Recent Comments

Prev  1174  1175  1176  1177  1178  1179  1180  1181  1182  1183  1184  1185  1186  1187  1188  1189  Next

Comments 59051 to 59100:

59051. dana1981 at 00:51 AM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       alexharv074 @1 - first of all, we at SkS always keep our posts free of ad hominem attacks, so there is nothing unusual about this. Second, you're not addressing the point of the post. The point of the post is not that no evidence exists for relatively low sensitivity. The point is that Lindzen's argument - that the fact that the planet hasn't warmed 3°C means climate sensitivity is low - is wrong. Third, Schmittner's best estimate equilibrium sensitivity was 2.3°C, and there are good reasons to believe the estimate is too low, as we discussed in our post on the paper (mainly their estimate of the interglacial temperature change is much lower than any previous estimate). Fourth, Lindzen isn't arguing for ~2°C sensitivity, which would be within the IPCC range. He's arguing for ~1°C sensitivity, for which there is almost no supporting evidence. I'm glad we do at least agree that Lindzen's claim is ludicrous.
59052. BC at 23:32 PM on 7 May 2012
       Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
       I've just looked it up. The limit was that emissions must be less than 1 trillion tonnes = 10**18. Sorry about the confusion.
59053. BC at 23:29 PM on 7 May 2012
       Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
       Actually maybe it was a trillion Kg = 10**15?
59054. BC at 23:23 PM on 7 May 2012
       Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
       Tom @58, thanks. That explains the CO2 side quite well. Is a 1000Pg pulse = a trillion gigatonnes (=10**(12+9+6)=10**27g)? I'm pretty sure that this was a target mentioned by Julia Guillard (Australian Prime Minister) last year that the world needs to stay below. The La Nina occurs when there is a flow across the Pacific from east to west with the ocean up-welling colder water near Peru (this is my understanding anyhow). So I'm guessing from your not mentioning it that this doesn't involve the deep ocean, just the upper levels?
59055. Bob Lacatena at 23:14 PM on 7 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Alex, I see no reference whatsoever to a sensitivity of 1.9˚C in the Schwartz paper. Are you sure that you are reading it properly? It's a very interesting exercise in estimating climate sensitivity, and yet it is constrained (as the paper itself points out) by the inherent errors of the observations used as inputs into the model as well as the method used. In particular, multiple sources of inputs are used, yielding a range of sensitivities that roughly cover the span presented by the IPCC AR4. And as always the issue is muddled by the difficulty in estimating the negative aerosol forcing over the past 100 years. You also seem to fail to distinguish between transient and equilibrium climate sensitivities, and the distinction is important. I suggest you read up on that. Lastly, I myself have to question any method that attempts to infer equilibrium climate sensitivity from short term observation. The reality is that I think one needs at least 100 years of clean data, maybe more, with a constant, measured forcing, in order to do so. Trying to estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity from 20th century observations is a little like trying to guess the top speed of a race car on a track by observing one minute of acceleration and braking in deep mud on a hazy day from a distance of 5 miles with an hour glass for a timer. The bottom line here is that (1) the discussion of climate sensitivity is complex and (2) Lindzen's claim is ludicrous.
59056. Kevin C at 22:05 PM on 7 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Alex: I'm puzzled by your response. There is certainly a real discussion on the actual values of both the TCR and the EQS. You highlighted some low estimates, we could also find some high ones. But the IPCC itself suggests estimates in the range 2-4.5C for EQS, and 1.9C certainly isn't out of the question. However, Lindzen's claim is that according to the consensus position we should have seen 3C temperature rise by now, rather than 0.75C we have seen. But that's not what the consensus scientific position says. The 3C figure he quotes is a response to total change in forcing from pre-industrial, not GHG forcing alone. And the time required for that response to be reached is measured in centuries to millenia, not decades (e.g. Hansen and Sato 2011 Fig 7, or similar figures from Held, Padilla and Vallis 2011, or Rypdal 2012). So I don't understand how Lindzen's claim can be seen as anything other than a complete misrepresentation of the consensus position.
59057. adelady at 21:42 PM on 7 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #18
       Yes, I noticed that. Very gratifying. A nice recognition that the approach here is useful for others aiming to educate.
59058. bill4344 at 21:13 PM on 7 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #18
       I was pleased to see the number of SkS graphics appearing in the DCCEE's patient debunking of Plimer's book targetting schoolkids.
59059. DouglasM at 19:34 PM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       (-Snip-)
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators willfully submit offensive posts with direct accusations of dishonesty. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues may be in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

59060. Riccardo at 17:59 PM on 7 May 2012
       Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
       I think it's worth adding to this discussion that the rectifying properties of a diode are due to a voltage barrier or gradient inside the material. Following this analogy (not a good one I think), it's the temperature gradient in the atmosphere that causes the its "rectifying" properties. Indeed, the greenhouse effect depends on the lapse rate (temperature gradient) and there would be none if the atmosphere was isothermal. The OLR would be the leakage current of the "atmospheric diode", luckly not a good one :)
59061. alexharv074 at 17:45 PM on 7 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Hi Dana, Thanks for the interesting post and for keeping it unusually free of ad hominem attacks. I would like to question your claim that,

       There simply is no question - Lindzen's claim that the Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected, which is the basis of his low climate sensitivity argument, which is the basis of all remaining relatively credible climate contrarianism, is entirely false based on three fundamental physical flaws in his argument, as demonstrated by simply comparing the models and observations.

       This is a very bold statement, and I think an exaggerated and false statement. I think you would be more skeptical if you were less selective in your appeals to the literature. We have seen Gillett et al. (2012), even discussed here, that suggests the transient climate response (TCR) is in fact less than expected, based on observations. And just the other day Isaac Held published a very interesting article here arguing that Gillett et al. are probably about right. Prof. Held also argues that the observations of TCR are consistent with fixed relative humidity models with no cloud feedback. Recently, Schwartz (2012) has also argued from observations of the 20th century that equilibrium climate sensitivity is about 1.9 K per doubling of CO2. Although Held apparently has reservations about extrapolating from TCR to ECS, I do note that the IPCC AR4 states that climate models, without the cloud feedback, predict a climate sensitivity of about 1.9 K, the same as what Schwartz has found. We have seen other arguments from paleodata - e.g. Kohler et al. (2010); Schmittner et al. (2011) showing, for completely different reasons, that ECS is likely to be about 2.3 K per doubling CO2. Finally, Prof. Lindzen has referred to a number of other papers in literature that support lower sensitivity and you appear to have ignored all of them.
59062. muoncounter at 13:03 PM on 7 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Cole#40: "I'm not simply declaring Agees results as 'meaningless'." Sorry, what I must have misunderstood is your #30: "So the results of said paper are spurious at best." If you've read anything beyond the abstract of Agee's quite comprehensive review of the current literature, you wouldn't be throwing 'spurious' around: It is clearly evident that the positive trend in previous solar cycles and lower troposphere cloudiness has not continued for the cycle 23-24 QP, which adds to the controversy of the GCR-CCN hypothesis. Not only has the GCR count received a record high level during the cycle 23-24 QP, but the lower troposphere global cloudiness has dropped to a record low level, further challenging the validity of the hypothesis. I suggest you study the remaining references in this post that question the cosmic ray-climate connection. Then there's Love 2011, as noted here and Laken 2011: We find no evidence that widespread variations in cloud cover at any tropospheric level are significantly associated with changes in the TSI, GCR or UV flux, and further conclude that TSI or UV changes occurring during reductions in the GCR flux are not masking a solar-cloud response. "As for your Realclimate post, how would you like it if I started relying on blog-science?" That 'blog-science' was written by Dr. Jeff Pierce, who has published on cloud nucleation mechanisms. Refer also to Pierce and Adams 2009: In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change. "the direct correlation between CRF and T over the Holocene that clearly doesn't exist with CO2" Talk about an 'own goal.' Please show us the cosmic ray flux data - not any of those suspicious 'proxies' - for the Holocene. Then refer to numerous articles here showing the excellent correlations between CO2 and temperature.
59063. Bob Loblaw at 12:48 PM on 7 May 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       pauls: I've actually had a chance for a quick look at the IPCC section you linked to. Please refer to the section of text in Section 8.6.2, and note the part where is says:

       and is often simply termed the ‘climate sensitivity’. It has long been estimated from numerical experiments in which an AGCM is coupled to a simple non-dynamic model of the upper ocean with prescribed ocean heat transports (usually referred to as ‘mixed-layer’ or ‘slab’ ocean models) and the atmospheric CO2 concentration is doubled.

       You referred in your comment to the "slab ocean", and called it "little more than a surface with a low heat capacity". In contrast, the IPCC report talks about the mixed layer (roughly 60-100m thick) of the ocean, and specifically says that it has "prescribed ocean heat transports". That doesn't sound like "a surface with a low heat capacity" to me. It sounds like they are leaving out the deep ocean, not calculating ocean movements, but just specifying the heat storage and transfer within the mixed layer. Can you explain why you think this is "just a surface with a low heat capacity"? I will continue to look through the IPCC report, to see if there are more details. It may be necessary to look at some of the papers in its references, however. I'd like to know more about just what "ocean heat transports" are prescribed.
59064. chuckbot at 12:17 PM on 7 May 2012
       Report Warns of Rapid Decline in U.S. Earth Observation Capabilities
       cutting off funding from the only people who are minding the storm. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Off topic, but... what are the longitudinal bands in the image above? Dust? Artifacts?
59065. Cole at 11:25 AM on 7 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       I'm not simply declaring Agees results as 'meaningless' I'm saying you are misunderstanding them. Agee reported on a 'possible' disconect and even mentioned large uncertainty in the data they used to come to the conclusion. As I've stated many times now, we don't have the technology to detect a 2% change in GCC so your whole answer up untill the microphysics comment is ineffectual. Furthemore, just because we can not detect a two percent change does not mean it isn't happening. As for your Realclimate post, how would you like it if I started relying on blog-science? Maybe I should look up some denier sites and use their arguments? If you want to refute, please use a solid peer-reviewed science. "Your jump from Kirkby's " Kirkby is just a small example on this subject, I was only trying to show you the direct correlation between CRF and T over the Holocene that clearly doesn't exist with CO2. I was simply making a statement in the context of the Holocene, that is very much supported by the data.. If you would really like I could show you a plethera of papers, on this subject spanning the entirety of the geologic eras and show you exactly the same thing. Your statement of the Agee paper being a "swing and a miss" for Svensmark ended up being an own goal for yourself, given what the paper actually said. (-snip-).
       Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped. Again, please review the Comments Policy linked earlier before commenting further.
59066. KR at 10:21 AM on 7 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       skywatcher, Cole - And don't forget: (d) A bad paper is published, recognized as such by the majority in the field, and essentially ignored (not cited) by anyone who isn't following the same bad logic. For example: the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper claiming the 2nd law of thermodynamics (truly silly, now disavowed even by folks such as Fred Singer) was well on its way to that fate when repeated trumpeting by 'skeptics' led to published rebuttals.
59067. skywatcher at 09:54 AM on 7 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       You've got to love how arguments from authority operate in one direction in the skeptic universe. Suddely because a skeptic's paper is successfully published by the RAS, it is deemed to be flawless, having clearly undergone thorough and utterly rigorous peer-review by experts in the relevant field(s). Yet nearly every relevant climate expert on the planet, and certainly every relevant scientific organisation, agrees that anthropogenic CO2 is causing most of the current rapid warming. Many thousands of papers have been published with this view, all peer-reviewed. Why the disconnect for the 'skeptics'? Bad papers get published. Lets ignore for a moment that the RAS are probably not the greatest repository of scientific expertise on climate, and mention a few other papers. One (McLean et al 2009) was published in GRL even though the authors removed the long-term trend then argued that the short-term variation was causing the long-term trend. Another paper confused degrees with radians at a crucial point. Yet another paper (Spencer and Braswell IIRC) managed to examine a bunch of models and leave out the model runs that demonstrated their hypothesis was critically flawed. So Cole, quite apart from muoncounter's excellent points, which of the following statements do you agree with: (a) There is no such thing as a 'bad' paper and everything that is peer-reviewed is clearly good science. Peer-reviewers are always flawless in their work. (b) Some bad papers get published. These bad papers are either ignored, or subseqiuent responses are published that demonstrate the critical flaws in the reasoning of the author(s). Peer reviewers are human, and despite doing an excellent task in filtering out the very worst papers, occasionally give a pass to a poor paper. This most often happens when the journal's expertise is not ideally matched to the subject matter. [An example of a response is Foster et al 2010, the response to McLean et al 2009] (c) The RAS has never, ever, published a paper subsequently discovered to have been flawed in some way.
59068. Bob Loblaw at 09:45 AM on 7 May 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       pauls: Thanks. I'll try to read through it. I'll also be off the net for the next week or so, so I won't be able to reply soon.
59069. muoncounter at 09:26 AM on 7 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Cole#35: You can summarily declare Agee's results 'meaningless' if you like, despite publication in the Journal of the AMetSoc. Perhaps not as prestigious as the Monthly Notices of the RAS, but that really proves nothing. But look at the references in the post: Calgovic, Erlykin x3, Lockwood x2, Pierce... all with negative re-evaluations of the so-called 'looks pretty good' correlation between CR flux and temperatures. Lakin (more than paper) had similar results. Your objection to Agee ("we can't really detect changes in GCC") makes it clear how weak the whole GCR->cloud story really is. We just came through a 50 year high in GCR flux (2009): Where are the clouds? As for the supposedly 'glove-fitting microphysics,' Pierce took that apart at RealClimate. Perhaps you'd be better off with the 'does not fit' defense. Your jump from Kirkby's "... question of whether, and to what extent," to "Clearly, carbon dioxide is not the all-important dominating factor... " in one sentence is stunning. Kirkby's language is the same style as the 'possible disconnect' you found objectionable in Agee. We've gone from GCR->clouds to supernovae->GCR->cooling->mass extinctions. Of course, you've missed the fact that the peak SN frequency on Svensmark's graph is some 50 Myrs before the PTr extinction. You've also ignored what should be the primary objection to the supernova idea: they're not necessarily the source of GCRs. And then there's Montenegro et al 2011, showing that the PTr extinction coincided with increased ocean anoxia and that decreased ccean pH "brought about by the increase in atmospheric CO2 is biologically significant.". Supernovae doing that, too? "you guys deliberately misrepresent papers... " That kind of language usually gets your comments deleted. Please try to come up with more than 'that statement is ludicrous' -- and have a look at the Comments Policy.
59070. pauls at 09:17 AM on 7 May 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       Bob Loblaw, IPCC chapter 8. Check the caption for table 8.2.
59071. Tom Curtis at 09:15 AM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Tarcisio José D @37, I have responded in detail on another, more appropriate thread, and suggest that you do likewise. I understand that you are using "Google translate" in order to overcome a language barrier. You are to be commended for your efforts to do so, but "Google translate" is not up to the task, and I recommend that you enlist the aid of a technically proficient, and bilingually fluent friend to aid you. In essence, my response points out that the atmosphere does in fact have the diode like property of emitting more radiation downward to the surface than it does upward to space (which my not be quite what Tarcisio meant by his use of the phrase), and that it has this property despite the fact that no individual component of the atmosphere has the property. I go on to point out that detailed modelling shows the property to exist, and that those models have been shown to be remarkably accurate by empirical observation, and that indeed that diode like quality of a higher downward IR radiation from the atmosphere than the upward IR radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere has been observed empirically.
59072. Tom Curtis at 09:05 AM on 7 May 2012
       Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
       This is a response to Tarcisio José D from another thread. In response to my explanation, he asks:

       "My question is, which quality of your atmosphere makes it only absorbs IR radiation that rises in the atmosphere and free passes IR radiation that the atmosphere emits more toward the ground."

       In fact nothing I wrote suggests the gases within the atmosphere act as a diode. Each IR active gas will absorb IR radiation with equal facility from all directions, and emit it with equal probability in all directions. However, the atmosphere as a whole acts as a diode. That is, it emits more IR radiation upwards to space than it does towards the ground. It does this because the emission to space comes from higher, and cooler layers within the troposphere as explained in the article above, and also in my posts 36, 51, and 58 above. Importantly, Line By Line (LBL) models, which calculate the IR emission and absorption in the atmosphere at each wave number, and which require each layer of the atmosphere absorbs IR radiation with equal facility whether the radiation comes from below or above, or from the atmosphere or the surface, and which requires that each layer radiates equal amounts of IR radiation upwards and downwards, produce this diode like effect, provided that the atmosphere is cooler at higher altitudes. You can see this for yourself with Modtran. If you run the model on default settings, the outgoing IR radiation equals (Iout) 287.844 W/m^2. Altering the settings to sensor altitude = 0 km, and "looking up" shows the downward long wave radiation from the atmosphere (Iout) is 348.226 W/m^2. The accuracy of these LBL models is shown in the section "Settled science" in the main article, and in my post number 43. It should be noted that the observed upward IR radiation from the top of the atmosphere is 239 W/m^2, while the observed downward IR radiation at the bottom of the atmosphere is 333 W/m^2, amply illustrating this diode like quality of the atmosphere as a whole, even though no individual component (gas molecule) of the atmosphere acts like a diode. I understand that Tarcisio José D is facing a considerable language barrier in communicating in English, and is to be commended for his efforts to overcome that barrier. I recommend that he read carefully this post, the main article above, and the posts linked to in my response. If he is having difficulty in understanding the issue, I also recommend he enlist the aid of a technically proficient friend who is fluent in both English and his native language (which I assume is Spanish or Portuguese). Google translate is not up to translating technical discussions accurately, and will only lead to ongoing confusion. Finally, the issue he needs to address is, why should we prefer his hand waving explanation to the detailed results of LBL models which have proven remarkably accurate in predicting the observed radiation in the atmosphere, whether sampled from satellites, the ground, or aircraft at intermediate levels of the atmosphere?
59073. adelady at 09:03 AM on 7 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #18
       "canary in the coalmine"? I take that as something we'll look back on in 30-50 years time and say - someone should have put it all together right then and there. For me, that's the reduction in inflows to Perth's water storages in the 70s. Few cities are better placed to show the effects of expansion of Hadley cells ..... and that it's a bad thing.
59074. dana1981 at 09:01 AM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       victull @28 - you're comparing different energy imbalance estimates. As I said, take a look at the Levitus post. Model-based estimates of a 0.9 W/m2 imbalance were probably over-estimates. We'll have more on this in the future.
59075. Cole at 07:18 AM on 7 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Tom, "A higher sea level will result in flooding of low inland ar-eas, and increase the total length of coastline and the area of the continental shelves. This results in more heterogeneous habitats in which species can evolve, leading to an increase in diversity, and Miller et al. (2005) offer this as the reason for the development of the three eukaryotic phytoplankton clades (lineages) that dominate the modern ocean. >But the rough correspondence between marine invertebrate diversity and sea level seen in Fig. 19 is plainly not the whole story
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Allegations of misrepresentation are seriously in violation of this site's Comments Policy, just as they are on the SkS FB page.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

59076. scaddenp at 07:00 AM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Tarcisio Jose D. What I find so interesting is the statement: "I am very sure that I am right in saying that all who believe in the warming of our planet is caused by CO2 are totally wrong," which then implies that you have chosen to believe a couple of video from dubious sources with laughable science over the bulk of known heavyweight physics. Now why would do such a strange thing? As you are finding out, things are more complicated than thought and the science is better, but why did you choose to trust such strange sources over known science. You claimed to be "very sure" which is also extraordinary. It would be really interesting if you could explain why you trust one source over another. As the "rectifier". DK, Bob, I dont think Jose is claiming the atmosphere works like a rectifer. He is trying to understand Tom and thinks that climate theory requires the atmosphere to behave like a rectifier because he hasnt understood the theory. This isnt that straightforward to follow. Eli Rabett did a good explanation I think but I cant find it. Any got a pointer? Jose, people are trying to make the greenhouse model explicable but ultimately the test is in doing the calculation. The real model with the equations can be found in Ramanathan and Coakley 1978. You need a computer to calculate the equations, but how do we know that is it right? Well because it predicts what we can observe of spectrum etc, with a very high degree of precision.
59077. Cole at 06:50 AM on 7 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Muon, Sure, he's the sole Author, big deal. It passed review and look where it's published. Agee's result is meaningless. We would only need a 2% change in global cloud cover (GCC) to account for the warming trend experienced. As I stated we can't really detect changes in GCC (let alone a mere 2%) as we don't have the proper technology. Agees' result is spurious at best, and the paper even makes it clear that it is only a "possible" disconnect. The CLOUD results didn't prove Svensmark correct as they couldn't make actual clouds. The thing it did prove is the microphysics are defiantly at work. According to Kirby they should have conclusive results within 5 years. The SKS "coffin nails" article is really counting chickens before they hatch. Sure the CLOUD experiment didn't prove Svensmark theory, but the microphysics fit like a glove. Furthermore, if you look at the correlation between CRF and T over the geological eras right up until present it's quite uncanny. Just looking at the last 10-12,000 years Kirkby (2008) rightly notes, “the question of whether, and to what extent, the climate is influenced by solar and cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of the anthropogenic contribution to present climate change.” Clearly, carbon dioxide is not the all-important dominating factor in earth’s climatic history. Within the context of the Holocene, the only time CO2 moved in concert with air temperature was over the period of earth’s recovery from the global chill of the Little Ice Age (the past century or so), and it does so then only quite imperfectly. The flux of galactic cosmic rays, on the other hand, appears to have influenced ups and downs in both temperature and precipitation over the entire 10-12 thousand years of the Holocene, making it the prime candidate for “prime determinant” of earth’s climatic state. http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1938
59078. Bob Loblaw at 06:07 AM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Tarcisio José D: How can I say this politely? Models of radiation transfer in the atmosphere do consider both upward- and downward-directed radiation, and the absorption/transmission/scattering/emission in both directions. Where on earth did you get the idea that they don't? Your ignorance is shining through like the headlight on an oncoming train. You really need to find some better sources of information.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Can I suggest that we ignore Tarcisio José D until he either posts a reference to a scientific paper that suggests the atmosphere does behave like a rectifier.
59079. kampmannpeine at 05:59 AM on 7 May 2012
       Report Warns of Rapid Decline in U.S. Earth Observation Capabilities
       when I observe this here from Europe I see larger problems arising. On the other hand I recently heard that China is enlarging their space programme by themselves. They obviously do not like cooperation with anybody else ... Sad, sad, sad
59080. Rob Painting at 05:44 AM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Victull - "How do conclude that the imbalance is growing when it was about 0.9W/M2 and over the last 5-6 years is about 0.6W/sq.m?" Dana is likely referring to the long-term trend. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, have a very long lifetime in the atmosphere, so the warming effect will be persistent and will grow over time as more fossil fuels are burnt. By contrast, the recent cooling effect imposed by natural (volcanic) and human-made aerosols, are short-lived and may not grow to match them. Additionally, despite the short-term fluctuations (as shown in figure 11 of Hansen [2011]), the global energy imbalance has undergone a long-term increase. SkS will be covering this in the near-future, as it's a source of confusion for many.
59081. Tarcisio José D at 05:18 AM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Sphaerica @36 and Tom Curtis @ 32 Replay my post corrected..... Tom Curtis @ 32 Very interesting theory. But ..... My question is, which quality of your atmosphere makes it only absorbs IR radiation that rises in the atmosphere and free passes IR radiation that the atmosphere emits more toward the ground. I believe that there is'nt this "rectifier diode" in our atmosphere and the greenhouse effect works both in one direction as another.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can you supply a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific paper that suggests that GHGs only absorb IR radiation that rises in the atmosphere, a page number in the IPCC WG1 report will do fine. Unless you supply evidence that mainstream science makes such an assumption, I will assume that it is merely an attempt to disrupt the discussion. If you are unable to provide a reference, then this suggests that the problem lies with your understanding of the greenhouse effect. If you don't understand the greenhouse effect, then simply ask someone to explain it to you.
59082. Bob Lacatena at 04:56 AM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       34, Tarcisio José D,

       I believe that...

       Why do "skeptics" so often start sentences like this (usually followed by some perspective on the problem which is based on their own world experience, but completely unsupported by any true science)? Do you any evidence whatsoever to support your "rectifier diode" theory? Do you think there's some reason why perhaps no one else in the world has developed and supported your theory?
59083. JimF at 03:33 AM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Tarcisio Jose D @31 Sorry it took a bit to get back to you, but I was cutting back my candytufts a week before Mother's Day...I used to love those old pictures of Mom in front of the white blooms on Mother's Day. Jose, you've got to help me out here, because this how I start to get worried when I have these conversations. OK. For a non-scientific view, if in the year 2017 (five years from now), global land and sea temperatures continue to rise, 3 of those years land in the top 10 of warmest years on record, New Orleans gets hit with a category 5 AND Mexico gets hit with a category 5, Richard Lindzen has changed his mind, and JimF now cuts back his candytufts 3 weeks before Mother's Day rather than the current one or two, do you begin to question your stance on this? Is there any point that you say, "I still don't think that man is the primary cause to GW, but we add to it, and we need to start to do something about it?"
59084. Tarcisio José D at 03:05 AM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Tom Curtis @ 32 Very interesting theory. But ..... I said, what the quality of its atmosphere makes it only absorbs IR radiation that rises in the atmosphere and free passes IR radiation that the atmosphere emits more toward the ground. I believe that there is this "rectifier diode" in our atmosphere and the greenhouse effect works both in one direction as another.
59085. Riccardo at 03:02 AM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       I'd like to add a few historical bits to what Tom wrote. First, I'm sure Tarciso didn't mean hydrogen as an absorbing gas. Indeed, Tyndall tried oxigen, nitrogen and hydrogen but reports a negative result, i.e. no absorption. Now we also know why. Tyndall would also have something to say on the saturation effect. In a Memoir published in 1872 he writes: "The acqueous vapour constitutes a local dam, by which the temperature at the earth's surface is deepened: the dam, however, finally overflows, and we give to space all that we receive from the sun" and Tyndall knew that water vapour is a stronger absorber than CO2. Following the same analogy, increasing absorption deepens the dam, i.e. increases temperature at the surface. This is in 1872 and it's not the full and correct explanation, but he was almost there.
59086. Tom Curtis at 02:36 AM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Tarcisio Jose D @31, you continue to operate on an incorrect understanding of the green house effect. Specifically, the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is that the lower atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation from the warm surface, but the cold upper atmosphere emits IR radiation, half of which is radiated outwards, and hence leaves the Earth. The difference in energy intensity of the IR radiation from the surface and the IR radiation from the top of the atmosphere to space is the greenhouse effect. Applying this understanding, we examine your example of a grey atmosphere (one that absorbs equally at all IR wavelengths). In that case, increased GHG concentration will result in IR radiation from the surface being absorbed closer to the surface, but the absorbed energy will still be carried to the upper atmosphere by convection. However, the IR radiation to space will be emitted from higher in the atmosphere. This follows straightforwardly from the fact that the average altitude of emission to space will equal the average altitude of absorption of IR radiation in the same wavelengths from space. If increasing GHG concentration results in a shorter path to absorption for radiation from the surface, it will also result in a shorter path to absorption for IR radiation from space. Hence IR radiation from space will be absorbed higher in the atmosphere if we increase GHG concentrations. But then it follows that IR emission to space must also be from higher in the atmosphere. To a first approximation, however, higher is colder. Therefore with increased GHG, IR radiation to space will be from a colder layer of the atmosphere, and therefore emit less energy. The reduced energy emitted means that the greenhouse effect will be stronger with increased GHG. Of course, in the actual atmosphere, the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause, so higher can be warmer. But in the actual atmosphere, not all IR frequencies are absorbed. Increased GHG strengthens the absorption on the edge of the absorption band, thereby increasing the effective altitude of radiation within the troposphere, and increasing the greenhouse effect. For a more detailed explanation, see here. I do not like this series of posts, for I am not sure that I am right. On the contrary, I continuously revise my beliefs in the light of new knowledge. But my core beliefs about AGW have simply not been challenged by so-called "skeptics" because they continuously present simplified models of the greenhouse effect, wrongly interpreted as being refutations of AGW. That they must resort to such specious arguments strongly suggests that while it is certain that some of my beliefs about AGW are false (if only I knew which), it is highly improbable that those false beliefs will be in fundamental aspects of the theory. As it stands, the evidence is overwhelming that those who understand the theory of the GHE accept it, while those who reject it (as Tarcisio does), clearly do not understand even the most basic features of the theory.
59087. Pete Dunkelberg at 02:16 AM on 7 May 2012
       West Antarctic Ice Shelves Tearing Apart at the Seams
       "Warm water from higher latitudes is melting the ice in the Antarctic." I suppose some people at research stations are making coffee, but I think the Southern Ocean produces some very strong currents of cold deep Antarctic water and is replenished in part by water advected from mid-depth Pacific waters. Mid depth Pacific water is warmed by water forced down by the strong trade winds of La Niña. Oh well, by now you've had a flash: "Lower latitudes! I meant lower!" ;)
59088. Tarcisio José D at 02:03 AM on 7 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       JimF @ 30 Thank you for participating in this conference Your question should be answered thus: Nobody has the ability to change the thinking of someone else, only the person himself. What we do is meet the person of ideas that will change your thinking. As in the case of AGW. In 1861, John Tyndal released his study measured the "absorption" of infrared rays by atmospheric gases and hydrogen showed that even the "absorbed" or "dark heat" at a rate of 0.33% at a distance of 48 "(1.22 meters). Now think, if we calculate the attenuation caused by hydrogen own, the earth's surface to the center of mass of the atmosphere, 5Km high'll realize that a millionth part of the heat energy will reach this point. So our atmosphere is totally opaque to the "dark heat". No matter the quantity or the quality of gas that composes the atmosphere. Based on this reasoning had to show how our planet balances the energy flow and our film tries to show exactly this mechanism. http://tyndallconference2011.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Tyndalls-1861-Lecture.pdf
59089. michael sweet at 23:50 PM on 6 May 2012
       West Antarctic Ice Shelves Tearing Apart at the Seams
       Deniers often say that the Antarctic ice cannot melt because the air is too cold. From Mspelto's reference: "The thinning has been noted as widespread around most of Anarctic Ice Shelves in a paper this week from Pritchard et al (2012). This paper from an international team from British Antarctic Survey, Utrecht University, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Earth & Space Research has identified the losses are principally the result of increased basal melting from intrusion at depth of warm water. In the Smith Glacier area there is no significant surface melting, so basal melting must be the source. My emphasis. Warm water from higher latitudes is melting the ice in the Antarctic.
59090. JimF at 23:42 PM on 6 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Tarcisio Jose D @ 19 Thanks, Jose, for responding. I watched your clip. But for me this only highlights the problem. You see, I am not a scientist...you, Tom and Eric are engaging in a conversation that loses me. I could never begin to respond. But most importantly, you failed to answer the question I asked, so I will ask you: I understand you are a skeptic and you have data that backs your belief. What would change your mind? Is there anything in the data you show that might increase or decrease that would make you say, "You know, maybe I was wrong...maybe there is something to this AGW?" Or conversely, is your mind immovable? I am thinking you reflect the latter, but let me know if I am wrong. I did see on your youtube site the most recent clip titled "The Alarmist Inquisition." Are you really in an inquisition? I don't think so unless it is the Monty Python type with a fluffy pillow. I'm just asking a question, not putting you on the rack.
59091. victull at 23:14 PM on 6 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Re post 28 The latest version of the Hansen paper I can find is here: Earth’s energy imbalance and implications J. Hansen1,2, M. Sato1,2, P. Kharecha1,2, and K. von Schuckmann3 Published: 22 December 2011 http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf I would draw your attention to: Fig. 11. Observed and calculated planetary energy imbalance, smoothed with moving 6-yr trend. which clearly shows a declining overall global imbalance in recent years.
59092. victull at 22:43 PM on 6 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       dana 1981 @26 How do conclude that the imbalance is growing when it was about 0.9W/M2 and over the last 5-6 years is about 0.6W/sq.m? Are you talking about Ocean Heat Content instead? Eric @23 A long term increase in imbalance - that is not what I concluded from Hansen's paper "Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications" published in 2011. Please give me a link to any update on this if Hansen has changed his results recently.
59093. mspelto at 21:12 PM on 6 May 2012
       West Antarctic Ice Shelves Tearing Apart at the Seams
       The MacGregor et al (2012) is an excellent paper. We saw a pattern of widespread thinning and retreat and the disintegration of Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves. Now we are seeing the same processes in the Amundsen Sea. As ice shelves thin they are less buttressed, more prone to rifting and can accelerate due to the reduced backforces, which leads to acceleration. Smith Glacier is the main glacier feeding Crosson Ice Shelf
59094. Paul D at 20:19 PM on 6 May 2012
       West Antarctic Ice Shelves Tearing Apart at the Seams
       And now the good news... Things aren't quite as bad in Greenland: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/05/greenland-glaciers-on-the-move.html Although, as the articles says, the end result is the same, it just might take longer.
59095. jyyh at 14:40 PM on 6 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Ok the more serious attempt to answer this: Why we're sure we're right To Claim:'we are right', we must define the words. 'We' has been traditionally been interpreted as being a specific communion of entities which can understand the english language, that means the humans who understand that this is written in english. 'We' has a broader definition too but I think this suffices for now. The specific communion of entities WRT to the context here would be the people who understand how the world works, i.e. the physics, AND accept there is a world which might be defined here as an assortment of environmental variables outside the entitys (if we wish to call a solipsist an entity) head, in the sense of the proverb: 'One can make a fence but not eternally block the world outside'. The dinosaurs of old times got this too late according to the prevailing theory of 'why there are no dinosaur fossils found on the layers of rock dated, by radiological measures that have and still can be reproduced in the laboratory containing an isotope counter, after the occurrence of a large crater on the Yucatan?' We humans (here encompassing all of our species) have at least had LONEOS and Catalina surveys among others, looking outside our comfort zone (broadly, the human biotope on earth (it's pretty large compared to nearly all other species on earth, only some marine species have had it wider; of mammals on land the next most widespread would be the rat and the dog I guess)), so some development has happened. Most people notice the outside world as a kid when they get hurt, so it's quite natural to be afraid of it. One might even make a bold assumption that the so-called 'theory of gravity' is accepted more readily than the GHG-theory because people have continuing first hand experience of it (f.e. saggy eyes). 'right' is the tricky bit here, taken out of context this could mean almost anything. However, here we, as separate entities sharing some common chraracteristics (f.e. we're humans who can read and understand english), which is why the use of 'we' or 'these (inclusive)' (in case there are artificial intelligencies present) maybe allowed, have some context. In the opening chapter Rob Honeycutt tells us this is about climate issues and about being sure of these. So we might take the headline 'right' to mean 'certain', like an entity capable of self-recognition is. Talking to oneself isn't very fruitful, though, and one might even define the word 'talk' so it necessarily includes a receptive other entity, so if one uses language, it necessarily follows one assumes there is an environment that has beings capable of understanding your words, and thus there would be no 'Matrix' or at least if there was there would be no way of talking of it. Oops, might have made an error there. 'are' is just a statement of being. So, after a brief exploration on the meaning of words, on to the subject. We're certain of the GHG effect and AGW because we talk (exchange information with others) of the measurements (one sort of entities), if necessary we check them repeatedly (in order to rule out the possibility of changing physical constants), try to find the simplest way to make sense of them (no need to complicate things in science, it's hard enough as it is (ref. above text on the meaning of words)), and have come to a conclusion there is a greenhouse effect (satellites give us the normal temperature in space this far from the sun), and that humans can increase the DWR (down-welling radiation) by adding insulation to the roof... oops meant to say CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm tempted to end this note to a thinly veiled insult to some people willing to lie and obfuscate this issue, instead I link to this: http://xkcd.com/54/
59096. dana1981 at 14:02 PM on 6 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       We'll have some more posts on the global energy balance in the near future, and hopefully a published paper, if all goes as planned. Suffice it to say that the imbalance is still growing. Our recent Levitus post discusses a good demonstration of this continued growth.
59097. DSL at 13:18 PM on 6 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Yah, victull, what do you make of that? Everyone's wrong about the global warming, yah? I think a few of the warmistas tried to figure out why such a thing might happen. I mean, there's no other forcing change in the period . . . well, except solar dropping toward its 11-year low . . . and increased aerosols . . . and 1998 was a massive El Nino. Must be them darn supernovas gettin' all quiet. Still, it wasn't exactly chilly during the 2000s, it being the hottest recorded decade. And I hear ocean heat content was rolling right along, so nothing to get too worked up about. I mean, look at all those cooling trends. You'd think someone would notice the temperature dropping like that so many times.
59098. Eric (skeptic) at 13:17 PM on 6 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Tom, thanks for that feedback. I'll have to read up some more because my impression was a little different.
59099. Eric (skeptic) at 13:00 PM on 6 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       victull, the "since 1998" idea is thoroughly addressed in threads here such as this one and many others. The paper I linked to is Hansen's latest so I will assume that it represents his most current conclusion: a long term increase in imbalance.
59100. barry1487 at 12:45 PM on 6 May 2012
       rbutr Puts Climate Information In Front of Those Who Need It Most
       It would seem to be a good idea, assuming that enough people are actually interested in having their opinions tested. However, I think most people will deploy the app to fortify and propagate their preferred view, and the likeliest consequence would to dumb down the audience. A creationist vexed by a pro-evolution weblog page will now have a short-cut to a counter-argument, whereas previously they would have had to do a bit more work to find what they want, and thus be more likely to chance upon other tracts on evolution that will be bypassed by this rebuttal router. I've picked up a lot of useful information when researching a topic under discussion, because the search engine takes me to places and opinions that I wouldn't have visited if there had been a direct route. The best corrollaries of these websearch adventures are more context, clearer overview, and getting a better idea of how the topic at hand relates to others that may augment my view on it. "Don't like what you've read? Tired of searching amongst millions of web pages for the argument you want, or that pithy quote that sums up the logical depravity of that wordy schmuck who is wrong on the internet? Talking points and counter-arguments are now at your fingertips. Simply copy'n'paste! Or paraphrase slightly so you can seem more intelligent! Pwning your opposition has never been easier!" Perhaps that's too cynical. I'm curious to know how this application gets used - that would make for an interesting study on 'nettitudes'. Are there plans to monitor this? What are they?
       Moderator Response: Hi Barry,

       The interesting outcome of someone using rbutr to fortify and propogate their own view, is that it still helps engage them in the opposing perspective of the argument. In order to add rebuttals, or to click through to rebuttals you agree with, you are required to see the other side. Of course, people can choose to not read those other articles, but this is all true of the internet in general, and nothing to do with rbutr's functionality.

       My experience in online debates (forums, comments etc) is that Creationists (or whoever) simply don't go to pro-evolution websites. They read the website which reinforces their own beleif, and then repeat the arguments verbatim. This is how it already is. The whole point of rbutr is to have them install the extension so that during their standard browsing of their favourite belief confirming website, they might occasionally let curiosity drive them to click on that rbutr button and see what the other side is saying against their beliefs.

       Because seriously, you don't need rbutr to reinforce your own beliefs - everything around us already does that. This is really the only tool which is purposefully designed to do the opposite! So in order to use it that way, would just be an inefficient waste of time, fraught with the danger of accidentally looking at an opposing perspective!

       You also seem to be arguing that streamlining the process of finding 'the best' rebuttal to any given page is somehow a negative. By this logic, you should write to Google and tell them to stop optimising their search results, because it is better when you get stuff you didn't really want. If you want serendipitous discovery - install StumbleUpon. If you want to meander around the web looking for random arguments, then just browse directories. But if you want a rebuttal to a page, use rbutr. Afterall, how do you know that the best rebuttal to the page won't also 'take you to places and opinions that [you] wouldn't have visited'? Afterall, the whole point of rbutr, just like Google, is to suggest material to you which you don't know about.... so you don't know what you might find on the other side of that link.

Prev  1174  1175  1176  1177  1178  1179  1180  1181  1182  1183  1184  1185  1186  1187  1188  1189  Next