Recent Comments

Prev  1196  1197  1198  1199  1200  1201  1202  1203  1204  1205  1206  1207  1208  1209  1210  1211  Next

Comments 60151 to 60200:

60151. Sascha Tavere at 00:19 AM on 21 April 2012
       Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
       @ Dikran Marsupial Re Q&A Audience question: "... more temperature -> more co2 -> more temperature? ..." (4'30") Murry Salby: "For reasons that I am not going to go into with this audience, there has to be a negative-feed back that bridles this positive feed-back and holds things in check." Oh yeah? Do tell more professor Salby! He didn't. There just "has to be". Am I offended because of the condescension? It might not be possible when speaking to lay people to explain everything in a short space of time, but it seems to be a crucial point that you can't hedge on if you're serieus. Pique or scepsis?
60152. DSL at 00:14 AM on 21 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       Uncle Ben: "3. The little model demonstrates a mathematical fact, which is already obvious to students of statistics, namely that you cannot compute the sensitivity to one variable if another hidden variable is varying the output." Welcome to the geophysical sciences. I hope you had a nice stay in the math department. Every day, you manage to make decisions based on intuitive modeling where one or more variables are unknown. You've managed to live, so far. You've probably actually learned from this daily type of intuitive modeling. You've probably made important decisions based on weather forecasts, which use the same type of modeling. The point is that you can indeed calculate sensitivity in a complex system; you just can't calculate it with the precision of a closed mathematical system. Roy knows that. You should know it. And the unknown variable in this case is not all that unknown. I'll wager that you yourself won't accept certain values for it.
60153. Bob Lacatena at 00:12 AM on 21 April 2012
       Global Surface Warming Since 1995
       7, Slioch, No. Santer is only discussing whether or not it has warmed, but from the frame of reference that if there were anthropogenic warming then you would have to have 17 years to see any warming (natural or anthropogenic). Santer is not discussing attribution of that warming, and neither is Phil Jones with his "statistically significant" response, and neither is this post. If you wish to discuss it, please do so on the "It's not us" thread here. Your inclusion of Phil Jones' answer to a later question about attribution and your (mis)interpretation of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) inappropriately steer the discussion in that direction. No one is saying that it's not an interesting or important question. Only that this isn't the place to discuss it. This thread is about Santer and whether or not the earth has warmed in the past X years.
60154. KR at 00:09 AM on 21 April 2012
       Global Surface Warming Since 1995
       Slioch - "For example, any period of a few years leading up to the great El Nino of 1998 would show warming, and that warming would be statistically significant in the terms that you have used..." That would be incorrect, considering that the question is not "is it warming/cooling" (think summers versus winters, definite temperature changes), but "whether average temperatures are warming/cooling", a long term (climate) trend over and above normal variations such as ENSO. Such a trend identification requires a fair bit of data - enough that the uncertainties induced by variation and measurement errors are low enough for a "no trend" line to fall outside the generally accepted 2 standard deviation range (95%) range. Second to that is attribution, where we have to look at our available data on possible forcings (insolation, aerosols, albedo, greenhouse gases - anything changing) to see which of those is changing, and how, and for purposes of our own deciding whether to change the forcings under our control. As to your examples, I would have to agree with Jones - complete confidence that the climate is warming, extremely strong evidence that the major part of it in the last half century is due to us. But F&R did not address any attribution issues, they simply looked at better identification of the trend outside identifiable variations. And Santer et al were also looking at trend identification, not attribution. These are different questions.
60155. DSL at 00:04 AM on 21 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       Eric - the focuses are tied together in a dynamic relationship. The stronger the evidence becomes for current estimates of sensitivity, the stronger the need to counter the bull**** with . . . well, a strong response. TOP - "certainty," for me, is that level of confidence that allows action to take place in good conscience. I make decisions every day that are based on less than certainty, and I worry about those decisions, but I am forced to act. The level of confidence I have in current mainstream estimates of sensitivity allows me to currently act toward mitigation in good conscience. How someone can, after having looked at the thousands of studies available and the history of the science, come to the confident conclusion that climate science is a hoax baffles me. If John is willing to publicly commit to the idea that "AGW is occurring and that is the absolute, unalterable Truth" then I'll buy a hat and eat it. I suspect he would rather say, "The overwhelming amount of work done by scientists suggests that AGW is occurring, and the suggestion is so strong that I can act as if it is the truth, even if I am still open to the idea that the science may be overturned." Show me a person who claims to have found absolute truth, and I will show you a person who is demonstrably wrong on a regular basis.
60156. TOP at 23:43 PM on 20 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       You have touched upon a major point in John Cook's book, "the Debunking handbook" that has always troubled me. The point of view that John took in the book was that one party was absolutely right and trying to convince the unconvinced to the truth of what that right notion was. Then I see Dikran Marsupial starting off with, "I don't think that we are sure that we are right, as science is never completely settled; we can be confident we are right because the available evidence very strongly supports our position*;" followed by Ari Jokimäki stating, "But in any case, I don't try to be right about anything.". These are positions close to my own and just don't jive with taking a position like John took in his book which seems to require absolute certainty. Glenn Tamblyn's position is much closer to John's IIRC.
60157. Eric (skeptic) at 23:41 PM on 20 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       muoncounter, no doubt there is a lot of stubborn refusal to accept the possibility that we could warm into unknown and dangerous territory with doubled (or more) CO2. But your list is the "noise". The "signal" is how high sensitivity "stands with basic physics" (or not). You have no choice but to counter the noise as it lands in the media or on your doorstep, but it should not be the main focus.
60158. Bob Lacatena at 23:19 PM on 20 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       Contrast this with the WUWT post submitted by caerbannog. I mean, really... is Anthony Watts still attempting to promote as dead an argument as the idea that the source of CO2 increases in the atmosphere is natural? Really? He either truly doesn't get that simple, irrefutable fact (in which case the Comments Policy forbids me from saying more on that subject) or else he does know it, and is posting an argument like that any way (in which case the Comments Policy forbids me from saying more on that subject). In recent months we've seen a number of moderated "yeah, well, maybe, but..." comments from the likes of Spencer, Singer, Pielke Sr. and others. Each of them is trying to to some degree distance themselves from the indefensible, wing-nut, denial claims that make them all look silly (like arguing that the source of the added CO2 in the atmosphere is somehow natural in origin). They've tried to paint themselves as reasonable moderates in the center of the debate, while certain other factions at the edges are deniers (but no, not them!) or "alarmists." That by itself is silly, but... The wing-nut element is still there, and they still cling to it when they like, such as Anthony's latest post on CO2 levels, where he has the unmitigated gall to say:

       He elegantly shows that there is a solid correlation between natural climate factors (global temperature and soil moisture content) and the net gain (or loss) in global atmospheric content when the latter is averaged over a two year period. The hanging question remains, if natural factors drive more than 90% of the growth in CO2 how significant is the contribution of human generated emissions. The answer is simple… not very.

       I know why I trust my understanding of the science (which is different from knowing that I'm right), but the question that really intrigues me is... How do I know they're wrong? Because those in denial of anthropogenically triggered climate change are themselves inconsistent, or rather, they consistently argue the same thoroughly debunked topics. I know they're wrong because they try to score points and engage in propaganda rather than discussing the actual science.
60159. Uncle Ben at 23:19 PM on 20 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       @Moderator 1. The reason I say that some clouds cause, not global warming and not ENSO nor PDO, but inaccurate measurement of sensitivity, is that they vary the temperature anomaly in time and are not caused by the current energy imbalance. In this way they reduce the regression slope, and thus corrupt its interpretation. 2. Nevertheless, what is of interest in this question is the idea that a rise in temperature reduces cloud cover and further increases temperature. Climate science does find this crucial for water-vapor feedback. 3. The little model demonstrates a mathematical fact, which is already obvious to students of statistics, namely that you cannot compute the sensitivity to one variable if another hidden variable is varying the output. @skywatcher - Data from the past includes, as you say, forcings of unknown and perhaps numerous sources. As we cannot measure these forcings now. That means that we cannot remove their effects for the purpose of estimating feedback. That is why it is so valuable to have satellite data, which gives us the forcings as well as the anomaly. Consider how data were adjusted to compensate for the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. We can't do that for ancient data. Failure to correct for forcings other than the energy imbalance always affects the sensitivity in the same direction: it lowers the slope and raises the sensitivity. Also, science is not a horse race. Let us not try to handicap the jockey.
       Moderator Response: TC: Uncle Ben, if you do not stop double posting, I will start double deleting.
60160. muoncounter at 22:51 PM on 20 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       I particularly like Glenn's list. Compare it to a short list for 'the other side' to see how things 'balance' out: 1. No, its not. 2. Even if it is, it's not our fault. 3. Even if it is our fault, you can't 'prove' it. 4. Why? Because we know it's not. So there is overwhelming weight of evidence, logical consistency and thought on one side vs. very little beyond stubborn refusal on the other. Unlike Eric#6, I believe that certainty about basic physics is paramount and must be the focus of the real debate. Our argument stands with basic physics; theirs does not. Uncertainty about details is the stuff for the 'back room debate'; unfortunately, that is what gets dragged out in public every time there's another spring snowstorm or half-baked idea.
60161. Daniel Bailey at 22:34 PM on 20 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       I would note in passing that Mr. Haas has yet to fully articulate his position WRT the OP and has yet to attempt an answer to questions put to him over the past several days (other than to restate in muddled fashion his understandings...which run counter to the science). Given the elapsed time and his continued posting in this thread (which reveal an unchanged level of understanding of the science not in accord at all with the science), the inescapable conclusion one must draw is that we must move beyond the possibility of Mr. Haas simply misunderstanding the OP to the point of Mr. Haas prosecuting an agenda of dissembling.
60162. Cornelius Breadbasket at 21:35 PM on 20 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       What an excellent topic - and fastinating to see such varied responses from Dikran, Glenn and Ari. I would very much like to see a WUWT response to Glenn...
60163. Eric (skeptic) at 19:45 PM on 20 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       By far the biggest problem with sites like WUWT, which sometimes leaks over here, is that uneducated people look at a "debate" about basic physics and assume that this is somehow a mainstream scientific controversy. I would suggest rather than argue against bad physics why not show why the deep ocean "won't save us" or weather (increased water cycle) won't save us or simple thermal inertia in the big ice sheets or permafrost areas is insufficient to prevent melting within the next 100 years? I suppose part of the reason is that the bad physics people come here to argue their case and someone has to correct them. But claiming certainty about basic physics is not an answer to arguments that point out the uncertainties in climate science. For example, has anyone ever explained why models predicted a stronger polar vortex (less meridional flow) due to lower sea ice, now the models apparently predict a weaker polar jet and more meridional flow (due to lower sea ice). There are plenty of good threads on all of the issues that I have thought about here. That's where the real debate is, everything else is a "smokey back room" debate that does not belong in public.
60164. shoyemore at 19:00 PM on 20 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       caerbannog #1, Salby gave a public talk last year that was greeted with almost complete derision by scientists in the field. Since then he dropped out of sight. I do not think his musings have made it past peer review. It is not clear if he has even tried. There is a thread about his views here: Murry Salby confused about the carbon cycle The Irish comic writer Flann O'Brien has a scientist called de Selby in some of his books. Among de Selby's theories is one that night is caused by a gathering of atmospheric dust. I see a definite relationship.
60165. Doug Hutcheson at 18:10 PM on 20 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       caerbannog @1, I followed your link and my head exploded. The comments are delightful, though, so I copied a couple for the entertainment of SkSers:

       Smokey says: April 19, 2012 at 4:22 pm The central point should be that, obviously, the rise in CO2 is entirely beneficial. The biosphere is starved of CO2. More is better. I know that will make some folks’ heads explode, but that’s what happens when their cognitive dissonance meets reality. trevor says: April 19, 2012 at 4:25 pm I think this is one of the best posts of WUW I’ve seen. Good scientists present the data and let the audience make their own conclusions – exactly as Salby does in this lecture.

       Good scientists present the data and let the audience make their own conclusions? When did that start happening? I thought good scientists publish their conclusions based on their data. Funny how wrong I was ... Good to know the estimable Salby is attracting friends at WUWT, as that is a good inverse-ratio indicator of the veracity of his claims.
60166. Slioch at 18:05 PM on 20 April 2012
       Global Surface Warming Since 1995
       #4 dana1981 "the question here is whether it's warming, not the causes of that warming." Hmmm, no I don't think that is correct, but would welcome views on this issue. There are two questions, when examining a segment of a temperatures/time series of global surface temperatures such as HADCRUT or GISS (or lower troposphere UAH or RSS). The first is whether, taking into account the errors in the measurements, one is justified in saying that there has been a warming trend in the data over a particular period. For example, any period of a few years leading up to the great El Nino of 1998 would show warming, and that warming would be statistically significant in the terms that you have used: ie even taking into account the errors of measurement, a statistical analysis of the segment of a few years running up to 1998 would surely (say I, not having done the analysis!) conclude that there is a greater than 95% probability that warming, however caused, was occurring during that segment. Is that not the case? The second is whether any such warming is human induced. It seems to me that the sense in which you are interpreting the term 'statistical significance' is in answer to the first question, but that is not the issue, as far as I understand it it, that Santer was addressing. He was making a similar statement to that of Phil Jones in his famous BBC interview in February 2010, here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm BBC - "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming" Phil Jones "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." As far as I understand it, Santer and Jones were addressing the issue of whether the observed warming was due to human actions or not. After all, that is the interesting question, that is what people want to know: would the observed warming have occurred anyway, in the absence of human influences? Or can we state that there is a 95% probability that the warming is due to human actions and would not have occurred naturally? This the issue that Jones addresses explicitly later in the interview: BBC "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?" Phil Jones "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." That is also the issue that Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) address: if the main natural factors influencing surface or lower troposphere temperatures (solar, ENSO and volcanic) are (more or less) removed from the temperature series, is there a remaining warming trend that can be attributed to human influence? That is the question that they elegantly answer in the affirmative. They were not addressing the question of whether there had been any warming at all, but the causes of it.
60167. MA Rodger at 17:47 PM on 20 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       caerbannog @1 Your link certainly threw me straight into a "how do I know I'm right" moment. You point to an hour-long video posted at WUWT. Do I waste an hour of my life listening to the nonsense spouted by some Aussie Professor dude? The written introduction is as clear as mud. I could examine what the comments say about it, but at WUWT? No thank you! So why do I dismiss the vodeo as nonsense? If this Professor is 'right' that CO2 increases are natural, if his theories are more that total nonsense, I will surely meet them again presented in a better way in a better place. Yet I consider this an unlikely outcome. "Birds of a feather..." The people who accompany village idiots tend also to be of that ilk.
60168. NewYorkJ at 17:43 PM on 20 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       Ari has some insight... "Curiously, in many cases the same people who present their own claims with absolute certainty, go around saying that climate scientists cannot know anything because things are so uncertain. If uncertainty is their product, how come they are making their claims with certainty?" The highly-certain claims I think are a bit of Dunning-Kruger incompetence, as caerbannog puts it, but it's also used for rhetorical effect. Confident claims repeated many times resonate more among the general public than claims filled with the proper caveats or questions. The former is how politicians usually operate, but at least with politicians, there's some genuine scrutiny of and accountability for their words and actions. A true skeptic might ask "do climate models project periods of a decade with little warming and if so, what factors might lead to that?", then seek an honest answer. A denier would falsely but confidently assert "climate models predict it will get warmer year over year" but that hasn't happened" then cherry-pick some endpoints on a graph and assert CO2 doesn't cause much warming. Good skeptics are very inquisitive. From my observations, those calling themselves "skeptics" of climate science tend to not be very inquisitive, especially those who lack expertise (D-K Effect again). The uncertainty card is also played for rhetorical effect. The idea is to cast scientists as being arrogant and overly-confident in their beliefs, not humble and open-minded like skeptics. Another goal is to imply uncertainty means we know next to nothing. But if true, why are the same "skeptics" so confident? There's nothing to worry about, after all, except of course for the costs of mitigation, which will be catastrophic. And so the blatant contradiction. The two are sometimes combined in some sense. There are those who assert that uncertainty is higher than studies indicate, and those assertions themselves are stated with great certainty. The temperature record is unreliable, the IPCC doesn't appropriately capture uncertainty in climate sensitivity, models have no skill...the "we just don't know" statement carries with it the implicit certain claim that all of the evidence that would indicate otherwise is largely bogus.
60169. Kevin C at 16:09 PM on 20 April 2012
       GISTEMP: Cool or Uncool?
       William: For GISTEMP, you can generate it for yourself here. Given that the others agree well over the region where they have common coverage, I see no reason to expect that the results will be different, however the grey areas will be bigger. For my own experiments with the HadCRUT3 data I see latitude bands in which only a single station is present right up to the present, and the results from such bands are essentially noise.
60170. caerbannog at 15:53 PM on 20 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       If this is a bit off-topic, at least it is *inspired* by this thread's topic... How do "skeptics" know that they are right? Well, to put it bluntly, sometimes it is just plain old Dunning-Kruger incompetence (or ideological blindness masquerading as incompetence). Check out the latest beverage-through-the-nose piece at WUWT. And don't say that I didn't warn you!!!
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Oh well, once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...
60171. Tom Curtis at 15:26 PM on 20 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       William Haas @134: 1) As can be seen above, NH summer insolation was increasing from at least 22 kyr and continued to do so until 12 kyr. That means it was increasing over the period of 20-18.5 kyr we are discussing, as pointed out by Daniel C. 2) Global temperatures rose that period by between 0.2 (Shakun et al) degrees C and 0.4 degrees C (based on scaling the Shakun et al difference to other estimates of the total temperature difference). That is equivalent to year to year variability in temperatures resulting from large tropical volcanoes or strong ENSO events. If such a globally averaged temperature variation is sufficient to trigger so large a change in temperatures over millenium, then the Earth's temperatures would be far more unstable than they are. It is the strong regional and seasonal forcing at a particular location given a particular geographic configuration which is significant in triggering the glacial to interglacial transition - not the weak global effect from 20 kyr to 18.5 kyr. It should also be noted that that 0.2-0.4 degree C increase in temperature includes the full effect of any rapid feedbacks, including the WV feedback.
60172. william5331 at 14:58 PM on 20 April 2012
       GISTEMP: Cool or Uncool?
       It might be interesting for each of these three sets of data to see what the temperature change has been over the recording period for all the recording stations in 5 degree bands of latitude. Latitude 0 to 5, 5 to 10, 10 to 15 etc. Then we could compare what each of them comes up with for the same band of latitude.
60173. Tom Curtis at 14:30 PM on 20 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       danielc @136, here is figure 3 from Shakun et al, 2012: The important features for this discussion are the atmospheric CO2 concentration (c), the global temperature (d), and the NH and SH insolation (f). The original caption reads:

       "Figure 3 | Global temperature and climate forcings. a, Relative sea level (diamonds). b, Northern Hemisphere ice-sheet area (line) derived from summing the extents of the Laurentide, Cordilleran and Scandinavian (R. Gyllencreutz and J. Mangerud, personal communication) ice sheets through time. c, Atmospheric CO2 concentration. d, Global proxy temperature stack. e, Modelled global temperature stacks from the ALL (blue), CO2 (red) and ORB (green) simulations. Dashed lines show global mean temperatures in the simulations, using sea surface temperatures over ocean and surface air temperatures over land. f, Insolation forcing for latitudes 65o N (purple) and 65o S (orange) at the local summer solstice, and global mean annual insolation (dashed black). Error bars, 1s"

60174. skywatcher at 13:58 PM on 20 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       #1, to make a small addition to the moderator's comment, you have to ask yourself the following question: If Spencer is right, why do a whole range of estimates of climate sensitivity from palaeoclimate observations contradict him? Read Knutti and Hegerl 2008, and the SkS summary here. The thing about palaeoclimate and geological estimate of sensitivity is that they already include the total forcing by clouds and all other factors. Essentially, whenever we estimate climate sensitivity, whether from geological events millions of years ago, from the last glacial maximum, the Holocene, the last century, or recent volcanic eruptions, the results tend to be in the range about 2 to 5C per doubling CO2. If Spencer was right, an awful lot of observational evidence from a lot of different, independent lines of enquiry, quite apart from model data, has to be wrong. Additionally they all have to be wrong in the same direction, by approximately the same amount. Likely? And you'd still have to postulate a mechanism by which we have had glacial and interglacial episodes generated from small Milankovitch forcings. What is much, much more likely is that Spencer is as wrong on this as he has been on quite a number of climate-related matters.
60175. danielc at 12:07 PM on 20 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       Here is the image itself:
60176. danielc at 11:54 AM on 20 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       @ William Haas #134: The following quote from your post: "What is really missing in this article is a plot of the Milankovitch forcing during the time in question in high enough resolution to make any sense. From the best that I could find, change in solar irradiance caused by orbital cycling peaked in the north roughly a thousand years before the period that we are talking about and was decreasing during this period." Indicates that you did not actually read the article, or if you did, you completely missed the very clear, very simple chart of Milankovitch forcing and solar insolation for 65°N and 65°S from 22 kyr to 8kyr. It's figure 5f in the paper. It very clearly and obviously shows that insolation started from a N. Hemisphere minimum at about 22kyr, and steadily, continuously, and reasonably steeply increased from a value about 2.5% lower than the present insolation at the same latitude to a value nearly 10% greater than the present day at about 12 kyr. Here is another diagram from Berger and Loutre, 1991, via RealClimate... Insolation vs d18O the lowest part of the figure is the NH and SH insolation curve for the time period in question... Stop assuming, and read the paper(s).
60177. Uncle Ben at 11:50 AM on 20 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       I beg to differ. Spencer has simplified his argument and presents it better in his book "The great global warming blunder." I will counter only three of Trenbert's arguments: 1) how Spencer deduces that sensitivity has been exaggerated, not from models, but directly from satellite data; 2) what is a feedback; and 3) what purpose his simple model serves. 1) Sensitivity may be calculated from measurements of radiative energy imbalance dH/dt and sea temperature anomaly dT, both averaged globally. A linear regression of the former vs the latter yields a slope that has been interpreted as the reciprocal of a sensitivity metric. The basis for this method is the assumption that there is not any other significant forcing on the temperature anomaly than the radiative imbalance. The data are considered to be samples of a linear relationship between only two variables plus a large amount of noise. If there were another significant forcing variable x unacknowledged in this process, there would be an error in this method. A change in dT caused by a change in dx would be mistakenly attributed to dH/dt, making dH/dt more powerful a factor than it really is. That is exaggerated sensitivity. Spencer has demonstrated the existence of such a variable. He has connected the data points in the plot described above in the order of their measurement. This converts a set of points into a trajectory. The trajectory typically consists of a repeated alternation between two forms: a messy, loopy curve and a remarkably straight line. That alone strongly suggests two kinds of process which alternate in strength. Spencer interprets this kind of trajectory as an alternation between the slow radiative process of warming the oceans upper layer and the rapid non-radiative process by which the upper layer creates clouds. Candidates for the non-radiative sources of the latter are ocean currents related to ENSO and PDO, which heat or cool the air and moisten or dry it. Clouds created by these sources vary over time in shielding power unpredictably, causing variation of their shading, which creates a radiative forcing. These clouds are not created by contemporaneous solar heating and cooling. More than one forcing? That creates error. It is on the basis of this analysis that Spencer concludes that sensitivity has been exaggerated. 2) Trenbert denies that the second process described above is a forcing. Spencer follows the convention of engineers saying that there is one dependent variable, T, in this system. Feedback is a temperature change caused by a temperature change. Everything else that affects temperature is forcing. Clouds are forcing in this nomenclature. But that is irrelevant. Call it what you will, it exaggerates sensitivity. 3) Spencer's little model is not intended to model the atmosphere of the earth. It is a mini-model that shows that a system of a radiative forcing and a non-radiative forcing creates trajectories of the kind that can be seen in the satellite data, plotted with connections. It is a demonstration of the concept. It is especially useful in that it demonstrates how a simple system with given negative feedback can produce results that appear to involve positive feedback.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Your #1 merely unsupportedly reiterates Spencer's mantra that clouds cause ENSO. This is not supported by the peer-reviewed literature published in reputable journals.

       Your #2 is specious. Climate science is what we are discussing, not engineering.

       Your #3 is indeed a demonstration of concept, but one not supported by the literature (as noted above) nor by reality itself.

60178. Michael Whittemore at 11:35 AM on 20 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       I see another post of Haas trying to suggest a little bit of warming in the north is going to cause water vapour to cover the Earth and raise global temperatures. But I guess Tom will just say he is “correct” and this warming seen in the north is part of a “global average”. The simple fact is, water vapour feedback is a local event and the warming only happened in the north, it was not a global forcing at all. Yet lets look at Haas most resent comment below. “if the global average temperature rose than water vapour average values rose […] Therefore during this time an increase in water vapour content would have increased heat retention in the atmosphere” Another fine example of Haas trying to suggest that the warming before the seesaw event was global, and it was caused by water vapour. I think skeptical science is going to have to edit some of their myths if he is “correct” again.
60179. skywatcher at 09:57 AM on 20 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Steve Case #44, while you continue to wilfully fail to comprehend four points, there is little more to say: 1: you wilfully seem to fail to understand the concept of reservoirs, and how they modulate water flows between wet seasons (years) and dry seasons (years). Glaciers are natual reservoirs. 2: you wilfully avoid the fact that in some parts of the world, it does not rain at all for many months at a stretch. Below is a climate graph for Dehradun in north India, where the main monsoonal precipitation comes in just two or three months of the year. The other nine or 10 months it is desert dry. 3: you wilfully avoid the possibility that rivers can and do run dry in dry seasons, if there is no continuing supply of water to feed them. Ground water only feeds a river for so long without replenishment. It's not something people living in temperate latitudes are used to, where rain tends to fall all year round to some extent, and so surface runoff and groundwater supplies are regularly replenished. You might want to research intermittent stream, arroyo, wadi, wash, winterbourne, torrente - different names around the world of streams that do not flow all year round. 4: As repeatedly pointed out to you, a warming planet does have increased precipitation, but not everywhere uniformly. It's often a case of The wet get wetter, the dry get drier. Reliability of rainfall is not something to get used to in the future. If you cannot put these four things together and thus appreciate the value of dry-season glacier runoff for places like northern India, then there is little anyone here can do to help you.
60180. William Haas at 09:22 AM on 20 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       87 Tom Curtis Again thanks for yours and everyone elses efforts. What is really missing in this article is a plot of the Milankovitch forcing during the time in question in high enough resolution to make any sense. From the best that I could find, change in solar irradiance caused by orbital cycling peaked in the north roughly a thousand years before the period that we are talking about and was decreasing during this period. There are those who argue that Milankovitch forcing is not strong enough to do much of anything but I am just going to assume that Milankovitch cycling started the whole thing. Clearly the Milankovitch could have only triggered the climate change but not sustain it because the Milankovitch forcing in the north was decreaseing during the entire 2,500 years but temperatures were increasing. I understand that the orbital cycling did not change the total earth irradiance, just the balance so that Artic summers would have recieved a little more sun light and hence a better oportunity to melt some ice. During this 2.500 year period, according to the article, CO2 levels did not rise but temperatures did rise. According to green house gas theory models, if the global average temperature rose than water vapor average values rose. Water vapor is the green house gas that causes the majoriety of the green house gas heat trapping effect. Therefore during this time an increase in water vapor content would have increased heat retention in the atmosphere which would have caused temperatures to rise even further. If this did not happen then the green house gas effect models that are used today to predict global warming must be incorrect. It is not clear that this water vapor effect had any real effect on climate change. I think that what allowed climate change during this period to be triggered were varations in ocean currents. I think that albedo change and unknowns had some effect but it was ocean currents that caused the the climate to trigger. During the age of the dinasours North and South America were not connected so world ocean currents were much different especially around the equator. It was after North and South America became connected that current ice age cycles began to ocour. The oceans of the world act as a huge non-linear thermal capacitor. We could be looking at some sort of natural frequency of the oceans. Most of the analysis of this data that I have seen does not get much further then simple correlation analysis. I think that work should be done to try to detect phemonenon such as orbital cycles and to compute climate change transfer functions. Who knows what phenomena may be detectable if the appropriate analysis is performed. I do not think that transfer function analysis will be of any value to predict the weather but climate change is a whole different game. No I do not think that water vapor changes alone can cause anything beyond changes in local weather. The climate is not going to spontaneously change because of a chance riae in relative humidity. I do not believe that our climate is inhaently unstable because of green house gas positive feedback and I assume that it has not been modeled as such.
60181. John Russell at 08:21 AM on 20 April 2012
       Global Surface Warming Since 1995
       In my arguments with them, I think I've see where the average fake sceptic goes wrong with these graphs. The problem seems to me that most of them basically draw a line across the top of all the peaks and then claim there's been no warming. In reality, of course, the peaks represent a only small percentage of the warming going on and it's the bulk of time between the peaks and troughs, when there is a steady but unspectacular rise in average temperatures, that tells the real story.
60182. scaddenp at 07:50 AM on 20 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       jsk - yes, one of the many expensive options that go into costing adaptation. One question though. Who should pay for these dams? The people dependent on the water, or the people responsible for changing the atmosphere?
60183. BKsea at 07:26 AM on 20 April 2012
       Global Surface Warming Since 1995
       To me the most egregious misrepresentation of Santer is taking the statement that 17 years of data coverage are needed to compute a trend and then using two individual monthly points separated by 17 years to show no change. These are not even close to the same thing.
60184. jzk at 07:12 AM on 20 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Sphaerica @48, Unless humans respond by building reservoirs.
60185. muoncounter at 06:16 AM on 20 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Steve Case #47: Nonsense; I make no mention of the 'source.' The source is irrelevant - what matters is that many people derive their freshwater from meltwater-fed rivers. Both references I've posted here and here suggest the same thing: Take away the water impounded as snow and ice and you go thirsty. It would be beneficial to the discussion if you could produce some source material to support your opinions. "Just because a glacier is gone or becomes static, doesn't mean the rain and snow that falls won't continue to flow there." I have no idea what that even means. However, if you are suggesting that glacial meltwater falls as precipitation solely on the same catchment, you are sorely mistaken. Compiled by UNEP's Polar Research Centre GRID-Arendal and experts from research centers in Asia, Europe, Latin America and North America, the report says the larger glaciers may take centuries to disappear but many low-lying, smaller glaciers, which are often crucial water sources in dry lands, are melting much faster. -- emphasis added
60186. dana1981 at 04:21 AM on 20 April 2012
       Global Surface Warming Since 1995
       Slioch @3 - the question here is whether it's warming, not the causes of that warming. That quote may not be clear, but it's correct.
60187. Bob Lacatena at 04:09 AM on 20 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Steve, If I may, the important thing to remember is that for all intents and purposes a glacier (in terms of water supplies) is like a reservoir. It holds a vast amount of water. In times of increased precipitation the amount of water it holds can grow. In times of decreased precipitation the amount of water is holds will shrink, but its mere existence continues to provide water to human communities with a fairly steady flow. It is only the complete destruction (evaporation or physical drainage) of a reservoir that spells trouble, even if the amount of precipitation remains the same, because without the reservoir, the water is not necessarily there for the taking when you need it. The same thing applies to water fed to communities or ecosystems by glaciers. Glaciers are like regulators. When precipitation is high, they trap the water for later. When precipitation is low they continue to deliver water at a steady rate. When the glacier is gone, this natural regulation goes away with it. The reservoir is gone, and the inhabitants must live or die at the mercy of the uneven nature of the weather.

       ...receding glaciers have consequences, such as ... disappearing fresh water supplies for billions of people.

       Does that statement make more sense now, given this context?
60188. Steve Case at 04:08 AM on 20 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       muoncounter at 03:11 AM on 20 April, 2012 In a round about way you are making the argument that the glaciers are the source of fresh water. Precipitation and nothing else is the source. And you know what the IPCC says about precipitation in a warmer world. You tell me that we can't count on precipitation falling on the same areas that were dependent on glacial melt for their freshwater. (-snip-). Glacier melt snowmelt or rain may very well flow to an arid region. Just because a glacier is gone or becomes static, doesn't mean the rain and snow that falls won't continue to flow there.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Now you are just being argumentative. Precipitation is the source of glacial mass. In a warming world, glacial accumulation zones shrink and their ablation zones increase. Glaciers are declining in mass with much greater losses to come.

       All of this has been pointed out to you previously, but still you persist in what amounts to an agenda of stubbornness and patent refusal to learn.

       Off-topic diversions snipped.

       Just because answers and information are provided to Steve doesn't mean that he will then deign to learn from it.

60189. Slioch at 03:53 AM on 20 April 2012
       Global Surface Warming Since 1995
       re "The term essentially means "we can't rule out the possibility that it isn't warming." I don't think that is a very clear way of expressing what "not statistically significant warming" means in this context. I would prefer to say, "we can't rule out the possibility that the observed warming was caused by relatively short-term natural factors rather than by the long-term effects of human actions."
60190. muoncounter at 03:11 AM on 20 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Steve Case#44: "I object..." The issue here is not seasonal melt that clearly provides fresh water. The issue is long term loss of ice mass - and that fresh water is on its way to being salt water. These concerns are stated very clearly: “Glaciers serve as a natural regulator of regional water supplies,” ... "Glacier changes, especially recent melting, can affect agriculture, drinking water supplies, hydroelectric power, transportation, tourism, coastlines, and ecological habitats." ... ... as the world’s glaciers continue to melt and shrink, over time there will be less water to sustain the communities that have come to depend on that meltwater. This seems an obvious point; what is the basis for your continued objection? "in a warmer world there will be more precipitation. " Once again, indeed. But you cannot count on that increased precipitation falling on the same areas that were dependent on glacial melt for their freshwater.
60191. Bob Lacatena at 02:57 AM on 20 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       43, Steve, While I won't discount your experiment as uninteresting or useless, it does little to add to an understanding of the problem. In a nutshell, looking through your comments, your understanding of glaciers is insufficient and is tainted with 'real world, common sense' assumptions that are in many cases wrong or at best incomplete. If the topic interests you as much as it seems, I'd suggest that you spend an afternoon looking for (reputable) information on what glaciers are and how they work. They're a fascinating, varied and surprising area of study. It's well worth the time spent. Then, armed with a better understanding of the complex mechanics behind glaciers and their behaviors, you can revisit some of the scientific statements concerning how they will be impacted by climate change, in order to arrive at a better understanding of what those statements mean and eventually to arrive at a point where you can answer your own questions.
60192. Steve Case at 02:38 AM on 20 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       skywatcher at 10:26 AM on 18 April, 2012 You of course have a point. If the snow in the mountains varies year to year some of that variability will be reflected in the runoff. A 100% direct relationship or something less? Do natural and manmade impoundments modify the flow? How about ground water? Besides, there are lots of watersheds that don't have glaciers or very large ones and people live there. Is this "Problem" so absolutely crucial that I must change my life style? Just remember this conversation started out because LarryM wrote in Global Warming in a Nutshell that receding glaciers have consequences, such as disappearing fresh water supplies for billions of people. I object to the claim that fresh water supplies will disappear for billions of people because of receding glaciers. And once again, the IPCC tells us that in a warmer world there will be more precipitation.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "And once again, the IPCC tells us that in a warmer world there will be more precipitation."

       And, once again, you take an overly simplistic view of things. As was pointed out to you earlier (did you not read it?), some areas will stay the same, some will further dry and some will get even wetter.

       In the case of the Himalayas, much of the area (if not all) is projected to receive both less precipitation and to warm even more.

       Precipitation Changes:

       

       [Source]

       PDSI Changes:

       

       [Source]

60193. Steve Case at 02:15 AM on 20 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Philippe Chantreau at 09:48 AM on 18 April, 2012 I ran two variables, all with the same volume of snow and same weather conditions. I packed snow into two identical plastic tubs and weighed them to make sure the same mass of snow was in each. One went in the freezer, the other the microwave to melt the snow. Then it went in the freezer when it was frozen out they came and went on the wall. I did the same with loosely packed or fluffy snow. Fluffy snow melted faster than the same mass of ice and packed snow melted slower. The different volume you see is that of the ice, the loosely packed fluffy snow produced a smaller volume of ice. The test ran over several days. You assert that there are no useful results from I did. What experiments have you done? What experiments have you found in the literature addressing the issue that are useful? If the moderators know of a more appropriate thread for this topic, I would appreciate their input.
60194. KR at 23:13 PM on 19 April 2012
       GISTEMP: Cool or Uncool?
       Kevin C - It would also be interesting to look at distance correlation factors per band in the RSS/UAH data, to see whether the regions not covered could be extrapolated as per the GISS data. And to see what that extrapolation might indicate. My guess would be that both would shift to higher trends if polar regions were considered as well, as opposed to left out as they are now.
60195. muoncounter at 22:43 PM on 19 April 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Manny's argument, if it can be called one, cuts both ways. Here is an extraordinary claim: We can burn fossil fuels without regard to our impact on the global environment. Where is the extraordinary evidence that supports this extraordinary claim? Or do we just carry on with business as usual, on the sole basis of 'that's what we've always done'? Particularly when we know without question that our actions do indeed impact the environment in both directions - see ozone, smog, the Black Triangle, the Clean Air Act, Asian brown clouds, etc.
60196. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:32 PM on 19 April 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       John, I'm working on the intermediate rebuttal so I'll update this one once I've finished it. Not sure if this has been posted on here, but here's Steven Amstrup's view on the misreporting/misrepresentation of the recent report published by the government of Nunavut.
60197. Nimbin Hippie at 21:33 PM on 19 April 2012
       Cliff Ollier: Swimming In A Sea of Misinformation
       Getting back to Ollier's article, he says "Port Macquarie Hastings Council was recommending the enforcement of a "planned" retreat because of alleged danger from sea-level rise". Actually the Council hasn't made any recommendation at all. The consultant engineers' report is still on exhibition, and it is about beach and dune erosion. Sea-level rise is only mentioned as another factor which may or may not make erosion worse. The Port Macquarie News has been dealing with the issue in a calm and factual way. When the Australian published its first article with the theme of callous Council to boot out frail old couple after bad advice based on dodgy sea-level models then all reasonable discussion ended. Ollier's article is also remarkable as it manages to convey the idea that the CSIRO relies only on models instead of actual observed data. The tide gauge at Darwin ceases to exist. "Where is this place?" He also attempts to refute the observations at a specific site by bringing in an irrelevant world satellite mean, when as fig. 7 above shows, there is good agreement between satellite and tide gauge in this region.
60198. Kevin C at 20:03 PM on 19 April 2012
       GISTEMP: Cool or Uncool?
       WheelsOC: The UAH dataset description gives coverage as from 85S to 85N, excluding some terrain over 1500m - coverage is poor over the "Tibetian Plateau, Antarctica, Greenland and the narrow spine of the Andes". While TLT temperatures are not directly comparable to surface temperatures, it would certainly be very interesting to see how the maps compare. It would be interesting from a social perspective to publish a HadCRUT3 dataset with a coverage bias correction derived from the UAH and/or RSS data. In fact there is scope for a range of indices of this kind and a suite of online analysis tools which provide a uniform view across all the data in any combination. And I guess (and this is not my native field, so my guesses are wrong more often than not) that the agreement will be much better than the current incomplete data. We could also do a mix-and-match on land and ocean series. This is beginning to sound like real research rather than a part time blog effort though. I guess I should look at funding channels for public engagement with science·
60199. Michael Whittemore at 17:36 PM on 19 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       @Tom Curtis It would seem I have to make myself clear, I was talking about the Milankovitch cycle affection the 30-60N region and that I don’t think the cooling you pointed out was caused by it. I also disagree that what Hass said is correct. The Milankovitch cycle did not warm a body of ocean that released CO2, there was no forcing involved that warmed the southern ocean which caused the release of CO2. The Milankovitch cycle was a trigger, a very small one at that. I stand by my point regarding CO2 being the only real forcing occurring. The orbit change and the stop of the AMOC did not add in substantial forcing, it really only caused an energy imbalance that would have corrected itself over time. I think Haas is wrong when saying H2O played any major part in a global forcing. H2O did not add anything to the energy system. I know that when there was a build up of warm ocean water in the south due to the AMOC stopping, water vapor would have played a part in the warming process, which eventually released CO2, but regarding the actual forcing that caused an actual global warming, CO2 is the only major added forcing. I understand that everything you have said is correct Tom, I just don’t give Haas the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his misguided comments.
60200. chuckbot at 16:30 PM on 19 April 2012
       Global Surface Warming Since 1995
       Oh dear, it's C3Headlines. They seem to be a comedy goldmine. For example, this: http://topologicoceans.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/graphing-out-loud-curves-and-lines/ and this: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/some-questions-for-rutan/

Prev  1196  1197  1198  1199  1200  1201  1202  1203  1204  1205  1206  1207  1208  1209  1210  1211  Next