors, and try to chip away at those. The number one problem is debates on fundamentals (e.g. GHG physics) being presented as mainstream scientific controversy. The presence of fringe controversy is a fact and strength of science, but it is obviously being badly misused. Some of those posters are knowing disinformation trolls, but some are not. I don't assume anything, just try to post facts. I also post about what I believe to be legitimate scientific controversy such as some aspects that I have argued on this forum.
57607. Tom Curtis at 20:42 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       The unzipped source code, it turns out, is all of 284 kbs. Despite this small size, when run in 1983 it took up to much computer time to do a full repeat run when the memory was corrupted during one experiment (see the caption of fig 3 (PDF)). Remembering the limited computer capacity of those days is making me feel old.
57608. Tom Curtis at 20:29 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       For anyone who actually wants to run the GISS model II, the source code is still available online here.
57609. JimmyB at 19:45 PM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       (inflammatory snipped; link without discussion snipped)
       Moderator Response: TC: Compliance with the comments policy is not optional for anyone. Please read it and comply to avoid future moderation. Please note that links (and URL's) should be accompanied by discussion which provides an indication of the contents of the link; and that inflammatory language is not permitted.
57610. Paul D at 17:36 PM on 22 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       Lowcarbonkid, can you post a link to that Grantham Inst study?
57611. scaddenp at 15:22 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       iphone - dunno. You have to get Fortran working. (GCM Model 2 I think). I think Android and gfortran would be easier. On the other hand, its "maintained" on OS X, intel compiler. I should admit right away that I dont even own a smart phone and have never seriously looked at developing on one. On the other hand, the specs for computer in 1988 compared to smart phone are pretty good.
57612. Rob Honeycutt at 15:11 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       I've been arguing with someone about Hansen's paper over on Peter Sinclair's YT channel for days now. The only thing I can get is that the only point they want to make is that Hansen was wrong. Whatever it takes, he was wrong. And he was wrong... in using 4.2C for climate sensitivity. After that his model works pretty well. It seems lost on people that Hansen was not trying to model CS. He was modeling temperature, so adjusting the CS to see how the model is performing is reasonable.
57613. Rob Honeycutt at 15:00 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Ooooh, scaddenp! Now there is an iPhone app I'd like to have!
57614. scaddenp at 14:37 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       I find it hard to really comprehend what they are getting at. Are they saying that they favour Hansen's 4.2 sensitivity and thus arguing forcing must be Scenario C (when clearly they are not). Or simply arguing that Hansen had sensitivity too high (which you could see without Scenario C being there) which is generally agreed. Or arguing that the issues with Hansen's 1988 model (which they could probably run on their phone these days) conclusively disprove climate science for all time and we go back to putting more coal on the fire.
57615. Rob Honeycutt at 14:25 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Dana @ 33... I think you're exactly right about scenario C. It's a big distraction because nothing close to that happened in terms of forcing. It would be reasonable to just pretend it's not even there. It's well accepted that scenario B is the closest to Hansen's forcing projections. That leaves you with a GISS temperature trend that is below scenario B at Hansen's 4.2C for CS. And even in Hansen's paper he mentions the fact that the NAS had estimated CS at 3C. So, it seems pretty darn logical to adjust Hansen's model for 3C, because it's not the forcing we're trying to rationalize, it's Hansen's model. Do that and you get a close match between GISS and Hansen's projections. I really fail to see why this is so hard for skeptics to comprehend.
57616. DSL at 12:39 PM on 22 June 2012
       Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
       Various news site threads attached to articles on GW. It's like trench warfare in cyberspace. Yet it's also an opportunity to model a better way of communicating that draws a mighty contrast to the mass of condemnatory one-liners filled with beautiful frankenwords like "libtard." I'm professionally interested in how misinformation spreads--how it changes, the rapidity of the spread of a meme, how entrenched the beliefs are, etc. Comment streams are a rich source of information, even when trolled by the apparatchiks of opinion-making organizations. It's kind of a game for me, even though there are real-world implications. I pick a few commenters who seem badly misinformed and belligerent, and I work them patiently, evenly-keeled, until I get them to start asking questions and admit that neither of us has a handle on absolute truth, but that a blanket condemnation is clearly a bad idea. One common starting point presents itself when people say things like "the climate has been changing for millions of years." I ask, "how do you know that?" And that, of course, presents a lovely paradox for them. Some never respond. Some crack open their can of critical thinking just a little and admit the situation is not as simple as "all climate scientists are liberal commies and frauds (climategate proves it!)."
57617. Tom Curtis at 11:05 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       dana @36, you are correct. I mistakenly reported the trends from 1958-2011. Correcting to report the trends from 1979-2010 to make them directly comparable with Foster and Rahmstorf, they are: A - 0.32 C/decade B - 0.27 C/decade C - 0.22 C/decade which shows the point I made in the final paragraph of my preceding post to be completely incorrect. Thank you for correcting my error.
57618. dana1981 at 10:21 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Tom @36 - the Scenario B trend is closer to 0.27°C/decade. Account for the forcing being 16% higher than reality and the sensitivity being about 40% higher than the current best estimate, and you get the observed 0.17°C/decade.
57619. Tom Smerling at 10:04 AM on 22 June 2012
       Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
       I find many of the comments here refreshing, and am eager to hear more from thoughtful conservatives/libertarians on this topic. DSL@28 Where are the other threads "around the nets" you mention?. BTW, in addition to Adler, Wehner, Fumento, et al, theres' a list (with links) of libertarian's who take climate seriously at bullet #5 at "Toward a Productive Libertarian View on Climate...etc." and some interesting links in the Wikipedia entry for "Green Libertarianism" -- a phrase I just heard for the first time. Of course, there are also several related threads right here on SkS.
57620. Bob Lacatena at 09:37 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       angusmac, Like Fred, you completely miss the point and oversimplify the issue, then you fail to understand the distinctions when they are pointed out to you (as evidenced by the thread to which you pointed), and then you accuse everyone else of duplicity because you can't seem to understand the nuances. Stop oversimplifying things. Read and understand the posts. As an aside, phrases like "the SkS faithful," while otherwise not endearing you to anyone who disagrees with you (if you want to speak like that, go post with the WUWT your brethren on WUWT) also skirts close to the edge of the comments policy.
57621. Tom Curtis at 08:03 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Angusmac @31, as one of the "SkS faithful" (a condescending term I object to) I note that you actually wrote:

       "Illuminating post Dana but you neglect to mention that Hansen's Scenario C actually gives the best fit to the GISS temperature data, not Scenario B."

       (My emphasis) I responded by showing that Dana had shown that temperatures tracked Scenario C best (contrary to your claim), but that if the predictions where scaled based on the ratio between the climate sensitivity of Hansen's original model and the mean of modern accepted values, temperatures track Scenario B - a point you do not acknowledge. That is an interesting point. What is neglected by deniers in their continuous attacks on Hansen 88 is that modern estimates of climate sensitivity have already been adjusted down relative to that model. Indeed, they where adjusted down in 1998 when temperatures where tracking well above scenario B even though forcings at that time where tracking below scenario C. That is because climate scientists look at the full range of data, and do not restrict themselves to try and falsify the whole theory based on the performance of an obsolete model from twenty five years ago. Interestingly, that obsolete model is still doing much better than it is given credit for. Currently GHG forcings are tracking almost exactly half way between Scenario C and Scenario B (see OP). The Scenario C prediction has a linear trend of 0.15 C/decade. The Scenario B prediction has a linear trend of 0.19 C/decade. Based on the ratio of forcings, therefore, we would expect temperatures to be tracking at about 0.17 C per decade. It turns out, once you correct for ENSO and the declining insolation over the last 30 years (not included in Hansen's forcings), that is exactly where the temperature is tracking:
57622. shoyemore at 07:18 AM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       I read the U of Guelph press release on the McKittrick paper, and I have to say it made me laugh. An economist claiming that his "simple economic model" made better predictions that a physical model... alarms bells ring straight away. It screams "cherry picking!". Just look at how succesful "simple sconomic models" have been in predicting what they are supposed to predict - the economy.
57623. cynicus at 06:07 AM on 22 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       @16 Paul D, yes, the cited paper was his PhD thesis, he has quite a list of publications but only few after having received his PhD. Afaik Bart currently works in offshore engineering at Siemens Wind Power A/S.
57624. Bob Lacatena at 04:38 AM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       I'm curious... who owns the UAH computer code? I understand that a university would not want to step on a researcher's toes in that regard, but could UAH step in and make the satellite interpretation code available, if necessary against Christy's and Spencer's wishes?
57625. dana1981 at 04:25 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Fred Staples and angusmac - you're being distracted by curve C. Scenario C did not come to fruition, so focusing on that scenario becomes a red herring. It's true that coincidentally, temperatures have risen at a rate similar to Scenario C so far. But you're drawing the wrong conclusions from that. The main reason temperatures are following C is that Hansen's model was probably too sensitive to CO2 changes. If his model had a sensitivity of around 3°C, Scenario B would have accurately reflected the observed temperature change (or more precisely, a trend 16% lower than Scenario B, since the actual forcing has been 16% lower). By focusing on the coincidence that temps happen to have risen at a similar rate as Scenario C thus far, you're completely missing the point and failing to actually learn anything from Hansen 1988, as noted in the final section of the above post.
57626. KR at 04:25 AM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       pixelDust - I believe McKitrick's major misstep is more than sufficiently described by Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate, where he commented:

       "He makes the same conceptual error here as he made in McKitrick and Nierenberg, McKitrick and Vogel and McKitrick, McIntyre and Herman. The basic issue is that for short time scales (in this case 1979-2000), grid point temperature trends are not a strong function of the forcings - rather they are a function of the (unique realisation of) internal variability and are thus strongly stochastic. ... He knows this is an error since it has been pointed out to him before ... There are other issues, but his basic conceptual error is big one from which all other stem. - gavin"

       [Emphasis added]
57627. Composer99 at 03:26 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       angusmac: There is rather a large difference between what dana1981 wrote in the OP and what you assert he wrote. He followed up the statement you quoted with: but actual emissions have been closer to Scenario B. This tells us that Hansen's model was "wrong" in that it was too sensitive to greenhouse gas changes. However, it was not wrong by 150%, as Solheim claims. Compared to the actual radiative forcing change, Hansen's model over-projected the 1984-2011 surface warming by about 40%, meaning its sensitivity (4.2°C for doubled CO2) was about 40% too high. which is rather different from what you were going on about on page 2 of this comment thread. I find it interesting that you have omitted reference to this comment thread (which fleshes out the SkS response to your claims) in your complaint about DB's moderator add-on just as you have omitted the rest of dana1981's statement in the OP.
57628. angusmac at 02:57 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Dana, would you please let me know how you do it? You state in the post that, "The observed temperature change has been closest to Scenario C", and not a peep from the SkS faithful. I stated that, "Hansen's Scenario C actually gives the best fit to the GISS temperature data, not Scenario B" in SkS Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen here. However, I was castigated by the Moderator (DB) and by the SkS faithful. You weren't. A typical comment against me was (by DB), " Repeating a misunderstanding does not unmake it as a misunderstanding ." Dana, I do not see any material difference between my statement and your statement. DB, is Dana repeating a misunderstanding? It just goes to show that it's not what you say but who says it.
57629. Lowcarbonkid at 02:32 AM on 22 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       Also, a very recent policy brief from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, which is chaired by Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the 2006 Stern Review and located at the London School of Economics, looked at the "back-up need" issue for wind turbines and found it to be a myth. In fact, they found that wind turbines are not too unreliable or expensive to contribute significantly to Britain's electricity generation mix, and that it is wrong to think that gas is a useful relatively low carbon fuel. There are three myths commonly repeated in anti-windfarm rhetoric: Myth 1: that there is a requirement for gas-powered backup to counter the unreliability of wind power. “This is plainly untrue," said Bob Ward. “Only 1% of carbon savings are wiped out, because there are many ways of managing both demand and supply due to the intermittency of the wind." The report says: "The cost penalty and grid system challenges of intermittency are often exaggerated. There are several other ways of compensating for the variability, such as bulk storage of electricity, greater interconnection, and a more diversified mix of renewable sources, as well as measures to manage demand, like smart grids and improved load management.” Myth 2: that onshore wind is expensive. “We found that it is the cheapest of all low carbon forms of electricity generation," said Bob Ward. The report says: “A key attraction of onshore wind over other low-carbon forms of electricity generation is cost. In terms of levelised cost – an economic measure which takes into account all of the costs of a technology over its lifetime – onshore wind is currently the cheapest renewable technology in the UK. The choice between more affordable electricity (which would favour onshore wind) and local environmental protection (which may favour other low-carbon technologies) is ultimately a political one." Myth 3: that using gas power generation is low carbon and will help us meet our climate commitments. “This is only true if we stop using gas in 2020," said Bob Ward, because at that point emissions need to drop further than relying on gas can permit. The report concludes: "It is clear that the further decarbonisation required in the 2020s cannot be achieved by heavily relaying on unabated gas power stations. Rational policy-makers need to anticipate this and avoid locking in high-carbon electricity generation.” “The thing is," continued Bob Ward, whom I interviewed on the topic, “those who have an agenda against wind farms then seek to find proof to back it up. They twist the evidence to make it fit." He says he finds the same misinformation cropping up again and again in anti-windfarm rhetoric. It gains credence by being repeated so often, for instance by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the new Welsh group No To Wind and in the letters written by a hundred Tory MPs recently to George Osborne.
57630. Lowcarbonkid at 02:25 AM on 22 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       I, too, am very surprised by the figures on solar thermal and PV. The US Department of Energy (DoE)10 calculates that the energy payback for polycrystalline modules is four years for systems using recent technology and two years for anticipated technology. However, of course it very much depends where they are installed. Sunnier climates like North Africa will pay back their energy sooner than northern Europe. The DoE adds that on average amorphous silicon takes one to two years to generate the energy needed to make it, and three years including the frame and support structure for a roof-mounted, grid-connected system. For off-grid systems, the payback will be much longer. The DoE refers to findings by Dones and Frischknecht that PV-systems fabrication and fossil-fuel energy production have similar energy payback periods (including costs for mining, transportation, refining and construction). Assuming a system life expectancy of 30 years and that fossil-fuel-based energy was used in manufacture, 87–97 per cent of the energy that PV systems generate will be pollution-free. These figures were from 2004 or earlier, and so it is likely that they are shorter now. I quote it in my book, Solar Technology, where I also outline the other environmental hazards of PV. Thanks for the post, it is very interesting.
57631. pixelDust at 01:42 AM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       Thanks Composer. The entire paper is accessible for me using that link, though I now realize it's because I'm accessing the URL from a university (so anyone else in an academic setting should be able to access it as well; it appears to auto-detect if your IP is from a subscriber institution). I don't have a background in statistics, but I'm sure someone who does (and can access the full paper) can easily find any flaws, trickery, and obfuscation therein.
57632. Kevin C at 01:34 AM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       The first place I would look is the sign of the socio-economic influence on local temperature. If more growth leads to lower temperatures, then he may have discovered that aerosol emissions have a local impact, but are (AFAIK) modelled as a global term in climate models. In which case, it's something we knew all along. But he may have inadvertently come up with a way of improving climate model inputs. And bears not much relation to the press releases.
57633. Bob Lacatena at 01:26 AM on 22 June 2012
       Newcomers, Start Here
       220, Brent, The key point you should take is probably that which Dan Bailey gave you, that CO2 levels are now at a point which has not been reached in 800,000 years, and the climate that went with higher CO2 levels was frightening. If you are taken to task on that, I'd point you towards my own post, (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm for a few different perspectives on just what 451 ppm of CO2 could mean. If you are taken to task for the source of CO2 in the atmosphere (your last post implied as much, even though your original post did not suggest it), that is the easiest thing in the world to refute, and anyone who clings to that position is in absolute, complete denial. CO2 Increase is Natural [There are lots and lots of other links on that, but I think that one gives the best overall summary of all of the various lines that put a nail in any idea that CO2 could come from anywhere but fossil fuels (and if it were... where the heck did the 337 gigatons of fossil fuel CO2 go to?).]
57634. Composer99 at 01:17 AM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       pixelDust: I can't access the full paper (behind a paywall), but the language in the press release appears to be a lot stronger than the language in the paper abstract. So I suspect in the first place that McKitrick is pulling a "Forbes" and overstating the findings of the paper in the press release. Second, if McKitrick's assertion is that climatologists do not account for land-use changes in either modelling or teasing out different forcings from the empirical data, it appears he is incorrect: from this rebuttal on Skeptical Science we are linked to NASA GISS summary of radiative forcings which quite obviously takes land-use changes into account. To be fair, it doesn't follow that newer GCMs do a great, or even a good, job of accounting for land-use changes. However statements such as McKitrick's: “A lot of the current thinking about the causes of climate change relies on the assumption that the effects of land surface modification due to economic growth patterns have been filtered out of temperature data sets. But this assumption is not true.” (in the press release) appear to be incorrect when the information from NASA GISS is considered. If memory serves the IPCC also has a summary table of radiative forcings, including land-use changes. I'm sure better rebuttals can be made, but that's just what sprang to mind for me.
57635. vrooomie at 01:12 AM on 22 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       ModComm@14...I *resemble* that comment!!!! >;-)
57636. bmac3130 at 00:55 AM on 22 June 2012
       Newcomers, Start Here
       Please do not misunderstand. I am not the one questioning the science. I am a believer in the, what seem to me to be, obvious truths of global climate change and mankind's significant role in that process. The question I posted is from a thread I started on the environment in an Amazon discussion board and is one which one of the skeptics I have been talking with posted. Since I am a recent convert to believing there is a climate change problem occurring (I used to be right-wing, conservative, fundamentalist Christian pastor) I am not as well versed in some of the scientific data available as I would like to be. I ended up providing the questioner with a link to the National Research Council's "Climate Change Science" Report I then added this, "Here is a quote from the report which I provided a link for, which addresses some of the points which you brought up in your post. "That the burning of fossil fuels is a major cause of the CO2 increase is evidenced by the concomitant decreases in the relative abundance of both the stable and radioactive carbon isotopes and the decrease in atmospheric oxygen. Continuous high-precision measurements have been made of its atmospheric concentrations only since 1958, and by the year 2000 the concentrations had increased 17% from 315 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 370 ppmv. While the year-to-year increase varies, the average annual increase of 1.5 ppmv/year over the past two decades is slightly greater than during the 1960s and 1970s." The key for me is the fact that while an increase of 1 to 2 ppm/yr. by itself would not raise temperatures greatly, the cumulative increase over time would begin to raise Earth's temperatures and cause greater issues. An increase of 55 ppm from 1958 to the time of the writing of this report is more significant and concerning. If these numbers continue increasing at the current rate of 1 to 2 ppm/yr. by 2058 the ppm levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will be between 415 ppm (low end) and 515 ppm (high end). (I did those numbers in my head as I was typing this so they might be off a little but I am pretty sure they are right). So, the increase in a one hundred year period between 1958 and 2058 would be 31.7% (low end) and 63.49% (high end). Now we are starting to get into areas of greater concern than simply stating that the increase is simply 1 to 2 ppm/yr." Thank you all for this site and for the information which you have provided me so far. :) Brent McCay
57637. Composer99 at 00:37 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       I probably know less about statistics than any other participant on this thread, but at least I can spot a fallacy of composition, such as: Dana, statististical significance for a trend does not depend on the length of the time scale. It depends on the probability (usually 1 chance in 20) that the observed trend is different from zero. Fred appears to assert that in noisy time series the chosen temporal resolution should not mask discerning the trend - and there lies the fallacy. In addition: My "moderated" posts are all based on original data, scrupulously tested courtesy of Excel. seems like comedy gold.
57638. Bob Lacatena at 00:03 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Fred, 26, No. The divergence stems from comparing apples to oranges. Known differences:
       • Large differences in the amounts of other major greenhouse gases (CH4, CFC12, etc.)
       • Incorrectly chosen climate sensitivity (4.2 vs. 3)
       • Greater aerosols (see China)
       • Lower solar output
       • A recent, probably random spate of La Niña episodes
       This is very simple, and is stated very clearly in the original post. You simply cannot compare any of the projections to the actual course of events because the underlying premise is invalid. It's like arguing that the 1985 Chicago Bears were the greatest American football team ever. It's an impossible stance to ever prove because there's no way to get them to play teams from other era's, and there are too many changes between eras (steroids, rules, population, finance, etc.). It's just a silly position to adopt. It's hard to refute, because the bottom line is that it's silly to begin with. The original post explains this clearly enough. Your constant rejection of the facts amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nah, nah, nah, I'm-not-listening."
57639. pixelDust at 23:52 PM on 21 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       Speaking of "model discrepancies", please debunk this: Climate Models Missing Key Component of Temperature Changes One of the co-authors is a known AGW denier, so I have a strong feeling this is a case of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". The actual paper can be found here.
57640. Dikran Marsupial at 23:41 PM on 21 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Fred, saying that "statististical significance for a trend does not depend on the length of the time scale" clearly suggests that you don't understand statistical power. If the timescale is too short for the test to have useful statistical power then the "Popperian test" is meaningless as lack of statistical significance is what we would expect to see even if the null hypothesis is false. Statistical power depends on the timescales involved, so if you want a fair Popperian test then you need to show that the timescale is long enough for the test to have adequate statistical power. If you want to suggest a fair Popperian test, then that is something that I would be very much in favour of. However the onus is on you to perform the analysis of statistical power required to show that the test is reasonable.
57641. Bob Lacatena at 23:40 PM on 21 June 2012
       Newcomers, Start Here
       bmac, 19, [Please note that while most links are to Skeptical Science articles, virtually all include multiple references to peer-reviewed literature. But you're not going to understand the answer very often by taking one, single paper in isolation. Science is the body of work, as it is (well) understood by the people who do it every day. So you need the Skeptical Science articles to help provide introduction and context where you may be lacking in background knowledge. But Skeptical Science articles are very heavily cross-linked to supporting material. Follow the links.] There are so many fallacies in what you posted, both in the argument that you presented and the way the components that you posted, that I don't know where to begin. I will remember that your main question was on that puny 1-2 ppm CO2, but:

       ...we know that the earth warms and cools in natural cycles...

       This is the first "gotcha" that implies that (a) climate changes a lot (it doesn't) and (b) we don't understand those magical, mystical cycles. Both implications are dead wrong. Internal Variability It's a Natural Cycle

       Has human activity been speeding up the warming...

       This is like asking if you are still beating your wife. How do you answer? Human activity is not speeding up warming, it is causing warming. Without human activity the planet would be cooling right now. Solar activity is down, dimming aerosols are up. Lean and Rind (2008) Gillett et all (2012) It's not the sun

       ...and create a run-away greenhouse effect?

       This is denial-alarmism for a you, a strawman created to make the opposing position look ridiculous, by exaggerating it to the point where it is ridiculous. No one is saying there will be a run-away greenhouse effect. No one has to. A plain, ordinary 3˚C to 5˚C of warming can be catastrophic to civilization and people, all by itself. It won't be a runaway effect, but it can be very bad. Runaway Warming Venus

       Over 90% of that increase is from industrial processes...

       Industrial processes that do what? Make cars, televisions, and plastic toys? Make ships and trucks and airplanes that move the cars, televisions and plastic toys? This is another strawman, making any effort to separate what you use individually. You are a member of society, a complex, interwoven, technological-industrial society. You use everything society creates, and that includes the tanks and the planes that guard your borders, even if you never sit in them yourself.

       So we would have to devastate industrial production...

       More denial alarmism. The only people who say that taking immediate, deliberate action will devestate economies are denial-alarmists, who are trying to frighten you away from thinking clearly. CO2 Limits Economy Renewable Energy

       Can you cite me some scientific literaure that would support the idea that a 1-2 parts-per-million increase in carbon dioxide would have a significant impact on the thermodynamic properties of the atmosphere?

       First, this contains yet another debate-tactic, the implication that human contributions are so small on an annual basis that it can't possibly matter. CO2 is Just a Trace Gas But what really matters isn't the 1-2 parts-per-million per year, it's the 337 gigatons that mankind has added (split between the atmosphere and the ocean, which is another huge, huge problem all by itself). That raises CO2 from 285 ppm to currently 400 ppm. That's not 1-2, that's 115. That's not a small percentage, that's a %40 increase. "A significant impact on the thermodynamic properties of the atmosphere?" The question you are asking is covered by the body of scientific literature on the subject. No, scientists didn't write one nice, neat paper to explain it to your friend because they thought he might ask. They've written hundreds of thousands of papers, discussing various details including everything from climate sensitivity to radiative properties. In that light, I think that your question is best answered by reading (sorry, it's long, but really, it's necessary) Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. This will tell you, in a rather easy to read format (given how dry the subject matter can be) how science developed, from the beginning to the near present, to the point where we understand fairly well (and continue to improve our knowledge, in spite of denial attempts to interfere with science and keep us in the dark):
       • The radiative properties of gases in the atmosphere
       • The climate components of the atmosphere and ocean
       • The impact of the sun
       • Climate sensitivity and feedbacks
       • Past climate change
       • Everything else
       So... I'm sorry that the bottom line answer to your question is not "Hansen et al (2004) Everything Anyone Wants to Know About Climate Change in An Easy, 5 Page Peer Reviewed Paper." That's never going to happen. But everything your friend said, including the things he falsely implied, is easily answered. The information is there, and the falsehoods need to stop. If deniers want to argue about things, let them argue about real things, not made-up strawman arguments intended to frighten people away from thinking clearly.
57642. dhogaza at 23:35 PM on 21 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       "I make two assertions. One, it has not happened yet, and two, when the probability becomes vanishingly small we must reject the AGW theory." Or, we must reject Hansen's earlier 4.2C sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 as being too high ... which we already know it is. And there is no "AGW theory" per se. Expected warming is a consequence of physics and a wide range of knowledge of climate, paleo, past and present. You can't reject "AGW theory" without overturning 100 years of science covering a range of things. Good luck, Fred.
57643. Daniel Bailey at 23:24 PM on 21 June 2012
       Newcomers, Start Here
       One must consider the fact that over the previous 400,000+ years, atmospheric CO2 levels have never exceeded 298.7 ppm: [Source] Additionally consider that the range of atmospheric CO2 from glacial to interglacial is about 100 ppm, which corresponds to a temperature range of 6ºC. This factors in time for the system to reach temperature equilibria with the CO2 forcings. What is different now from previous interglacials is the injection of previously-sequestered CO2 back into the carbon cycle sufficient to raise global atmospheric CO2 levels by more than 100 ppm. And that this rise began with CO2 already at CO2 interglacial apex... This is all documented on this website on many, many threads of the more than 4,000 threads that exist here. All with links to the published, peer-reviewed literature. The Search function is your friend, and doorway to learning, at Skeptical Science. We have embarked on a journey to a climate last seen in the Miocene or Pliocene, with no possibility of return to the preindustrial, stable, climate that saw the rise of agriculture and civilization:
57644. MarkR at 22:37 PM on 21 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       #19 bmac - there is a search function at the top left of the site, and you can go to the 'Most Used Climate Myths' section to look for particular claims too. The claim that it will 'devastate' economies is just not right, according to the economic analyses here. But I'm a natural scientist, not an economics one, and I feel much more confident answering the other comments. The human caused increase in atmospheric CO2 is now around 120 ppm or parts per million, from ~280 to ~400. There are 15 references here showing fingerprints of human caused global warming, but to start with I'd go here. The heating caused by CO2 has been calculated using physics and has been measured by satellites. Harries 2001, Griggs 2004 and Chen 2007 are all scientific articles reporting the satellite results. It seems unlikely that your questioner looked very hard at the science if he claims he didn't find these papers, or the hundreds of others that contradict what he said.
57645. Composer99 at 22:36 PM on 21 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       As far as I can see, tying any single weather event to global warming is a bit like tying an individual smoker's lung cancer to his or her smoking habit - you can't really do it. But as soon as you start looking at larger and larger groups of individuals - hey presto! The smoking gun (pun intended) emerges from the statistical noise. Likewise, I expect the global warming signal in the weather - the loading of dice, or the training of the boxer, so to speak - becomes clear when one reviews aggregates of increasingly large weather events. Indeed, if I am not mistaken that is the sort of thing Hansen et al 2011 (reviewed on Skeptical Science here) or the Cuomo & Rahmstorf 2012 paper (press release republished here) set out to quantify.
57646. mdenison at 22:16 PM on 21 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       Not the subject matter of this article but... from 'poised to come back and haunt us': "Heat buried in the deep ocean remains there for hundreds to thousands of years." from this article: "where heat is funneled into the deeper oceans where it remains only temporarily" Despite its title 'poised to come back and haunt us' does not describe the heat coming back, which is correct; It doesn't. I think a small correction to this article (erase 'where it remains only temporarily,' would help prevent a misleading concept getting established. PS. I suggest anyone wanting to comment on this should add comments to poised to come back and haunt us
57647. Fred Staples at 21:58 PM on 21 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       I do understand statistical power, Dikran, and the way that sample size reduces the probability of a type 2 error. But that is not the issue here. The divergence between lines A, B, and C stems from the CO2 driven AGW theory that Hansen built into his model. Lines B and C must continue to diverge, because Hansen line C assumes no increase in CO2 emissions after year 2000. Up to year 2006 the GISS. HardCrut3, B and C lines moved together. After 2006 B and C diverged, and the temperatures and the C line moved together, contradicting the theory. Now I agree that there is a calculable probability that the actual temperatures will one day leave the C line and head off along the B line. It is also certain that the greater the B to C divergence, and the longer temperatures continue to follow C, the lower will be that probability. I make two assertions. One, it has not happened yet, and two, when the probability becomes vanishingly small we must reject the AGW theory.
57648. CBDunkerson at 21:27 PM on 21 June 2012
       Arctic sea ice takes a first nosedive
       Right there with you Sphaerica. One interesting thing with the thin ice this year was how early the Laptev Sea and Beaufort sea ice broke up. This actually appears to have been caused by relatively 'warm' water from the rivers (Lena and MacKenzie) feeding into those seas being sufficient to melt the ice. That's just shocking, especially for the Beaufort which used to be locked in thick ice. The projections showing that Arctic sea ice will continue to hold out for a few more decades (which are themselves a significant downward revision from the last IPCC projections) have seemed increasingly tenuous as the volume continued to disintegrate. If the volume trend continues, the ice will be gone (in September) within just a few years. As you note, the only thing preventing that at this point is the small core of older ice along the north edge of the Canadian archipelago. CryoSat II may have been launched just in time to observe the final few years of the Arctic disintegration... rather than to gather enough data to more accurately predict in what future decade that might occur.
57649. Paul D at 20:49 PM on 21 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       bmac3130@19 The actual contribution individuals make to CO2 emissions is greatly influence by where you live. So from a policy perspective, driving a car in the UK or US has a major contribution to emissions, but from a science perspective (eg, local CO2 emissions are less important than the total global concentrations) then an individual driving a car in the UK or US would seem less important. And there is the misinformation. In order to confuse the issue all one has to do is use the science perspective to imply local policy does not need to impact on the car driver in a developed nation. Hence the antagonist only has state that their car driving habit has little impact globally. Locally in the UK road vehicles contribute a massive 25% to UK emissions, but from a global perspective when the huge number of non car drivers are included, then vehicle emissions would seem small. Ironically the implications for the 'skeptic' is that they are implying they would need a world government to control car emissions. Where as the AGW proponent recognises a local policy needs. In order for a skeptic to consider national borders, they would need to accept local emissions factors and that their car driving habit is a big issue.
57650. Dikran Marsupial at 20:17 PM on 21 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Fred Staples wrote: "Dana, statististical significance for a trend does not depend on the length of the time scale. It depends on the probability (usually 1 chance in 20) that the observed trend is different from zero." The probability that the observed trend being different from zero depends on the noise in the observations, on the size of the actual trend and on the amount of observations you have. It is fairly obvious even yo a non-statistician that the more noise you have, the more difficult it will be to detect a non-zero trend. Likewise the larger the trend actually is, the more easy it will be to detect if it is actually there. Similarly, a longer period gives more evidence on which to base the decision, and obviously it is easier to detect a non-zero trend if you have more evidence. The real problem with the statistics of trends is not in statistical significance, but a lack of statistical power (that is a statistical term with a specific meaning), which means that the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it actually is false is very small. This means that the statistical test is essentially meaningless as you would expect not to be able to reject the null hypothesis for short timescales even if the planet is warming at the rate suggested by the IPCC projections.

Prev  1145  1146  1147  1148  1149  1150  1151  1152  1153  1154  1155  1156  1157  1158  1159  1160  Next