Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 Next
Comments 59301 to 59350:
-
muoncounter at 03:51 AM on 1 May 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
hutch44uk#183: "I do not need answer further questions... " Since your 'first claim' was that this article starts with a strawman - and that is incorrect - you do indeed need answer no questions (none were asked of you). As to your subsequent claim of 'no statistically significant increase in temperature,' take out the ENSO noise and you're once again incorrect. Since you reference Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, perhaps you should note their very clear statement: there is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors. Then check Nielsen-Gammon, who also shows a consistent increase in temperatures. Apples to apples comparisons make sense, don't they? But if you insist on comparing el Nino years with la Nina years, why have recent la Ninas been warmer than the prior el Ninos? -
Bob Lacatena at 03:43 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Dana, Simply by following the neutral, El Niño and La Niña lines in the graph on this post shows that the only thing that will prevent you from being right are: 1) A large volcanic eruption of the sort that reduces insolation 2) Yet another La Niña (something that can happen, but hasn't happened since 1974-1976 (three successive La Niña years). 3) All of climate science is completely and totally wrong, and you and they, in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary, don't have the faintest clue of what is happening. The other scenarios... even with a quiet sun, high Chinese aerosol emissions, and ENSO neutral conditions suggest that 2013 will certainly be warmer -- amazingly warmer if an El Niño kicks in. So 2013 will be an interesting year. Almost as interesting when 2020 comes around and people are really freaking out, and wondering WTF they were thinking when they were ignoring or denying things in 2010. -
John Hartz at 03:27 AM on 1 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Suggested reading: “Taking Action On Climate And Clean Energy In 2012: A Menu Of Effective And Feasible Solutions” by Jason Walsh and Kate Gordon, Climate Progress, Apr 26, 2012 -
hutch44uk at 03:27 AM on 1 May 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
My apologies muoncounter, you're right. The period was 1998-2010. By the way this is a misrepresentation of my position: "Given the generally intended meaning is that 1998 was warmer than xxxx". You are all "moving the goal post". I do not need answer further questions when my first claim has not been refuted. I have already shown that there is no significant trend since 1998. Dikran, they are not my statistics, but those of the trend calculator on this site from Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011. I suggest you take it up with them. -
dana1981 at 02:59 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
It's worth noting that 1998 had the second-largest El Nino influence, behind 1983. 1983 is an interesting one because it had the competing effects of a whopper El Nino and the El Chicon eruption. The El Nino won out, and it fell right on the long-term El Nino trend line. And 2010 showed that even ENSO-neutral years can be sufficient to match or break the annual temperature record in the current day, thanks to the man-made global warming signal. Which bodes well for my prediction that 2013 will break the record once again. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:46 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
11, Muon, Yes... but I have a strong feeling that we'll too soon be able to do away with that particular mantra. 1998 will no longer be an acceptable choice, and they'll have to wait at least a few years before they can start saying "But 2013 (or whenever) was the warmest year ever, and temperatures have been dropping since." There's no telling when the next El Niño is going to hit, or how strong it will be, but I'd give it an 80% chance at least of easily topping 1998, 2005, and 2010. The fact is that the globe has warmed, and an even moderate El Niño at this point will do the trick. [Oops! Did I say trick? No, not that kind of trick! It's not a trick! Dang those deniers and their tricks. Aargh! I did it again!] And a whopper of an El Niño is going to silence a lot of people (although they'll try to blame it on natural cycles, and to say that it was just a really big El Niño and has nothing at all to do with global warming in general). -
Composer99 at 02:28 AM on 1 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
If one considers a thread hijack to be an attempt to pull a thread off-topic, the Comments Policy already cover this and usually more subtle attempts to do so are noted by commenters. If one is instead thinking of spamming a thread with a large mass of comments (or a few extremely long comments), it would depend on why this is done. I assume this is what Michael Whittemore considers to be 'thread bombing' (correct me if I am incorrect, Michael). But it would depend on whether a poster was thread bombing as an initial act or if the poster was responding to a pile-on in the comments. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:22 AM on 1 May 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Hutch44UK "no statistically significant warming" doesn't mean that there is no warming. It means that the trend is too small in magnitude relative to the noise that we can't rule out the possibility that it isn't warming. If you want to use a lack of statistical significance to establish that it hasn't been warming then you would need to show that the statistical power of the test was sufficiently high that a statistically insignificant result would be a surprise if the trend actually was of continuing warming at the same rate as before. Alternatively you could try to show that the change in trend since (say) 1998 was statistically significant. Needless to say, skeptics generally don't do this and instead are happy to misuse statistical tests. -
muoncounter at 02:14 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Let's not obscure this result with lags and competing averaging periods. This doesn't get much simpler: All three categories are warming at approximately the same rate. The last 4 neutral years are spot on this trend. Even the last two la Ninas are warmer than most of the prior el Ninos. 'Skeptics' need to stop looking at their favorite year (1998) as if that one data point is the whole story. -
muoncounter at 02:03 AM on 1 May 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
hutch#178: "there is no statistically significant increase..." Since you do not specify a time frame, this statement has no meaning. However, it is one that is heard a lot in these parts. Given the generally intended meaning is that 1998 was warmer than xxxx, we have a very good explanation here. If nothing else, that exercise will help you learn how to connect the dots more appropriately. -
dana1981 at 01:59 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
The purpose here is to see what effect ENSO had on each annual temperature anomaly. Since the annual temperature anomaly is defined as the average anomaly from Jan through Dec (or sometimes Dec through Nov), we only care about the ENSO influence on those 12-month spans. So while a given year like 2010 may have had a fairly strong El Nino event, the overall effect of ENSO on that year's temeperature may put it in the ENSO neutral category. We could do the analysis defining a year as July through June as zinfan @6 suggests, but annual temperature anomalies are not defined as July through June so this wouldn't be a very useful analysis. -
Tom Curtis at 01:58 AM on 1 May 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
hutch44uk @178:"Remembering that the radiative effects of extra carbon dioxide occur at the speed of light, and that both the ocean and the atmosphere are currently cooling, just where is this 0.5°C. of "pipeline" heat supposed to be hiding?)."
(Bob Carter, The Drum, 19th Dec 2011, my emphasis). There is no strawman. Just a misrepresentation of the facts by Carter. -
KR at 01:49 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
zinfan94, From Peru - Also note that a 4-month lag of the ENSO state was used, corresponding to the Foster and Rahmstorf lag findings. That, and the use of yearly averaging, need to be taken into consideration when looking at the ENSO/temperature relationship. -
Tom Curtis at 01:39 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
From Peru @7, N-G used annual averages as stated above. Although the early part of 2010 featured a moderate El Nino, the later part featured a strong La Nina. Using annual averages that would cancel out to make a neutral year. -
DSL at 01:28 AM on 1 May 2012Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Hutch: "[Knorr 2009] showed that the rise in airborne CO2 since 1850 is statistically negligible." Knorr said no such thing (see here. Hutch, are you actually reading the articles? Even if you only read the abstract from Knorr, you should understand that what you claim and what he claims are different. He points out that 40% of human emissions stays in the atmosphere. That's significant. Now, is the trend in airborne fraction of human-sourced CO2 increasing? You know what the mass balance argument is, yes? Yes, the natural sinks are trying to absorb the additional CO2, but they're not doing a very good job of it, and, worse yet, they're not going to do a better job in the future, because 1) land use changes will likely involve cutting down carbon-sucking forests and 2) the warmer the oceans get, the less able they are to hold their carbon. We are part of the system, and we are overwhelming the "negative feedback." What ad hominem are you talking about? -
Tom Curtis at 01:27 AM on 1 May 2012Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
huch44uk @229, the abstract of Kr Knorr's article reads:"Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found."
The airborne fraction is the increase in atmospheric CO2 as a fraction human emissions. Fortunately for us, as Dr Knorr says, the increase in atmospheric CO2 is currently 40% of total emissions. Where it not for that, CO2 concentrations would not have increased by 100 ppmv since 1850, but by 250 ppmv - with disastrous results. It is widely predicted that as the oceans warm, the airborne fraction will increase, as warm oceans can absorb less CO2. Dr Knorr shows that as yet, evidence of that increase is not yet statistically significant. What he does not show, and does not purport to show, and indeed, explicitly disagrees with, is the claim that "the rise in airborne CO2 since 1850 is statistically negligible". On the contrary, if atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40% of total emissions since 1850 (Knorr's claim), then the increase is about 40% over 1850 values, which is certainly statistically significant. A word to the wise, moderation complaints are normally snipped on this site, and if there is no reason to preserve a comment, moderators will save themselves trouble by simply deleting the entire post. That is particularly the case when the moderation complaint is entirely specious - as yours is. -
hutch44uk at 01:24 AM on 1 May 2012CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
{snip}Moderator Response: If you wish to discuss your egregious misinterpretation of Dr Knorr's article, do so in the thread in which you originally raised the point. There is no need to spam multiple threads. This is a first warning. -
From Peru at 01:20 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
The 2009-2010 El Niño (despite being just moderate), was the strongest of the last decade, and instead in 2005 ENSO was just neutral-to warm.
Why 2010 is shown as "ENSO neutral"and 2005 as "El Niño"?
-
zinfan94 at 01:12 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
One thing that makes me a little uncomfortable with this analysis, is that most ENSO monitoring organizations consider the NH winter of 2006/2007 and the NH winter of 2009/2010 as El Nino events. Neither El Nino event shows in either analysis above, because the El Nino event impacts were partitioned into the calendar years, thus downgrading each event into the Neutral category. I wonder if annual cycles using July to June would give stronger and more accurate correlations to ENSO events? Or even more accurately, use monthly anomalies, and annualize the trends for each ENSO period (El Nino, La Nina, and ENSO Neutral)... I know this complicates the analysis, but the current analysis is open to criticism for ignoring the two most recent El Nino events. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:58 AM on 1 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
"That you need a citation for Phil Jones most influential work is unexpected, but here you go." Phil Jones has many influential works; you made a vague and subjective referent more laden with snark than fact. Indeed, your "citation" lacks substance as well. Here is a proper citation: Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years Jones et al 1999 REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 37, NO. 2, PP. 173-199, 1999 doi:10.1029/1999RG900002 http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/Papers/JonesEtal99-SAT150.pdf Note, for convenience, I included a link to an openly-available copy. "So Daniel still has not answered the question of why the stratosphere's temperature cycle is de-coupled from the troposphere on the seasonal scale which is the point that I have been making the entire time." Your "point" is specious (a straw-man argument) and off-topic. Please constrain your comments to the topic of the OP or I'm sure the moderators will constrain them for you. It is noted that you meticulously avoid answering the questions most inconvenient to your cause.Moderator Response: TC: Point well taken. This discussion is of topic, and should be taken to a more suitable thread. -
hutch44uk at 00:50 AM on 1 May 2012Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Dr Knorr from the University of Bristol (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml) showed that the rise in airborne CO2 since 1850 is statistically negligible, and hence that the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than previously thought. The article here states "While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2." - well apparently it can, and this is what negative feedback means, when the level of CO2 rises, the 'system' reacts to counteract it. "ad hominem comments will be deleted.", unless they are directed against 'skeptics' it seems. -
Bernard J. at 00:48 AM on 1 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Moving back more toward the original post, another sewer analogy that is relevant here is that of distributed networking. In population-dense areas it makes sense to connect household waste disposal into a single system. In a more rural region it is far better (that is, both cheaper and more productive) to process human waste with what is really quite basic technology. I've seen more than one sparsely populated local council jurisdiction try to 'modernise', at great expense to everyone and with no practical benefit. Similarly, distributed energy generation has many advantages, especially away from heavily populated areas. Fortunately, this notion is much more widely accepted - and I can't help but wonder how much the modern Western "yuck" response to poo is behind the difference... -
Bernard J. at 00:35 AM on 1 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Chriskoz. I'm not quite sure what your point is, and I don't have Hadyn's and John's book, so I'd be interested to see you rephrase your posting. However, if your point is that we can keep 7 or 8 billion people on the planet indefinitely, just by promoting behaviours such as separating the recycling and installing low-wattage fluorescents, then sorry, but no hope. The only way that upwards of 7 billion people could live sustainably on Earth (that is, for centuries or longer) would be if the very great majority lived at a subsistence level about that of, say, agricultural "peasants"*. Many workers have demonstrated as much, and it's quite likely that even at this level of resource use we'd need to actually depopulate a little over time, as 20th century fossil carbon use has caused us to overshoot the pre-Industrial Revolution global population four or five times, or so. The "current level of comfort", if you are referring to Western comfort, is not sustainable, even for just the privileged Western population, and even if we somehow had all of our energy requirements replaced with renewables overnight. Of course, you needn't take my word for it. Hang around for thirty or fourty years and see for yourself. [*The disparagement with which "subsistence" agriculture is regarded by the West is a cringeing cultural affectation that will rapidly evaporate in the near future. If there were an index of Western disregard for "peasantry", that index would likely mirror the drop in the future rate of fossil fuel use.] -
DSL at 00:25 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Jeff T, read this post and post any further questions in the comment stream that follows the post. Note that there is also an intermediate article in addition to the basic article. Short answer: evaporation > thermal expansion in the short run. -
Paul Butler at 00:19 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Jeff T Sea level tends to fall during La Nina. I think this is related to precipitation moving water from the oceans to the land (note, for example the big floods in Australia). -
Bernard J. at 00:14 AM on 1 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Muoncounter. I absolutely concur that time is of the essence in restructuring the energy/resource use of Western society. And it frustrates me that we're still at the stage of 'debating' the future inevitable trajectories of energy/resource use, as much as denialists have already successfully wrought delay by fomenting a faux debate about the facts of climate physics. There is nothing to say though that we should take our eye off the ball at the other end of the field, whilst we dodge and weave around obstacles in order to reach it. Yes, move to renewables as quickly and as widely as possible. Yes, use nuclear where necessary (but don't imagine that it's a panacæ, any more than renewables are). And at the same time acknowledge that we have to do business differently tomorrow than how we do it today, or we won't be doing much business at all the day after, even though a lot of us might have shiny new PVs on our roofs... Put simply, the 'where' of tomorrow's energy is not mutually exclusive of the 'how much'. What I'm trying to point out is that the problem is greater than just from where we're sourcing our energy. I'm against the use of cherry picking and magical thinking in the denial of 'greenhouse' gas warming. As scientists we have an understanding of the import of climate physics, so we know what looms if the problem is not addressed. And even though trophic cascades - and biosystems dynamics in general - are that much more complex, that same scepticism with which we analyse climatological matters should be applied to the subject of planetary energy use: of ecological thermodynamics as it were. Concentrating only on shifting to renewables, without simultaneously balancing the global energy budget, will simply be akin to building just one bypass on a coast-to-coast highway - the traffic congestion will simply be moved to the next town, and in the case of energy and resource use, that next town is just over the hill. Not accounting for it now is skirting toward the same magical thinking and cherry-picking that we despise in warming deniers, and it won't be many more years into the future before our children, with the benefit of 20/290 hindsight, compare such optimistic sidelining of overall energy use with the current business/government optimism about 'clean coal' - a strategy that allows us too easily to take our eyes away from that ball... -
Jeff T at 00:03 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
If a La Nina is distributing heat into the ocean instead of the atmosphere, then sea level should rise more rapidly during a La Nina than during an El Nino. That is, fluctuations of sea level and surface temperature from their long-term trends ought to be anticorrelated; but they don't seem to be. Can someone explain this?Moderator Response: (Rob P) See explanation here:Why did sea level fall in 2010? -
Michael Whittemore at 23:40 PM on 30 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Regarding thread bombing, it might just be a judgement call moderators make, that could be done privately with the poster concerned. I tend to comment a lot in some circumstances but would definitely prefer a private message from the moderators, then a public hanging. -
Michael Whittemore at 23:31 PM on 30 April 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
When the temperature record is shown like this, you can really see the warming is continuous and that it is inline with CO2. Lets hope the media outlets start becoming more truthful about it. All we want is a couple of green power stations. -
Riccardo at 23:30 PM on 30 April 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
hutch44uk given that such a short trend does not give as an answer, try to ask yourself the question the other way around, do we have reason to belive that the trend has stopped or even slowed down? The answer is no, both statistically and climatologically. -
anthony at 23:29 PM on 30 April 2012Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
I have replied to Tom's comment at Niche Modelling. -
muoncounter at 23:25 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
TIS#19: "still has not answered the question..." Nor have you answered the questions regarding your assertion and use of unsuitable data in #10. Add to that the questions raised subsequently: What does annual 'phasing' of stratospheric temperature have to do with the subject at hand? What does the regular change in the earth-sun distance have to do with the subject at hand? -
Delmar at 22:30 PM on 30 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
#45 Yes stopping coal exports would do it, instead the government that claims to be for climate change action, increased the capacity of the coal export wharves at the request of China. But if you stopped coal exports, there would be no need to give rebates to developing nations to encourage a move away from coal, as there would be no coal available. -
hutch44uk at 22:02 PM on 30 April 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Not that a sign of increasing temperature proves that humans are causing it, but just dealing with the argument.. The article starts with a straw man logical fallacy "No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998." implying that was Carter's position. No warming doesn't imply cooling. According to the latest HadCRUT4 data, there is no statistically significant increase in temperature (0.083C/dec +/-0.172C/dec). It is also stressed in the HadCRUT4 report that it cannot be said yet whether 2005 or 2010 are the hottest on record. -
hutch44uk at 21:53 PM on 30 April 2012There is no consensus
Not that having a consensus is necessary to validate a theory, but just dealing with this argument, the first sentence of the article "Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.", would say there isn't a consensus since scientists are clearly still arguing! -
Riccardo at 20:49 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Arrhenius was right (and lucky) because the emission layer is inside the troposphere. In fact, Arrhenius' results have been confirmed by Hulburt some decades later by taking into account the temperature structure of the troposphere-stratosphere and the effect of water vapour, CO2 and Ozone. On passing, even a cursory analysis of the temperature structure should tell why the stratospheric temperature follows the insolation annual cycle. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 20:39 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Daniel, That you need a citation for Phil Jones most influential work is unexpected, but here you go. SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE AND ITS CHANGES OVER THE PAST 150 YEARS P. D. Jones, M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 20:22 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Thank you Ari. Seasons are not caused by GHG's. So Daniel still has not answered the question of why the stratosphere's temperature cycle is de-coupled from the troposphere on the seasonal scale which is the point that I have been making the entire time. -
Ari Jokimäki at 18:51 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
I would like to point out that it is not expected that GHG warming, which works in decadal timescales, should be clearly evident in seasonal cycle of stratospheric temperature. Everybody knows that Earth's seasons are due to Earth's orbital parameter changes, but it has nothing to do with GHG warming. -
DouglasM at 18:03 PM on 30 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Well, Holgate is not a Climate Scientist. He is, however, an expert (with relevant Doctorate) in Oceanographic Mean Sea Level research, is fully peer reviewed and, as far as I know, his published work has not been challenged. Sounds pretty authoritative to me! I certainly would not want to fly in a plane that had been built using incomplete & proxy data. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 17:27 PM on 30 April 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Thank you - this is a good way to demonstrate the trend - particularly as so many people who are still (genuinely) sceptical seem to be unable to read graphs. (In my experience if someone says a chart shows a downtrend some people believe them, even when the trend is clearly upwards). FYI, the latest (24 April 12) ENSO wrap up from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology states:"Some, but not all, climate models note an increased risk of El Niño conditions evolving during winter or spring. Historically, about 70% of two-year La Niña events are followed by neutral or El Niño phases."
If so, maybe next year will set another global surface temperature record. -
Realist at 17:26 PM on 30 April 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Chriskoz, So believing we have too many people for a healthy earth means that person is a climate change denier? As you state sustainability is possible with the current population. However that is not a meaningful assessment because population is growing at a greater rate than ever with 14 plus billion to be added in the next hundred years. So either the solutions need to consider 21 to 30 billion with a higher average standard of living than today as the energy requirement to be achieved, or controls on the population level to keep it to current levels, or reduce it from here. -
skywatcher at 15:54 PM on 30 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
DouglasM - Indeed, the burden of proof lies with the authors of an hypothesis. In this case, the burden would lie with the author of a paper, or those who interpret it as such, whose conclusions lie contrary to those of the wider science community. Unfortunately for you, the evidence of just nine stations is pretty weak versus hundreds plus a satellite record. Even Holgate says there's no statistical significance in the difference between SLR rates in the early and later part of the century from their data. A CERN thought - why would a CERN talk be authoritative on sea level or climate science? Sure CERN's probably a great place to hear about particle physics. But would my local zoology department be the place to hear authoritative talks on particle physics? What makes you think a speaker at CERN is authoritative on climate science? They could be, but that probably does not depend upon their presence at CERN. We're still left with why you consider this single paper "most authoritative"? Don't trust models? Ever got in a car, bus or plane? -
DouglasM at 15:18 PM on 30 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Hmm, that's Hermie talk. Just for some light relief, read Clive James from a few years back: http://www.clivejames.com/point-of-view/series6/hermie The burden of proof in science is always with the authors' of a hypothesis, not those who question it! -
scaddenp at 15:04 PM on 30 April 2012How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Truckmonkey, your comments about sea being "warmed by the atmosphere" seemed to imply you were thinking of conductive or convective heating, not radiative heating. If this is not so, then no issue. Also, the issue of skin layer The cool skin was raised in the last of the series. -
trunkmonkey at 14:37 PM on 30 April 2012How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Scaddenp-OK I read it, including the comments. Don't see any basic misunderstandings. What I do see is that something so apparently simple as heat transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere pushes us beyond our understanding of the physics. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:03 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
TIS, the topic of this thread is Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930. Thus, your objections are not on-topic on this thread. If it is your intent to contest Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming, then take it there. Or is it perhaps more straightforward, like contesting the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, then take it there. For the lay reader, a good overview of the whole thang can be found on the How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic thread. Again, all fundamental stuff. Not contested or in "debate". Your Phil Jones reference lacks a citation...and an explanation as to why it should be considered to be anything other than an off-topic, inconvenient diversion. -
chriskoz at 14:02 PM on 30 April 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Realist and others who discuss population factors, Washington/Cook "Climate change denial" book on the right margin actually discusses the overpopulation problem as one of the topic of the denial. Reread the appropriate chapter and the references therein. Essentially, the sustainability experts quoted state, that with current population of 6-7bilion can sustain current level of comfort with some behavioural adjustment, with all natural sources 100% renewable. The mandatory condition is population stabilisation at current levels. Denial of that condition is, according to authors, equal the denial of AGW reality: stabilisation of climate in particular and sustainability in general is impossible without population stabilisation. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 13:43 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
You are correct that I mis-typed that the Sun (meant Earth) receives the least energy in July. Thanks for noticing that. Jumping to the point then. If it isn't the solar energy that is causing the phasing of the stratospheric temperatures, then what is? I welcome an explanation of how GHG's manage to cool the stratosphere while the Earth is warmest and vice versa. Unless of course you are discounting all the work of Phil Jones that shows the Earth's maximum temperature is ~16C in July while it is ~12C in January. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:32 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
"As usual the readers on this site focus only on anomaly which is why they consistently miss the point." The readers of this forum focus on the peer-reviewed literature published in reputable journals. They also focus on debunking the memes promulgated by fake-skeptics... "The stratospheric temperature that I show is the average daily temperature for the past 9 years." And thus utterly lacking in any significance, statistically. "The stratospheric temperature is directly dependent on the amount of energy the Earth is getting from the Sun." You conveniently omit it is also directly dependent upon the amount of GHG's present in the atmosphere. And upon the levels of CO2...directly. "The means in January the Earth gets the most energy and in July the Sun gets the least energy. " You may want to revisit this assumption. Unless you are implying the Sun receives back radiation from the Earth... "This would indicate that the amount of CO2 can have no impact on the upper atmosphere." Utter Horse-hockey. That the stratosphere's temperatures can be affected by levels of CO2 is foundational to GHG functionality. Another point utterly without debate by those who understand the science. "Ignoring the facts in this case is pointless because there isn't a debate on this. " Correct. That you are wrong is a fact, without debate. And that the facts are inconvenient to the agenda you consistently prosecute is also not contested. As usual.
Prev 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 Next
