Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 Next
Comments 59901 to 59950:
-
Bob Lacatena at 22:07 PM on 22 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
141, William,I think that the seesaw effects are primarily caused by ocean currents. The ocean is a domanant player in all of this. ... The Oceans work as a giant, nonlinear capacitors.
Any paragraph that begins with "I think" is a huge red flag to me, especially when the tone quickly transitions from "I think" to speaking as if your conjecture is absolute fact. Please note that your entire following statement is pure conjecture, completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Even its foundation is a mere thought experiment of the overly simplistic "it seems to me" variety. You presume that because oceans are large and mysterious, and water has a high heat capacity, that therefore oceans govern climate. This further allows you in all probability to dismiss the importance of known, quantifiable factors like greenhouse gases. It is akin to stone age man believing that the sun is a god, because it is high in the sky, and hot, and man cannot touch it. Please stick to science and supportable theories which are based on evidence. Conjecture, especially when based only on "common sense," and especially when presented as firm belief or even fact, is of utterly no value whatsoever. -
jzk at 21:59 PM on 22 April 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
Is the PBSG report cited in the OP peer reviewed? -
Realist at 21:50 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
Michael Sweet #40 Its difficult to find an electricity project that isnt subsidised somehow. $1BN for the nuclear plant. Lets Google Florida... Ahh Florida electricity is about 10 cents per kwh. Wow thats about the cheapest in the world. For a comparison, Germany is 23 cents per kwh, partially because of all the solar, and Austrialia is 21 cents. No wonder no company wants to build an electricity plant in Florida without huge subsidies. The alternative is to allow shortages of electricity to push up the price of electricity until it is viable to build a power plant without subsidies. As for if Texas gets wind subsidies, you betcha! A very quick Google search found the following. Note $1.3BN from 2009 to 2010, unlike the one-off $1BN for your nuclear plant, the wind guys in Texas want this level of subsidy every year... http://energyandenvironmentblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/12/wind-industry-says-3000-texas.html "Wind industry says 3,000 Texas jobs could be lost if key subsidy isn't renewed" 11:51 AM on Wed., Dec. 8, 2010 "The wind industry says it's mobilized to lobby Congress to extend a key subsidy that kept the business going during the recession. Despite having White House support, the program was left out of an agreement announced this week that would extend the Bush tax cuts, unemployment insurance, and a host of other incentives. It has sent more than $1.3 billion to wind-energy projects in Texas since 2009." -
Michael Whittemore at 21:20 PM on 22 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
Let’s just try and show how lost Williams truly is, as you can see in his 143 comment it would seem he is talking about “2,500 years following the LGM”. From figure 1 above the LGM is during 22-19 (kry), so this means that Williams must be talking about 19-16.5 (kry)? He then says “During this time 7% of the warm up occurred” but the paper says 7% of the warming happened during 22-17.5(kry) which is 4500 years? But clearly if he thinks he is talking about the 7% increase we must assume he means the time 22-17.5 (kry). The facts are when CO2 concentrations increased, the whole planet warmed. During the initial 7% warming, there was no added CO2 so the warming was simply a regional energy imbalance. The most senile thing about replying to comments in a numerical order, is you know you are wrong but continue to rant. -
michael sweet at 20:56 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
Realist, The project that I linked to alone has received over $1 Billion in subsidies and has not delivered a single watt. It is unlikely to ever generate any power. Nuclear in Florida received much more in subsidies on any basis than renewables. This is a concrete example of nuclear power that is not economic at any price. In Texas they are building a lot of wind. I doubt Texas is subsidizing wind. If you want to argue that renewables are subsidized more than renewables you must give a concrete example against the one I have produced. Hand waving and saying "probably in Florida too." is not an argument. -
Tom Curtis at 19:54 PM on 22 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
William Haas @143, the initial water vapour feedback during the glacial-interglacial transition was strictly regional in nature, and confined to the upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. From 20 kyr, to the "onset of the seesaw" (19 kyr, see fig 4) absolute humidity would have risen with increasing temperatures north of 60 degrees North, but fallen from 30 to 60 degrees North (a much larger area), and remained fairly constant elsewhere. With the onset of the seesaw, absolute humidity would have risen with temperature in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere, but fallen in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere. The net effect is that mean global surface temperature did not rise until 18.5 kyr (see graph d in my 138). That is 1.5 thousand years after the onset of Arctic warming, and 500 years after the onset of the seesaw. Global mean water vapour feedback probably tracked temperatures fairly closely, but may have risen or fallen slightly in that period. Given the distribution of the worlds oceans, and the relative importance of the water vapour feedback in the tropics and the poles, it is more probable that it fell in the first 1.5 kya of the glacial/interglacial transition than that it rose. That is irrelevant because it was strong regionally, reinforcing the high summer insolation in the NH and triggering the transition. Therefore it is acceptable to treat the increased NH water vapour feedback as a globally averaged increase as a first approximation - but only if you recognize that it is an approximation, not a literal description. There is no evidence that you do recognize it is an approximation, and if you treat it as a literal reality it will lead you to erroneous conclusions. -
William Haas at 19:15 PM on 22 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
I again apoligize for the delay in my responses. Yes I am reading all of the posts but I am responding to applicable posts in numerical order. 98 Michael Whittemore I am talking about the 2,500 years following the LGM. According to the article, CO2 did not increase during this time. I am assuming that the article is correct. During this time 7% of the warmup occoured so on a global basis temperatures increased. I am again assuming that the article is correct. I do not care what happened to specific local areas. It does not matter. If global average temperatures increased then global average water vapor levels increased. According to green house gas theory, if there is more green house gas in the atmosphere more heat will be trapped and hence temperatures will increase even further. All of this increase happened within the 7% warmup. Green house gasses did not account for more heating than was observed. -
bill4344 at 18:40 PM on 22 April 2012Climate Change Boosts Then Quickly Stunts Plants, Decade-long Study Shows
But, but...: CO2 is plant food! ;-) (I suspect we'll be told, a priori, that that will overwhelm any negative effect from the rise in temperatures. It's hard to see how you could test it in such a field study.) Thanks for the article. That's a pretty ingenious method. I will note, though, that 30cm diameter cores are rather small - very much all edge-effect - and even when measuring against the controls transplanted at the original altitude (and assuming associated transplant shock is equal - unlikely, surely?) I can't help but think that they're at a significant disadvantage relative to the locals in the new, warmer territory. Any discussion of this is behind the paywall, however... The duration of study warning is duly noted. -
Delmar at 18:38 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
#38 No I don't think there will be royalties on most non-ff energy sources. I don't think for instance that there will be a royalty to the government for wind or solar, perhaps something like geothermal might if there is a prime plot it land for the highest bidder. As for tax, well that is after depreciation and the depreciation will wipe out taxable profit for a long time. But that results in a massive black hole for the revenue of many countries eg Nigeria, libya, venuzela, the middle east and USA. -
jyyh at 16:51 PM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
Why Are We Sure We're Right? Well, we can't be absolutely sure we're right but the people who have survived the attack of the Auditors of Reality as has been described in the Book of Blind Io have told us the Roundworld really exists and that life on the Disc is really annoying to them because of the Majjik exerted on it makes the calculations of entropy, entalphy and in fact the all alternative theories of GHE really complicated. Just a presence of one wizzard on an area may increase the heating potential of Swamp Dragons by 10-fold, specially so if they're being chased by trolls, it's lots easier to calculate this with methane and carbon dioxide, they say. I might do this more seriously sometime.Moderator Response: [DB]
[GT] New addition to the SkS Moderation Policy. References to Terry Pratchett are ALWAYS Omn Topic. -
skywatcher at 16:42 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
#37, my comment was in response to part of #35 and related to #34, neither post by you, and hardly unrelated to the conversation? Petroleum royalties are a cash cow - because they are the dominant form of energy we presently use. Do you think that energy, when supplied entirely from non-FF sources, will be untaxed? -
Delmar at 16:13 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
@36 Well Exxon doesnt build power stations so your post is not related to the conversation at the time of my comment. But if you want to complain about resource company profits then blame legislators who haven't negotiated sufficient royalties, and ahem, the voters who put them there! Remember petroleum royalties are an absolute cash cow for many governments and keep some countries afloat. So a transition to renewables will need alternative income sources for many governments and countries, which to date has not been widely discussed. -
bill4344 at 14:23 PM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
dikran, caerbannog, Connoiseurs of the true train-wreck should really take time to savour what happens here [HVR* warning] to even one of the faithful where he dares point out that Salby's Emperor is, um, starkers!... *Head-Vice Required. -
skywatcher at 14:20 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
#35: How does "without a contribution the project may not be viable without charging more for their product, and most governments try to keep utility prices down" square with some of the largest corporate profits on the planet. It's not as if Exxon is going to go bust even if it reduced it's profits by the GDP of several small African countries... -
Realist at 13:50 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
@33 Interesting how of the nine lines I wrote you only responded on one. You asked on what premise electricity infrastructure is subsidised? The answer was in my previous post:- "Having said that, it is not uncommon for governments to make contributions to all sorts of large projects, because without a contribution the project may not be viable without charging more for their product, and most governments try to keep utility prices down." You need to consider subsidies in conjunction with the royalties. With oil gas and coal the subsidies are insignificant compared to the royalties and taxes paid. Governments know that any subsidy paid they will get back many times over. Of course the companies run it as if it was private even if they received a subsidy, the same way someone who gets a first home buyers grant considers the house is their own and not the governments. Thats just a red herring. "Private companies that specialise in mind manipulation" Huh? Could you please back up your claim with the names of some of these companies? -
grypo at 12:30 PM on 22 April 2012Weird Winter - March Madness
"Masters and the others should try to solidify their new theories of lower sea ice causing a weaker and more undulating jet before they present it as settled science in such a video." This isn't really a problem. The sea ice loss is just an amplifying effect of heat at any given time and the real issue is the difference in temperature between the arctic and lower latitude. This is what causes the slowing of the Rossby waves. The harder problem isn't the known physics, its the statistical issues of attribution, discerning through the noise, etc. This is where the science is on its bleeding edge. For this, we need models and observation. Luckily, scientists are working on this. Full papers Evidence Linking Arctic Amplification to Extreme Weather in Mid-Latitudes A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall Winter Northern Hemisphere weather patterns remember summer Arctic sea-ice extent Warm Arctic—cold continents: climate impacts of the newly open Arctic Sea Impact of sea ice cover changes on the Northern Hemisphere atmospheric winter circulation Abstract only Impact of 2007 and 2008 Arctic ice anomalies on the atmospheric circulation: Implications for long-range predictions Is extreme Arctic sea ice anomaly in 2007 a key contributor to severe January 2008 snowstorm in China? Eric also makes a few points that he seems to have great confidence in, such as that solar a low solar minimum caused the weaker jet that last two years - also - I'm unsure what his point is about the AO. Does he think that this is the dominant signal when looking at sea ice anomalies? More than atmospheric forcing? Since this site wants to get it right, I would invite Eric to back up his assertions with more detail, considering the confidence he has in them. Thanks. The video itself does not show this as 'settled science', as Eric puts it. In fact, Masters says sea ice loss "could" be causing some dramatic effects. The narrator says, it "may" be changing patterns of weather. -
empirical_bayes at 12:15 PM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
Because the question and the phenomena cannot be argued with the weak devices of words and verbal logic. It demands mathematics. -
Delmar at 12:12 PM on 22 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
Uncle Ben I understand that all science must stand up to scrutiny and am not afraid to read contrary views. Is there a link with a concise representation of the satellite data that I can then objectively read? -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:17 AM on 22 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
"Virtually all electicity infrastructure is subsidised somehow, not just nuclear" And that applies to hydro, coal and natural gas as well. Yet the companies running it do so as if it was entirely their own and the taxpayers who made them possible in the first place have a say in prices that amounts to, what exactly? Wind and solar need and deserve subsidies, their renewable character alone earns them that. Coal, oil and gas get subsidies based on what premise? That they're too expensive to be set up by a purely private venture? That they'll have a hard time to make profits? And then they're run as if they were private once built. Please. The belly aching about subsidies is just the weakest argument one can possibly make in this debate. I'll pay attention to that argument once all subsidies for oil, coal and gas are killed. Politics being what they are, that's not happening any time soon. Yes people voted for the guys who signed the contracts, after having their minds thoroughly manipulated by, guess what, private companies that specialize in mind manipulation. And considering the citical thinking abilities and Dunning-Kruger effect we get to see at work just on this site, these companies have their work cut out for them. The representative republic principles met their limits long ago, as human duplicity knows no bound. Now the circus has taken over. Enjoy. -
skywatcher at 10:54 AM on 22 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
Uncle Ben, you appear, from your writing here, to be someone who has based their entire opinion of this subject on your reading of a single, non-peer-reviewed, book. A book within which Spencer was free to publish whatever he liked, including the accusations of supression, heck he would have been free to attribute global warming to pink leprechauns were he in the mood! While books can indeed be informative, there is great freedom in writing a book to publish unsubstantiated or erroneous claims, a freedom that is generally restricted by the scientific peer-review process. Indeed, that is the purpose of peer review. Peer review does not eliminate all the bad science, but it weeds out the most obviously wrong/unsupported claims. It is a small step to go from Spencer's book to Gavin Menzies, who annoyed historians by publishing wild, unsupported claims about the Middle Ages exploits of the Chinese, and only a small further step to pure fiction a la Dan Brown. As such, your writings here stand as a cautionary tale for those who would base their understanding of a sunbject on a single source (Spencer) or single line of enquiry (tropical cloud models). Fortunately, our understanding of climate science is based on a great breadth of empirical data of human fingerprints on climate, including empirical evidence of positive feedbacks. This evidence comes from a whole range of branches of science, including but not limited to physics, chemistry, palaeoclimate, oceanography and atmospheric science. It provides a coherent picture, without gaping holes in our understanding, such as demonstrated above with glacial-interglacial cycles. A picture supported by, but not dependent upon, the models, and a picture largely avoided by Spencer. -
empirical_bayes at 10:32 AM on 22 April 2012The human fingerprint in global warming
@Bob Close, from #29, regarding: "Where is the verified experimental or actual measurements to support this strange assumption, or its corollary that ongoing atmospheric increases in CO2 above 400-500ppm will automatically create a tip over effect into runaway spiraling catastrophic warming? This critical data is now urgently required because without it one can only conclude that it is wishful thinking or worse to blame fossil fuel generated CO2 for most of the current global warming and its supposed undesirable effects. Lets get the science more exact and in perspective." Regarding the first part, do you really want to do the experiment? Well, we're doing it? Regarding the second part, yes, I agree, and that should logically be the basis for a massive increase in funding for climate science to get to the bottom of the question. There are two problems with that: First, the physics can already explain what's happening, and the mathematics say the changes *might* be catastrophic non-linear bifurcations. Second, even if that were not believed, the funding is not forthcoming. Indeed, the tendency from They Who Must Be Obeyed is to reduce funding. Pardon me if I consider the proposal a red herring.Moderator Response:[DB] All-caps converted to bold. Please, no all-caps.
Please note that the comment your are replying to was from 2010, not 2012.
-
Delmar at 10:31 AM on 22 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
@17 Linear Regression is not a model, it is a statistical method for analyzing data and to represent that data as an equation. Whether that equation is or isnt then used in a model, is an entirely different question, but linear regression in itself is not a model. -
Uncle Ben at 10:25 AM on 22 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
My final post. @muon counter "Linear regression is a model" To me a model is an attempt to build a system that will re-create the temperature record albeit with some adjustable parameters. A linear regression is just a calculation. Yes, I was aware that the basis for the "Advanced" discussion was owed to Trenberth. Yet he and Bickmore both center their attack on what I consider a footnote -- a simple model whose purpose is to show how even a simple model using the right sensitivity can accomplish a lot. Its simplicity is a virtue, not a handicap. In their defense, I acknowledge that the Spencer and Braswell paper was much harder to follow than the argument in his book. The book plainly shows the time-sensitive plots, which I find so mind-bending. If the "little model" had been completely left out of Spencer's writings, he may have avoided a distraction. The main point of the book is to show how to disambiguate periods in which the sun is the stronger forcing from periods when ocean currents (ENSO and PDO effects) are forcing strongly by means of cloud variability. I am astonished at how little attention has been directed at this novel contribution. To me, that is worth a Nobel Prize. It is method of analyzing data that "muon counter" considered as impossible. Anyone who plots the satellite data points connecting them in order of measurement will be blown away by what he sees. It has been illuminating exchanging views with all of you. It has shown me how hard it is to change the paradigm. We will all come together someday. Peace. -
Realist at 10:09 AM on 22 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
Michael Sweet No its not a surprise that the governments have political friends, but someone must have voted for these guys who signed the bad contract? Virtually all electicity infrastructure is subsidised somehow, not just nuclear. Wind and solar presently get very high subsidies in many parts of the world and probably in Florida too. Comparing subsidies on the basis of MW.hr per year generated (not installed eg include availability), then hundreds of millions dollars for what is probably a 1000 MW plant is much lower than wbhat I have seen as typical wind and solar subsidies eg in Germany and in Australia. -
muoncounter at 09:44 AM on 22 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
Uncle Ben#15: "Models are not needed when direct measurement is possible." I'm sorry, we must have a vastly different understanding of the words you've used: Your #1: "A linear regression of the former vs the latter yields a slope that has been interpreted as... " A linear regression is a model. Any interpretation based on slope is a model. "The basis for this method is the assumption that... " Assumptions are part of the modeling process, necessary to develop a simplification that may then yield to analysis. "Spencer's little model is not intended to ... " That is a direct contradiction to your "It was not to defend any model" claim in #15. "The cardinals who hassled Galileo... " Ah, the Galileo gambit. There is no necessary link between being perceived as wrong and actually being correct; usually if people perceive you to be wrong, you are wrong. ... They really do forget the part where they have to prove themselves right in order to be like Galileo. And still no answer to skywatcher's very relevant question. I learned somewhere that when an assumption leads to an untenable conclusion, the assumption is usually incorrect. -
skywatcher at 09:43 AM on 22 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
Uncle Ben, your comment "Will any warmist check Spencer's method?" really is rather funny. Perhaps you didn't note who wrote the "advanced" rebuttal on this theread, one Kevin Trenberth. The same Trenberth from Trenberth et al 2010, which rebuts one of Spencer's core arguments. The post is essentially a reporoduction of the post by Trenberth and Fasullo at RealClimate (Mods - should that connection be highlighted or am I not seeing the link?). Barry Bickmore has also deconstructed Spencer's models here, and also the modelling in his book here (more on Spencer's book here) These issues have been repeatedly looked at by those professionally competent to do so, and every time Spencer's little models have been found desperately wanting. Spencer's in the same position as you are, having no clue how to generate the ice ages "... it is reasonable to suspect that the ice ages and the interglacial periods of warmth were caused by some as yet undiscovered forcing mechanism. (p. 69)" In the real world, they are rather less of a mystery. Claims of publication supression are perennially comical - if so, how did Spencer and Braswell get published? Lindzen and Choi? The laughable, lamentable McLean et al? Bad papers get published, even in good journals, quite regularly - and for papers that are even worse, there's always Energy & Environment. And funny how claims of supression come from those who are demonstrably doing bad science (not just contrary science, but demonstrably bad). I'm not sure what you're on about in regard to Mount Pinatubo. "Laboriously removed"? (source?). It's actually been used to estimate climate sensitivity too (e.g. Bender et al 2010)! -
Uncle Ben at 09:11 AM on 22 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
@muon counter "[T]this is a modeling thread and you came in defending the merits of Spencer's 'little model.'" I thought this was a thread about Spencer's proof that climate sensitivity has been incorrectly estimated and how to fix that. He doesn't need any models. He measures sensitivity directly. I came in here to talk about how Spencer did that. It was not to defend any model. Models are not needed when direct measurement is possible. "Does Spencer use, in any way whatsoever, the satellite temperature record? If so, he is using a model that converts microwave transmission to atmospheric temperature. Hence, no such isolation is possible." You have missed something. This is the good news. Isolation is possible. You missed the part where I explained that. He plots the dH/dt vs dT points connecting them in the order of time of measurement. This coverts points into trajectories. Examination of the trajectories shows plainly that they consist of segments alternating between curly parts and very straight parts. The curly parts indicate a slow process, such as the gradual warming of the ocean by the sun; the straight parts indicate a quick process, such as warming the lower atmosphere by ocean currents, not the sun. The difference in speed occurs because of the 20:1 ratio of heat capacities. It is an observable phenomenon that in all these plots, the slopes of the straight lines are the same. They imply a sensitivity to doubling of CO2 of only 0.5 deg C. They also show that the satellite measurements contain hardly any noise. What has been thought to be noise is the contribution of the curly parts. The straight parts are very straight. @Michael Brewster (-Conspiracy theory claims snipped-). Anyone can reproduce these claims if they have access to the satellite data including the times of measurement. (-Off-topic snipped-). (-Inflammatory tone snipped-). We will see. (-Conspiracy theory claims snipped-). (-Trolling snipped-).Moderator Response:[DB] Please familiarize yourself thoroughly with the Comments Policy of this website. Future comments constructed such as this one will be deleted in their entirety.
"He doesn't need any models."
That is right up there with this.
-
kampmannpeine at 09:00 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
Thanks for those nice comments ... I will use the ideas in my lectures ... -
kampmannpeine at 08:59 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
A simple thing as regards theories and "truth": Einstein said: when I have various choices for a theory then I choose the most simple. Apply that to the problem of Keplerian equations versus Ptolemaeus ... Kepler's equation are elegant an simple compared to the epicycle stuff of the old Greeks .. -
muoncounter at 07:37 AM on 22 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
Uncle Ben#12: "You (and many others) seem to think that models are the only business of climate science." Ah, an assertion without any evidence to back it up. If you review the archives, you will note I hardly ever offer opinions pro or con about models. However, this is a modeling thread and you came in defending the merits of Spencer's 'little model.' I merely pointed out the contradiction inherent in your position. That contradiction still stands. One cannot hold two sides of an argument - simple model is good v. 'climate is complex' - if one wishes to stand on scientific principle. Unless one's address is in Deniersville, that is. "But climate science has another tool: direct measurement." Yes, that is indeed the business of many climate scientists. If I recall correctly, that is to a degree Spencer's business as well. Of course, no one can be sure, as he claimed to be a lobbyist... and now has books to sell. So much for objectivity. "...consequently implies a high sensitivity to the solar forcing. This is an error." Are you now suggesting (or saying that Spencer suggests) that climate does not have high sensitivity to solar forcing? That is very interesting, as it flies in the face of the stipulations of the solar-modulated cosmic ray crowd. "... he has found a way to isolate the inputs to warming and calculate sensitivity without models." --all caps removed Does Spencer use, in any way whatsoever, the satellite temperature record? If so, he is using a model that converts microwave transmission to atmospheric temperature. Hence, no such isolation is possible. -
Killian at 07:26 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
How do we know we are right? What, exactly, tells us we aren't? Answer: Nothing. This is literal. There is not a single study out there that in any way invalidates any of the core knowledge of climate science leading to the conclusion - let alone the observable changes! - that anthropogenic climate change is in process, and more advanced than many (publicly) acknowledge. But let us play this game. As pointed out above, we'd have to invalidate great chunks of basic science to deny the research and observations. A corollary of that is, what other areas of science of so-called skeptics deny? None. Only those that blow up their economic desires (climate, peak resources) and their religious beliefs (evolution) get challenged. Why are all other areas of science believable, but not these two? The scientific method is what it is, and is applied with variance in techniques, to all areas of science, but it's invalid in just those areas that are socio-politically conservative? Things that make you go, "Hmmm...!" But, hey, let's just toss out the scientific method. How else do we know? The scenarios created forty years ago (Limits to Growth), and thirty years ago (Hansen, et al. '81-ish), 24 years ago (Hansen, et al, '88-ish) and ever since are indicating, then being validated by, the physical world. if anything, the scenarios have tended strongly to underestimating change than overestimating despite the bleating idiocy that allows some to call this falsification of the scenarios! Now, I'm not a scientist, but consider myself fairly good at analysis, particularly of patterns. While scientists mostly constrain themselves to what they can prove or demonstrate with high **scientific** confidence,individuals such as myself can go straight to risk assessment and call this what it is: a massively dangerous change for humanity and all the rest of the biota on the planet. And,we non-scientists can also step beyond scenarios and talk predictions. I have been saying since 2006-7 that the changes were coming far faster than scientists were saying. That's six years of calling imminent large changes in weather and climate, and being right. This isn't hard. It's all about understanding systems, connections, complexity and bifurcations... along with other stuff, but at the core, that's really all it is. I had an e-mail conversation with a scientist about the clathrates after the 2007 work by Walter, et al., came out about thermokarst lakes. The patterns we were seeing even then made it clear the decomposition of the Arctic had to be far, far faster than thought at the time. It, again, wasn't rocket science, it was merely looking at what was supposed to be happening, then looking at what *was* happening, adding in the background of how non-linear and chaotic systems behave, the speed of change, tipping points, etc., and it was plainly obvious. Yet, the scientist i was e-mailing with, the guys at RealClimate, etc., all held to the decades/centuries standard response. I was scared to death to have a paper published that saw it as I did, but when the projections came out of 80 melt of Arctic Sea ice between 2013 and 2020 came out, I was also elated: Finally! The science was catching up! I'm confident because what is being predicted is coming true, let alone the scenarios being accurate. And, really, all you have to do is open your eyes. Pretty simple. And remember: it's the extremes that will get us, not the averages. We will continue to see massively disruptive events, and they will get far worse long before we reach an average of +2C. This Spring's reverse "Indian Summer" and the subsequent crop losses (95% of grape crop in SW Michigan, e.g.) are just a taste. Let this become (more) normal and food is going to become a big issue in a very short period of time. When the Arctic Sea Ice really does hit as low as 80% mass/area/extent loss it will likely be game over. At that point, only a massive, global shift to localization and sustainability will have any hope of cooling he oceans quickly enough to prevent a clathrate bomb. The fuse is already lit. Reforestation: Can equal 100% of current CO2 emissions. Regenerative Farming/Gardening: Can equal up to 40% of current emissions. So, just two simple changes can get us moving backwards with carbon within five years. Hmmm... The solutions are out there, they are simple, they are doable. They are not tech, they are not greater complexity. They are simple, rich, organic, local. We DO know what is happening, we DO know where we are headed, we DO know the risk assessment. We can keep letting false equivalence and scientific reticence keep us from speaking and acting, or we can bring ourselves back from the brink. Up to you. -
Kevin C at 07:10 AM on 22 April 2012First Look at HadCRUT4
I suspect that they have analysed it, and what they found didn't fit their narrative. I'm waiting for the hadsst3 data to 2010. HadCRUT4 contained one surprise for me, but ideally I need the rest of the SST data before I can write it up. -
dr2chase at 06:52 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
@muoncounter (#39) - I think that means that knowing gross bounds on sensitivity is part of what we are or are not sure of. I agree that we've bounded sensitivity below and probably above at this point, but I think it is relevant as a checklist item, "are we sure of this, and why?" It's probably not a bad idea to push the bounds on what we are or are not sure of; that helps tell you where to look for more information, do more research, or think harder. For example, I am not "certain" that the sea level rise in the next 90 years will necessarily be above half a meter, or below five meters (i.e., loads of uncertainty there). One of those outcomes is really costly. I'm not sure that we'll lose the ability to grow mass quantities of grain here in the US, but I'm not sure that we won't, either. -
sidd at 06:36 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
Mr. electroken writes at 06:10 AM on the 22nd of April, 2012: "...agree to disagree about which comes first, the warming or the CO2. I personally believe that the blame is put on CO2 because that can be taxed." So: No calculation. No citations. Argument from motivations. Statement of personal belief. I do feel honored that you so graciously agree to disagree. "What is never seemingly considered in all this climate debate is the contribution of water vapor. I will not get into a long argument about this, but it is apparant..." It is not at all apparent. Climate scientists are quite aware of the nature of condensible greenhouse gases. Let me put it this way: Consider that little pink unicorns are heating the earth. The earth has a big pool of water on it. In response to the unicorn heating, water vapor will evaporate and amplify the warming. Now imaging that all the unicorns are summarily killed, and the warming stops. Guess what, the earth cools back down, and the water vapor that evaporated earlier rains back out. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. "If you know your physics..." I just might. I do hope that the better part of a decade in grad school, followed by years of physics research might have helped. Now, to drag the conversation back toward topical: Let me ask you something: why do you believe the statements that you made ? what is your level of math training ? have you done any calculations yourself ? do you read the literature ? or are you regurgitating arguments from denialist web sites ? in short, i am trying to discover why you believe untruths on the level of pink unicorns... siddModerator Response: Electroken, if you'd like to discuss whether warming or CO2 comes first, do so on the thread CO2 lags temperature--after you read the post there. if you'd like to discuss water vapor more, do so on the thread Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas--after you read the post there. -
michael sweet at 06:22 AM on 22 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
Uncle Ben, You are obviously confused about the nature of the Skeptical Science web site. At this site we discuss peer reviewed scientific data. Spencers' book has not been peer reviewed, so it does not count. If Spencer thought his ideas were worth the paper they are printed on he would submit it for publication. Since he has not, obviously he thinks the idea will not stand up to rigorous review. This book is no different than a blog post or opinion piece in the newspaper. If you want to support your views here, please cite peer reviewed data. You are wasting our time arguing by using your opinion of an opinion piece. Please use peer reviewed material or no one will take you seriously. When you make a reference to a paper you must cite the page that supports your position. Saying "If you want to keep up, buy the book" means that you are unable to identify the section of the book that actually supports your position. Why should I read a book when you cannot identify the part that supports you? -
electroken at 06:10 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
I can see evidence of climate changes where weather patterns have altered from their normalality. I can also understand that there has been evidence of CO2 rises in the past which follow warming trends. The evidence I have seen indicates that the CO2 levels rise after a period of warmer climate. I have seen the curves presented about this and the explanation is that as the seas warm up they release more CO2 as they can no longer hold as much at a higher temperature. I can let all that go and agree to disagree about which comes first, the warming or the CO2. I personally believe that the blame is put on CO2 because that can be taxed. What is never seemingly considered in all this climate debate is the contribution of water vapor. I will not get into a long argument about this, but it is apparant that we are evaporating water in large quantities due to agriculture primarily but also where we are making man-made lakes in deserts and arid regions and filling them by taking water from the aquifers. I read that the large aquifer under the middle usa has dropped 150feet in only 10 years. I read that many years ago now so it cannot have gotten any better I would think. If you know your physics you will appreciate that water requires a considerable amount of energy to evaporate (on the order of approximately 1500 btu/lb I think) and this enourmous amount of water being put into the atmosphere can alter weather patterns and lead to larger and more storms than before. It is happening! I am more critical of lack of thought as to what else might be making us warmer and changing our weather. I am not alone in this thought and there is at least one other person who has compiled a lot of data on this subject. It does not even consider the role of water vapor being put into the upper atmosphere by high altitude jets at the rate of 5 pounds of water vapor for each pound of fuel burned. Please look into it before throwing out the baby with the bath water. -
caerbannog at 05:08 AM on 22 April 2012First Look at HadCRUT4
Quick followup/clarification. The station data-set that skeptics were demanding (and was released 9 months ago) was the CRUTEM3 station data-set. The link I provided above points to the updated CRUTEM4 station data-set (which was released more recently). The CRUTEM3 station data can be downloaded here. -
caerbannog at 04:50 AM on 22 April 2012First Look at HadCRUT4
Just thought I'd pop in to remind skeptical lurkers/participants here that the entire raw station data-set which forms the basis of CRUTEM4 was released to the public nearly 9 months ago. You can download the entire ball of wax right here. Remember -- this is the data-set that skeptics wanted so badly that they buried the CRU with FOI demands about 3 years ago. This is the data-set that was the focus of so much of the "climategate" fuss. Now, given that the skeptical community has had this entire data-set in their hot little hands for nearly 9 months, the obvious question to ask is, "So, what have they done with it?". It would seem to me that if skeptics were really interested in performing independent verifications of the CRU's work (as opposed to abusing FOI laws to conduct a dishonarable campaign of harrassment), they would have put something out by now. Remember that the Muir Russell Commission was able to write its own software and compute its own global-average temperature results from the raw station data in about two days (using nothing more than publicly-available information about the CRU's processing techniques). So here we are, nearly 9 months after the data-set that skeptics had been demanding was released to them ... and AFAICT those skeptics have yet to publish their own analysis that either confirms the CRU's results or uncovers flaws in the CRU's methodology. What's taking those skeptics so long? They've had nearly *nine months* to perform a few days' worth of real work. -
Uncle Ben at 02:40 AM on 22 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
@muon counter (belately) You (and many others) seem to think that models are the only business of climate science. Models are an attempt to guess the answer and evaluate it by comparing its results with the temperature record. The attempt is based on one's understanding of the physics of the problem. Thus if you think that clouds produced by ocean currents, not directly by the sun, "average out" and do not affect the results, then your models may compensate for the error by finding an exaggerated sensitivity to the variable you think is more important. I say "error" because in the measurement of sensitivity, it is not the cumulative effect of clouds that is important. It is the variation in effect. Clouds vary greatly over time in their effect on temperature. Measuring sensitivity depends not on the cumulative effect but on the variance of the effect. The mean may be zero, while the variance is not. In fact, an extraneous, varying effect reduces the correlation of solar forcing with ocean temperature, and consequently implies a high sensitivity to the solar forcing. This is an error. A model can use exaggerated sensitivity to compensate, but that departs from reality. But climate science has another tool: direct measurement. If you understand Spencer's book, you will see that he has found a way to isolate the inputs to warming and calculate sensitivity WITHOUT MODELS. He disambiguates the total forcing into two kinds according to the speed of the effects: Warming the ocean by the sun is slow; warming of the air by oceans is fast. I'm not going to paraphrase the whole book for you. If you want to keep up, buy the book "Greatest Blunder" for short. (I get no commission.) -
funglestrumpet at 02:33 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
Yet again the discussion centres on whether we as a species are responsible for global warming or not. Just imagine for one moment that our certainties about AGW are in fact misplaced and Mr Watts, Professor Salby and that small number of like minded individuals who are of a similar opinion, are actually right about global warming and we are not the cause. It might be that the current warming is actually due to some as yet undiscovered aspect of the natural carbon cycle that has the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Or, it might be that the IPCC, despite all its credentials, is wrong on the issue and the warming is due to the Sun. Alternatively, it might be due to a global increase in flatulence resulting from eating genetically modified crops. Would that mean that we should not do whatever we can to limit the warming that we are experiencing (especially if it is due to the latter)? I sincerely hope not. I rather think future generations would wonder why we did not curtail our production of CO2 all the more if the warming were due to some other reason than that currently identified, especially if it were an unknown one. Regardless of its cause, we do know that cutting our CO2 production would act to combat the phenomenon and should really be given a far higher priority than it currently enjoys. Until Mr Watts, or Professor Salby, or whoever else (but please not Monckton, I am already dangerously close to an overdose of that individual), can identify why the planet is warming if it isn’t due to our production of CO2 (the famous ‘A’ in AGW), then surely the safest course of action is to try to re-establish the conditions that we know produced a reasonably stable temperature in the past. In other words, we should be working really hard to achieve pre-Industrial Revolution CO2 levels. When Mr Watts etc. produce hard, peer-reviewed evidence of what they believe is causing the warming if it is not due to mankind, and, of course, what they recommend the remedial action should be, I see no other option, unless the free market takes precedence over saving lives, of course. Perhaps Mr Watts might like to respond with an explanation as to why he does not support cutting our CO2 production, regardless of what is causing Global Warming, i.e. with or without the 'A'. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:41 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
caerbannog I know I said "I don't think that we are sure that we are right", however that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic is probably the fact that is known with least uncertainty; we can be pretty confident we are right on that particular issue! As such it is ironic that some skeptics still can't accept it, even when someone like Fred Singer says on record that such canards only serve to give the skeptics a bad name! -
climatehawk1 at 01:31 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
Well, in the spirit of "Everything has been said, but not everyone has said it," let me add my two cents. "I don't believe anything" or "I wish to not believe anything"--bold statements, but I think they belong in the Platonic realm. Even if you only look at data you have derived yourself, you're still believing the data exist and are telling you something about the subject of study. Like Bill and JimF above (JimF, I'm guessing here, so please excuse me if I'm wrong), I'm not a scientist. I'm a specialist in communications. I believe in basic physics and in the science I see revealed regularly in peer-reviewed publications, and I don't think it's mistaken or unwise to do so--we cannot all perform our own experiments. I "believe" that if I jump out a 10th-story window, I'm going to die, even though I've never done it personally and therefore don't "know" it. I agree that we're losing, but that won't last, because we have the ultimate rebuttal--the weather, and especially what the weather is going to do to food crops and economies. So the scientists have to keep doing the best science they can, and we communicators have to keep doing the most effective communicating we know how to do, and try to shorten, as much as we can, the time between now and when effective action is taken to mitigate climate change and lower atmospheric GHG concentrations. Oh, and how do we know we're right? We don't, but as someone pointed out here recently in exhaustive detail, there are virtually no peer-reviewed publications on climate science from the camp of those in denial. I take that as working evidence unless and until such evidence appears. -
caerbannog at 01:27 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
Wow -- the WUWT discussion thread that I linked to above has turned into a completely stunning train-wreck. I mean, how many ways does one have to explain that 15GT/year is less than 30GT/year before some people will acknowledge that natural processes are acting as a net CO2 *sink*? So let me add my own item to the "How we know we are right" list. 11) We are willing to accept the result of a simple subtraction operation, even if that result is less than 0. -
Tristan at 01:26 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
Not sure if I'll be able to stand watching either.I may be underestimating the two young ladies on our side, but I'd have felt more comfortable knowing that someone of JC's calibre were defending the scientific position. -
adelady at 01:13 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
OK. If we're talking who's right and who's not, which of the Australians here is up for Thursday night's climate extravaganza on the ABC. I'm promising myself I _will_ grit my teeth and watch the Q&A, but if I watch the preceding hour of Nick Minchin trying to "change my mind" about climate science I may not have a TV to watch later. He's enough to make me throw stuff. -
michael sweet at 01:05 AM on 22 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
Realist, Who made the bad deal is not the question. Big energy has political friends, is this a surprise? The point is that if nuclear power plants require this type of financing they are not economic. This project is likely to be stopped in the near future, it is not economic and people are starting to get angry about high prices for energy we will never receive. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:33 AM on 22 April 2012Weird Winter - March Madness
The weakening of the polar vortex is probably not a result of lower sea ice as claimed in the second video. The pattern of low sea ice in the Barents sea this year and more ice around Alaska is a result, not a cause, of the jet stream patterns as modulated by strength and other factors. In a nutshell the jet constrains the surface lows (although it is also affected by them) and the surface lows push warm air north, cold air south and likewise push ice. The mainly positive AO this past winter (contrary to the video) was a consistent predicted result of global warming in papers about 10 years ago. For example: ftp://www.edge.alaska.edu/pub/jing/Paper-Cyclone/ArcticCyclone_Reprint_Zhang.pdf showing the increase winter Arctic cyclones and consequential strengthening of the polar vortex (as measured by higher AO). Masters and the others should try to solidify their new theories of lower sea ice causing a weaker and more undulating jet before they present it as settled science in such a video. A potential cause of the weaker undulating jet in 2009 and 2010 was the effect and residual effects of the recent low solar minimum. See http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009789.shtml for example. In that paper (I have a copy if anyone wants it) they explain that low solar activity does not cause blocking but lengthens its duration. Also the depth and position of upper troughs are basically weather (not solar and not sea ice related) and having a couple in a season (2009/10) was not global "weirding" but coincidence. -
JimF at 00:33 AM on 22 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
barry@42 Thanks for responding. I see your point. But this really frustrates me. The responses are just too theoretical/mathematical/technical...or something like that. This battle is not being waged liked that. We're in a battle for the 'hearts and minds' of the American people (in the US), and the above responses to a question like "Why are we SURE we are Right" just don't cut it. There was no 'surety' at all. I read something a year ago that a group of scientists were going to be much more active in warning the populace: going on TV and radio, writing articles, etc. Engaging the fight in the media, if you will. In other words, stepping out of their "we just do the study, you decide" mentality. If the above responses are an indication of that, we're losing. They will not convince anyone, I don't think. Color me disappointed. -
Uncle Ben at 00:31 AM on 22 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
@DB I bow to your superior knowledge of the climate effects of volcanic eruptions. But they are mentioned just to illustrate a point. If you don't know the forcings, you can't meaure the feedback. Volcanic eruptions are not the only conceivable extraneous focing. @Tom You can prove the point yourself. Make two data sets, (1) more or less linear values of y vs x, and (2) a random set of values of z vs x covering the same range. Compute the regression coefficient of y vs x. Call it ax1, a constant. Combine the two data sets into one, their union. Call the regression coefficient ax2. With any reasonable data, you will find that ax2 < ax1. In this example, y is the effect of solar warming of the atmosphere and z is the effect of ocean-current warming of the atmosphere. Imagine that you measure ax2 innocently believing that you are measuring ax1. That is the blunder that Spencer is talking about. -
Tom Curtis at 00:04 AM on 22 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
Uncle Ben @8, when somebody says "You can't argue with mathematical facts", they are setting up to deceive you. Maths is a formal language. Like all formal languages, it has no innate interpretation. In order to say something - anything - about the world with maths, you need to set up an interpretation, and that interpretation can be false, contradictory or deceptive just as much as any statement in English. When somebody tells you that maths can't lie, their sole purpose (if they are not simply foolish) is to draw your attention away from the potential fallibility of interpretation. There is a reason why lies, damned lies and statistics represents a progression.
Prev 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 Next
