Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 Next
Comments 61001 to 61050:
-
John Hartz at 06:16 AM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Albatross: Perhaps you should take Dr Roger Pielke Sr.'s statement about Anthony Watts with a grain of salt? They are, after all, bossom buddies pursuing a common agenda. -
Albatross at 05:15 AM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Dr. Lu should contact Mr. Anthony Watts and ask him to please correct the glaring error on WUWT. Mr. Anthony Watts, proudly declared that this paper was vindication of his long held belief that the Medieval climate anomaly was global. Mr. Anthony Watts: "Yes, I know, I covered it first: The Medieval Warm Period was Global" Will Mr. Watts, in the interest of scientific integrity and robustness, correct the error? Dr. Pielke Senior maintains that "I have worked with Anthony and he is devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness", if that is true, Mr. Watts will respect Dr. Lu's wishes and correct the record, and refrain in the future from perpetuating scientifc myths. -
John Hartz at 05:02 AM on 31 March 2012Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
For an informative update on status of the proposed Keystone pipeline, check out: “Climate Change Disappears from Keystone XL Pipeline Debate” by Lisa Song, Inside Climate News, Mar 29, 2012 -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:47 AM on 31 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
"I suspect Spencer would blow a fuse at this level of misrepresentation." Which is fitting since, as we all know, "blowing a fuse" is what happens when a wire designed to melt under certain conditions meets these conditions... :-) -
Tom Curtis at 04:29 AM on 31 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
It is not often I am moved to defend Dr Spencer's reputation, but in this case I can make an exception. What Dr Spencer said, that has been misinterpreted by BernhardB, was:"The more you can reduce the rate of energy loss to the cold walls, the hotter the plate will get. Yes, the surrounding objects act to control the rate at which the plate can lose energy. I have no idea what happens if you can keep the plate from losing energy at all….I suspect the heater wire melts "
I say misinterpreted because Dr Spencer is clearly discussing the case of no heat loss. The only way a convection based heat sink place in a vacuum would lose no heat is if all external surfaces emitted no thermal radiation. Of course, if they did that, then there would be no "back radiation" between adjacent fins of the heat sink so BernhardB's thought experiment would not hold. So BernhardB has taken a correct explanation by Spencer, applied it to a situation that does not satisfy the conditions Spencer specified, and then claimed that Spencer's prediction would fail, and that Spencer was talking nonsense when the prediction fails outside of the conditions in which it applies. I suspect Spencer would blow a fuse at this level of misrepresentation. Which brings me to the second point. BernardH claims that the only way the wire can be melted is by increasing the voltage. Given the large number of industrial applications for melting wires by increasing the resistance while holding the voltage constant, his claim is simply false. Perhaps the most common of those applications is electrical arc welding (most commonly as MIG welding), but others abound.
(Image from wikipedia)
So far BernardH shows that his arguments depend on not just miscomprehending the physics, but a complete failure to understand how common industrial processes and computer components works. It is not the esoteric, but the commonplace that shows BerhardH is ...
(Image from BernhardB)
Well, you get the idea.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:16 AM on 31 March 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
I note that, although Monckton could argue that he was not aware of the glaring faults of the V&T piece at the time he spoke, he should have known that there was already a correction factor in the paper multiplying costs, if he had actually read it attentively. Considering how egregious the whole thing was, I wonder if it is possible to introduce a formal complaint to the legislative body/committe that was involved in this pathetic display. You probably could not establish outright intention to deceive without a doubt but could easily demonstrate negligence. I mean it is as if he did not completely read the paper, and the said paper has been rather thoroughly demolished since it first appeared. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:03 AM on 31 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
BernhardB your misunderstanding about radiators has been addressed. Since you ignored my earlier comment, I'll ask you again the question, which was also asked before to other GHE deniers on this thread: if there is no radiative GH effect, where does the downwelling IR measured at the surface come from? No GHE denier has yet come up with a good answer, perhaps you have one. -
Martin Lack at 22:32 PM on 30 March 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
Since Lord Monckton hassled me to retract a carelessly-worded comment I made about him in my Lindzen complaint to MIT, it seemed only fair to reciprocate with an email to him today... Dear Lord Monckton, That's another fine mess you've got yourself in to With reference to your recent presentation to 5 members of the California State legislature, can you please advise me as to where and when you shall be publishing your apology for so grievously misrepresenting the supposed costs (and ignoring all the benefits) of sensible GHG emission reductions policies? [hypertext link to this page] I can't wait to read Part 2 of Dana Nuccitelli's report; and am tempted to consider that it may be time for me to write a Part 2 of my own report. Regards, Martin Lack -
Phil at 21:14 PM on 30 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
BernhardB @1396: I thought it`s rather humorous, that Roy Spencer did not realize that in any resistive heating wire the resistance (Ohms) increases with the temperature and drop the current, ergo limits the amperes that can possibly flow through his heater wire preventing the wire from melting. The only way to heat the wire to a higher temperature would be to increase the Voltage ! does however speak volumes how poor Spencer`s understanding of power expressed in watts is. Just to be clear, Spencer's misunderstanding is not "of power expressed in watts" but a misunderstanding of the properties of metals. Changes in conductivity with temperature depend very much on the material being heated, as a simple Google search will inform. Obviously this is just one (of many) places where Spencer's analogy breaks down - but of course all analogies break down if you push them far enough. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:48 PM on 30 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
BernhardB writes "Then I would like to know why the fins on power transistor heat sinks don`t "back radiate" each other into a China Syndrome melt down." I would have thought that was pretty obvious. Assuming the fins are identical and adjacent fins on the heatsink will be at approximately the same temperature, their radiation will be identical. In the worst case, all of the energy radiated by a fin will be absorbed by a neighbouring fin. In this case, fin C will absorb half the radiation emitted by fin B and half emitted by fin D. However this sums of this incoming radiation equals the energy radiated from fin C in the first place. As there is no net gain in radiative energy then fin C stays at the same temperature. However, in practice, not all of the energy is absorbed by the neighbouring fins, a lot of it is radiated away into space, which is why heatsinks are used to cool things. As others have already pointed out, heatsinks still work in space without convection by increasing surface area and emissivity. This isn't exactly rocket science, just a simple bit of accounting. -
Tom Curtis at 18:37 PM on 30 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
BernhardB @1396 makes a rhetorical point about the superfluous nature of fans in space, clearly ignoring the fact that the illustration in question was related to the operation of heat sinks in atmospheres. He also makes several unsubstantiated claims about the design of satellites. This appears designed to evade discussion of the operation of heat sinks at the Earth's surface on which he makes no comment. Frankly, I find BernhardB's discussion of satellite design dubious at best. The multi-finned heat sinks used on Earth bound electronic components would constitute so much waste mass in space, and as low mass is critical to keeping launch costs down, I doubt any aerospace engineer would be so negligent as to use them. Rather, they are likely to use heat pipes, and axially grooved heat pipes (such as those shown below) to conduct excess heat to external radiators: Heat Pipes
Axially Grooved Heat Pipes (cross section)
Heat pipes work by being partially filled by a volatile liquid. Heat evaporates the liquid which then quickly carries the heat the external radiator where it cools and condenses. Surface tension keeps the resulting liquid in contact with the walls of the pipe, and thereby transports it back to the heat source. In axially grooved pipes, the grooves introduce a capillary effect, thereby improving the transport of the fluid back to the heat source. Note the single fin on the right hand Grooved Heat Pipe, which by increasing surface area improves radiative cooling.
With regard to the internal or external deployment of heat sinks, some may well be internal. Many satellites operate on surprisingly little power so that heat accumulation is not a problem and an internal heat sink (or no heat sink at all) may be adequate. However, some require more robust solutions:
"Dissipation of the heat generated by increasingly powerful satellite electronics presents inherent challenges. Today’s satellite applications, especially in the military sector, demand increasingly powerful functionality and a wider variety of electronics, which must be accommodated within a limited space. The drawback of increasing the number and power of electronics components is the generation of increasing amounts of heat while the available exterior surface area of the satellite —— through which the heat is rejected to space —— remains constant at best. Satellite designers and engineers rarely if ever have the luxury of increasing the exterior surface area of a satellite to improve heat rejection; and in many cases, any such increases would quickly be overtaken by increasing heat created by next generation electronics. As heat increases, the thermal devices used to dissipate the heat must transfer the heat effectively in any orientation and in the absence of gravity. Finally, satellite thermal solutions must operate under conditions in which maintenance and repairs are not possible, making flawless reliability a critical factor. To meet these challenges, thermal engineers are turning to deployable radiators. These occupy minimal space on the satellite surface until deployment in orbit, to create increased surface area for heat dissipation."
(Source) So, to summarize, BernhardH makes false assumptions about the nature of heat sinks in space. In assuming that they have the same design as those used in earthbound electronic instruments, he makes a similar mistake to somebody who assumes that heat sinks in computers must be full of small tubes through which water is pumped just because they serve the same function as radiators in cars. He also falsely assumes that waste heat is radiated into the interior of satellites, whereas in fact, if heat is a significant problem it is radiated to space. Based on these two false assumptions he assumes that the actual design features of heat sinks are designed to work in a vacuum, despite obvious facts to the contrary (see my previous post). From this chain of errors he unsurprisingly comes up with false conclusions. -
Riccardo at 17:43 PM on 30 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
One more example of a denier giving "skeptics" a bad name, to borrow Fred Singer's wording. "It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics" and indeed the 2nd law of thermodynamics is maybe the most misunderstood law of physics, probably because it's only apparently simple but its consequences go far beyond the too common superficial (mis)understanding. -
Rob Painting at 16:39 PM on 30 March 2012Falling Cloud Height In the Last Decade: Is It Just ENSO?
Barry - must have been that hacker! Now, fixed. But the hyperlink facility (for the Davies & Molloy paper) is not yet operational. -
BernhardB at 15:36 PM on 30 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
No Sir it`s not me that made the assertion of a "run-away melt down". Roy Spencer is the one who claims that the "back radiation" would eventually heat the heated plate to a point where the heater wire would burn out. Please do read his (350) responses and You shall find him saying so. I mentioned it because I thought it`s rather humorous, that Roy Spencer did not realize that in any resistive heating wire the resistance (Ohms) increases with the temperature and drop the current, ergo limits the amperes that can possibly flow through his heater wire preventing the wire from melting. The only way to heat the wire to a higher temperature would be to increase the Voltage ! That does however speak volumes how poor Spencer`s understanding of power expressed in watts is. I also want to point out, that satellites are not pressurized with any gas and even if You were to mount the consequentially superfluous cooling fan as shown in the PC power supply pictures chosen by Tom Curtis You would not have any convection helping to cool the components on a heat sink. Also all electronic components on modern satellites are modular & "plug in boxed" and not mounted anywhere on or near the vehicle shell where any such heat sink could radiate directly to the outside (into space). Heat sinks have been thoroughly researched and engineered for maximum efficiency, especially so for space exploration, BECAUSE there is no convection available to help cool high power components ! If "back radiation" from a colder to a hotter body were indeed a problem, then You would not find a single heat sink where the fins are arranged perfectly parallel to "mirror" heat at each other. -
Dave123 at 13:22 PM on 30 March 2012Falling Cloud Height In the Last Decade: Is It Just ENSO?
I don't have the reference immediately available but there's something out there pre-publication that says that clouds 'droplet' or 'drizzle' components has been underestimated compared to what is measured, and cloud's positive feed back is underestimated therefor in climate models. Wish I could remember where I saw it. -
muoncounter at 12:50 PM on 30 March 2012It's the sun
Philippe - does this mean that down-welling IR can be measured? But if the GHE doesn't exist, how can that be possible? Interesting that they're seeing >300 W/m^2 with an air temperature of 40F. That's after a couple of days of high humidity and relatively low solar input - it's been cloudy. Could clouds be a positive feedback? Note- the linked figures are for 3/23-3/30. They may change to keep current. -
muoncounter at 12:35 PM on 30 March 2012Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum 2012 (the paper under discussion since this comment) find a negative correlation between solar cycle length (SCL) and temperature change. Shouldn't we look to see if this correlation is consistent? Referring to Figure 1 from this paper, the graph posted here, the early cycles (1680-1790) are shorter. This was the guts of the Little Ice Age, so short cycles -> cooling. However, Vaquero and Trigo 2012 report an interesting point: We have reconstructed the SCL (average duration of 10.72 \pm 0.20 years) during the MCA using observations of naked-eye sunspot and aurora sightings. Thus, solar activity was most probably not exceptionally intense ... Looking again at the graph, 10.7 years would be very comfortable during those LIA years. However, the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) was a warm period - indeed, in its former identity as the MWP, it is the warm period vital to so manydenia'skeptic' arguments. So once again, a so-called 'skeptic argument' - solar cycle length - runs both hot and cold. It can be used to justify warming and cooling, as needed to suit the needs of the moment. -
scaddenp at 12:16 PM on 30 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
BernardB also seems to think backradiation leads to a runaway (meltdown). Positive feedback != runaway. Moving the cooler to vacuum (so convection taken away - as well as most of the effectiveness of the heatsink), and you have a situation close to the one discussed at Science of Doom. Ie two stars side by side. However Science of Doom does the maths. You could do the same for the heatsink and see how much difference the backradiation makes. -
Tom Curtis at 11:33 AM on 30 March 2012Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
BernarB @25, see here. -
Tom Curtis at 11:33 AM on 30 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
BernardB @9:30 AM, March 30th on the Sun Cycle Length page asks why heat sinks on electronic components work if back radiation warms the surface. Supposedly the "back radiation" between opposing fins in the heat sink would result heat simply being recycled in the unit. At a minimum, BernardB's reasoning is specious on the minimal grounds that the heat sink will still radiate thermal energy away from itself. It is true that the effective surface area for a heat sink relying purely on thermal radiation for cooling would be no larger than that of a solid box of the same dimensions, but that surface area is still much larger than that of the CPU (or other electronic component) the heat sink is designed to cool, and the the emissivity of the heat sink is potentially much higher than that of the chip. Consequently a heat sink provides significant gains in cooling relative to the computer chip by itself even if forced to rely exclusively on thermal radiation. In space, that cooling by thermal radiation would be more efficient provided it is not exposed to direct sunlight. That is because on Earth, within the computer casing the heat sink is exposed to back radiation of approx 390 W/m^2 in all directions from bodies at the ambient surface temperature. In space the "back radiation" when not exposed to direct sunlight is effectively at the temperature of the cosmic background radiation of 2.7 degrees K, or about 3 millionth of a Watt per meter squared. In practice that means the heat sink would radiate heat away at 390 W/m^2 faster than would an equivalent heat sink on the Earth's surface. More fundamentally BernardB is neglecting the fact that heat sinks work be convection. The air (or other fluid medium) between the fins is heated up primarily by contact with the fins. Because the it is then warmer, it then rises carrying the heat away far more efficiently than would radiative transfer. Because the initial transfer of heat is by conduction, the greater the surface area the greater the heat, hence the fins, which are always (or nearly always) oriented vertically for improved convective flow.
With large modern PCs, even this process is insufficient and fans are placed above the heat sink to force the airflow greatly increasing cooling efficiency. The presence of the fan noise you can almost certainly hear as you read this is proof that BerarnB's understanding of the operation of heat sinks is faulty.
An exception to the use of fans is found in some modern PCs which are filled with oil. The greater heat capacity of oil relative to air allows convection to continue to cool the heat sinks effectively, thereby eliminating noise and saving on power (and CO2 emissions). For more on the operation of heat sinks, see here and here. For more on oil filled computers, see here.
-
barry1487 at 10:47 AM on 30 March 2012Falling Cloud Height In the Last Decade: Is It Just ENSO?
Rob, I'm a bit confused - the SMH article and the michael's piece are about the work done by the two NZ researchers, Davies and Molloy, but you write,The mainstream media, and 'skeptic' climate scientist Pat Michaels have jointly assumed the role of Chicken Licken and have likewise grossly misinterpreted a recent paper by two Auckland University researchers, Loeb (2012), Laken (2012)(not yet published) and Erlykin and Wolfendale (2010).
Have you edited out some text there? -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:46 AM on 30 March 2012It's the sun
"We can, when standing at the Earth surface, empirically measure longwave IR backradiation from the atmosphere, and there are posts on this site and elsewhere documenting this." Indeed composer. Martha's Vineyard Coastal Observatory, for instance has an hourly (I think) updated graph of downwelling IR. Just click on the link to Infared radiation. Simple as that. Considering there is always some level of IR, even at night, the GH effect deniers have some seriously contorted explaining to do. No doubt that some will try. I'm waiting for Bernhard's words on these observations. -
Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
BernhardB - Actually, the appropriate topic for your argument is the interminable Greenhouse effect and the 2nd Law thread. This is one of the classic 'skeptic' arguments, demonstrating serious shortcomings in physics knowledge, that quite frankly makes 'skeptics' look bad. Some have realized this - for example both Fred Singer and JoNova have weighed in, pointing out that this is a bad argument, and reflects (backradiates?) rather poorly on skeptics in general. -
Composer99 at 10:05 AM on 30 March 2012It's the sun
With regards to a comment by one BernhardB here, I am linking to this thread where it is more on topic (at least, I suspect so - if there is a better thread please do point it out). As a response, Bernhard, I am no physicist, but I would say this: We can, when standing at the Earth surface, empirically measure longwave IR backradiation from the atmosphere, and there are posts on this site and elsewhere documenting this. Just as we can empirically measure from orbiting satellites the effect heat-trapping (aka greenhouse) gases in the atmosphere have on outgoing longwave IR. I'm only marginally aware of what a heat sink for a power transistor is, but I gather from your derisive line Then I would like to know why the fins on power transistor heat sinks don`t "back radiate" each other into a China Syndrome melt down. that melt downs are not a common occurence among them. As such, I would suspect the issue is not with either power transistors, their heat sinks, or observed longwave IR backradiation. I would not be surprised if one of the more physics-educated commenters here has more to say. -
Composer99 at 09:57 AM on 30 March 2012Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
BernhardB: The thermometer on the upper right hand sidebar has the most common pseudoskeptic arguments, and includes "It's the Sun" which I suspect is strictly speaking a more appropriate thread for your comment since it appears to deal with the Sun in a more generic fashion. This post & comment thread is to do with the Friis-Christensen 1991 paper and further topical research. As such your comment appears to be off-topic for this thread. -
BernhardB at 09:17 AM on 30 March 2012Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
If it`s not the sun, was it a "positive back radiation feedback" as explained by Roy Spencer and used in the "Trenberth Energy budget"? Then I would like to know why the fins on power transistor heat sinks don`t "back radiate" each other into a China Syndrome melt down. The configuration to do so is even better than Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment". Here is a comparison: http://askbernhard.9f.com/ -
John Hartz at 08:46 AM on 30 March 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
funglestrumpet: Given the sparse turnout for Monckton's presentations, there's no need for SkS to make him the center of our attention. He's just a babbling brook in a very large forest. -
scaddenp at 08:10 AM on 30 March 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Perhaps time to look closely the supplementary material? here (rather more proxies, and note the sensitivity tests). Note that the AR4 predates this paper too. -
muoncounter at 07:28 AM on 30 March 2012Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
tompinlb You've clearly misread both the figures and the authors' Table 1. The trends are given in degrees per 100 years, not degrees per decade. Svalbard and Archangel are the only stations analyzed that give a reasonable northern hemisphere temperature trend (1.6 and 1.4 degrees per 100 years, respectively). "The stations selected by the authors show rates of change well in excess of the HadCRUT average." Comparing a few tightly clustered stations with the entire northern hemisphere HADCRUT is the specious argument. Running the HADCRUT trend back as far as 1850 when Svalbard begins in 1910 is the specious argument. Drawing conclusions from such weakly defined trends as are shown in the center panels of figures such as those shown here is the specious argument. Perhaps you should review the long list of the papers shown here. For example, Benestad 2005: ... further comparison with the monthly sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming.” Laut 2004: Analysis of a number of published graphs that have played a major role in these debates and that have been claimed to support solar hypotheses shows that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by incorrect handling of the physical data. Thejll and Lassen 2000: ... since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature. Finally, any prediction based on cycle analysis without an underlying physical mechanism is specious, which Google defines as "superficially plausible, but actually wrong." -
Phil M at 07:27 AM on 30 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
John@126 Yeah, figure of speech ;) -
John Hartz at 07:18 AM on 30 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
@Phil M: The SkS author team is unlikely to catch the perp. We're relying on Interpol to do so. -
funglestrumpet at 07:04 AM on 30 March 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
Let's put a great big digital clock counting the days we have waited in pregnant expectation for Monckton to issue a rebuttal to Peter Hadfields debunking of great swathes of his presentation material. If we put it somewhere prominent on the home page, no one visiting this site is going to let it slip their memory. If it were to contain links to Professor Abraham's excellent work as well as all of Peter Hadfield's extensive Monckton catelog, then it would ensure that old and new alike were properly informed as to the veracity of the English nobleman's presentation material. Build up a head of steam on the issue and Monckton will face a growing voice of well informed critism during his Q & A sessions and who knows what that might bring, all things considered. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:49 AM on 30 March 2012Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
tompinlb says "It would seem likely there are mechanisms, that are not yet understood by science, which operate to amplify changes in the solar forcings." These are called feedbacks and there is a sizeable litterature on the subject to say the least. They also have been abundantly discussed on SkS. If such mechanisms exist, why would they not also amplify other forcings than solar? Could they be selective as to the nature of the orignal forcing? How would that be possible? I note that tompinlb was recently arguing against the existence of the possible signature of a major feedback that certainly would be involved in amplification of solar changes (the tropospheric hot spot, possible evidence of water vapor feedback). -
geoffchambers at 06:47 AM on 30 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
John Mason #126 Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I believe you were polite, but rocks aren’t really my thing. The person I’d be interested in engaging with was the one who accused me of paying Exxon to let me troll for them. How did he know?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can we keep the discussion as good natured as possible, note the comments policy forbids inflamatory comments, and this thread could easily head in that direction if we are not carefull. Please can the discussion be confined to the issues rather than those taking part in the discussion. -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:33 AM on 30 March 2012Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
tompinlb Your last paragraph suggests that decadal scale forecasts are meaningful, however it is widely known that the internal variability of the climate (due to things like ENSO) is large compared to the expected trend due to GHGs, and I would expect also of solar influences. Making forecasts for station data is even less practical as the spatial averaging greatly attenuates the variance. If you want to suggest that the models lack forecasting skill, then you need to provide evidence that this is the case, rather than just boldly state it as a fact. Where there is suficient "test data", then the models perform pretty well (e.g. Hansen's original projections) Regarding your question "Is it not the case that over the last decade actual temperatures have increasingly diverged lower than the IPCC forecasts, all the while CO2 has been increasingly steadily?" This is a question that has been absolutely done to death. If CO2 were the only forcing and the internal variability of the climate were small, then yes it would be a surprise to see a lack of warming while CO2 levels are rising. However, neither of these assumptions are valid. Further discussion of this should be directed to a more appropriate thread, e.g. Global warming stopped in 1998 I offer this as well intentioned advice: You appear to be labouring under a number of misunderstandings about climate and model projections. Please before you post arguments, check what has already been discussed on these topics by reading the relevant posts on SkS. The list of most used climate myths at top left of the page would be a good place to start. -
ajbmilne at 06:29 AM on 30 March 2012It's CFCs
Lu has published another related article: http://journalofcosmology.com/QingBinLu.pdf Any comments on it, or on his claim that CO2 traces and temperature traces don't match for the years 1850-1930 or for his reported CO2 concentrations of 285-310 ppm? It seems to be in contradiction to other data on this site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Comparison.png Forgive me if these are questions that have been answered before, I'm new to the site. If they have been answered I'd appreciate being pointed to them. -
scaddenp at 06:16 AM on 30 March 2012Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
tompinlb - there is absolutely no doubt that the climate responds to changes in solar activity and that solar has been major influence in the past. The problem with the solar explanation for current warming is that the solar signal is more or less flat, unlike the past. Solar proponents ask us to believe that a warming comparable with holecene climatic optimum in NH is happening in both hemispheres but without the same solar signal. The signal is consistant with GHG forcings and completely out of scale to other mechanisms. Furthermore, there is the problem of explaining why the measured increase in GHG forcing somehow is not involved in the warming. Do you have a problem with the instruments doing the measurements? The idea that actual temperatures have "increasing diverged" from IPCC models is just denialist posturing. Some detail can be found here. Furthermore the Rahmstorf and Foster paper reveals the signal more clearly when natural variation is removed. While the natural variation estimates are indeed curve-fitting, the scale of change in the natural forcing considered (temperature diff compared to change in energy), is believable from physics point of view (unlike humlum's effort). -
tompinlb at 05:25 AM on 30 March 2012Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
Doug H@19. Sorry for the transcription error, I put the decimal point in the wrong place. The statement should have read, "The average for HadCRUT3N in this same table is shown as 0.047 degC per decade," so the Archangel Russia change of 0.14 degC per decade is 300 percent of the HadCRUT3N number. That is why it is specious to accuse the authors of selecting only stations that show little heating. The conundrum I see is this. There are many historic paleoclimate studies that show strong correlation between various records of solar activity and temperatures from many places on earth, from the tropics to the poles. The relationship between solar activity, as evidenced by sunspot counts, and cold temperatures in the Maunder, Dalton, etc. minima appear to be clear. The advocates of anthropogenic warming argue that solar influence is minimal because total solar insolation does not vary greatly. It would seem likely there are mechanisms, that are not yet understood by science, which operate to amplify changes in the solar forcings, otherwise how could the paleoclimate relationships between solar activity and global temperatures be so strong. If the evidence presented in this paper is not satisfactory, what would constitute "satisfactory evidence to support the allegation," as you say. Why do you conclude that "the apparent correlation is a curio, not more," and then compare it again to hemlines. The authors are making specific forecasts that temperatures will be cooler in the next solar cycle at these stations. Do the IPCC suite of climate models predict that it will be warmer in the next solar cycle? It is the case, is it not, that the IPCC models project major warming in the northern regions such as the Norway sites that are studied by these authors. I understand the IPCC models lack skill in making forecasts of future temperatures (as opposed to hindcasts, which anyone can do), which may be a function of poor parameterization of critical factors such as clouds and soil moisture, among others. Is it not the case that over the last decade actual temperatures have increasingly diverged lower than the IPCC forecasts, all the while CO2 has been increasingly steadily? Thanks for your insights. -
John Hartz at 05:17 AM on 30 March 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Suggested reading: “For Katharine Hayhoe, Climate Change Not a Leap of Faith”, Climate Central, Mar 29, 2012 -
climatehawk1 at 05:04 AM on 30 March 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
Here's the old Monckton bio with the Nobel Laureate information: archived Monckton bio -
r.pauli at 04:53 AM on 30 March 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
Monckton now embodies a tactical change in strategic denialism - the science arguments are being abandoned - to more acts of distraction and diversion. Ideologue to demagogue. -
Riccardo at 04:29 AM on 30 March 2012HadCRUT3: Cool or Uncool?
Tom we know that natural forcings, including solar, are able to explain much of the temperature change from about 1900 to 1950. We also know that the first about 100 m of ocean are well mixed on a yearly time scale, so I do not expect to see any difference in a 150 m ocean slab like in the SoD exercise. My speculation was about some other complex effect involving ocean circulation. Here is where our explanations meet. -
Tom Curtis at 03:47 AM on 30 March 2012HadCRUT3: Cool or Uncool?
Ricardo @28, Science of Doom has an extensive discussion of the difference of the ocean's response to heating by solar radiation and back radiation (substituting for the greenhouse effect). He gets down to the nitty-gritty in the fourth post in his series where he reports on a model analyzing the two cases:
In each case, the reported value is the average daily temperature for that layer in the model. The reason for the difference in the value of the forcing is that DLR operates 24/7, while solar is only present for approximately 12 hours of each day, with much reduced strengths in morning and evening. The values are chosen so that the total additional energy supplied is the same.
SOD comments:
"Now because the 4 year runs recorded almost identical values for solar vs DLR forcing, and because the results had not quite stabilized, I then did the 15 year run and also recorded the temperature to the 4 decimal places shown. This isn’t because the results are this accurate – this is to see what differences, if any, exist between the two different scenarios. The important results are: DLR increases cause temperature increases at all levels in the ocean Equivalent amounts of daily energy into the ocean from solar and DLR cause almost exactly the same temperature increase at each level of the ocean – even though the DLR is absorbed in the first few microns and the solar energy in the first few meters The slight difference in temperature may be a result of “real physics” or may be an artifact of the model"
As the slight differences amount to hundreds of a degree or less after fifteen years, I think we can agree that they are inconsequential, at least as an explanation of the change in the difference in the land and ocean temperature anomalies. Personally I think there is a simpler explanation. If global temperatures changed due to a temperature oscillation in the ocean, there would be no lag in ocean temperatures (by definition) and virtually no lag in land temperatures due to the low thermal mass involved (in relative terms). In contrast, a forced change will result in a change in the difference as the land, with its low thermal mass responds faster. A negative forcing will result in the difference in the anomalies falling, while a positive forcing will result in it rising. Looking at the plots above, it becomes apparent that there was a positive forcing from approximately 1890-1920, a weak negative forcing from 1930-1970, and a positive forcing significantly stronger than any previous sustained forcing on the record from 1970 to the present. The analysis is complicated in that a period of no forcing will result in the difference in the anomalies relaxing back to zero. Further, this analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative, and necessarily so without detailed model work. Never-the-less I would consider the information above prima facie evidence that the mid century temperature peak was at least in part non-forced. I base this claim on the fact that the difference in the anomalies is declining at the time of that peak. However, this is no comfort for the "it's all oceanic oscillations" crowd for the recent warming is clearly associated with a very strong positive forcing. As noted before, it is stronger than any forcing shown elsewhere on the record except for the brief excursions due to major volcanic events. An important additional caveat is that temperature records prior to 1950 are incomplete, and particularly so prior to 1880 so that prior to those dates noise is a significant factor. Also, of course, HadCRUT3 is now obsolete, and its flaws will also constitute noise on the record. -
Kevin C at 03:29 AM on 30 March 2012HadCRUT3: Cool or Uncool?
emosca11: Sorry, I wan't very clear. Pland and Pocean are defined such that they sum to 1, because they are the fraction of the sample taken from land and ocean respectively. The raw fractions of the Earth's surface will add up to less than 1, due to coverage. If we call these Fland and Focean, then Pland = Fland/(Fland+Focean) and Pocean=Focean/(Fland+Focean). If you try and reproduce my graph using just the coverage numbers from the HadCRUT distributed files, you will find that those numbers can go greater than one. That is the gridding issue which I describe in the article. -
Kevin C at 03:25 AM on 30 March 2012HadCRUT3: Cool or Uncool?
Steve:I don't know what to make of the sigmoid shape of the curve. Sorry, I thought I'd made it obvious. The shape of the HadCRUT difference curve is explained very well by just 2 known effects, and the process Riccardo explains above. Only very steep changes in forcing are anough to drag the land temperatures far away from the SSTs. All the features of the HadCRUT difference curve can therefore be explained by Krakatoa and the subsequent volcanoes (look at the stratospheric aerosol loadings on this plot) in 1880-1900, and the greenhouse warming overwhelming tropo aerosols post 1970. Looking for unexplained sinusoids without taking out the effect that we already know about is liable to give misleading results. -
Riccardo at 02:51 AM on 30 March 2012HadCRUT3: Cool or Uncool?
I don't think that the land minus ocean century scale trend has any particular meaning. I would have guessed that during a warming phase the difference should increase due to the slower response of the ocean. While this could qualitatively explain the increase from the '70s, that was not the case during the warming phase of the first half of the last century. Admittedly oversimplifying the picture, the difference between the two warming phases is the cause of the forcing, i.e the sun in one case and CO2 in the other. This in turn seems to point to the different wavelengths of the radiation involved, visible in the former and infrared in the latter. Apart from the albedo, land absorbs both (roughly) equally well. In the oceans, instead, IR radiation is absorbed at the surface and heat is spread through mixing while visible light directly spreads its energy throughout about 100 m. Is this relevant? I don't know, but if I were to research it I'd start here. -
barry1487 at 02:35 AM on 30 March 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
Chriskoz@4 - the link you can't follow goes to the SSPI personnel page. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html Monckton's bio there no longer includes the bit about being a Nobel Lureate, but you can see the original version in the PDF bill linked @7. -
DSL at 02:05 AM on 30 March 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
In mainstream climate news, The Weather Channel has, remarkably, placed a GW article on its front page. I haven't yet looked at the comment stream, and I'm not sure I have the patience for it today. The article itself is a general report on the IPCC extreme events statement. http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/ipcc-special-report-analysis_2012-03-28 -
Steve Case at 01:28 AM on 30 March 2012HadCRUT3: Cool or Uncool?
Kevin C #77801 I get pretty much the same curve you get for (CRUTEM3 - HADSST2) 1850 - 2010. I used the NCDC data because the sigmoid shape of the curve was so pronounced. But that same sigmoid shape is there with the CRU/HAD data. It's just not as pretty. You wrote: It looks like we have a big cooling event covering the period 1880-1900. Given the 60 month smooth, it would have to start around 1883. I don't know what to make of the sigmoid shape of the curve. I was interested in the trend when I set out to make the graph. I found out that the several degree gap between the warm ocean and the cooler atmosphere has narrowed by about 0.25°C over the last 160 years. The sigmoid shaped curve that appeared shows us that at times the gap widens. Take a look at the 50 year period from 1920 to 1970. I'm not offering up any theories and in my wonderings around the net I haven't seen any from any one else. -
muoncounter at 23:33 PM on 29 March 2012Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
"we must start with known facts - not a bunch of hypotheses inferred from data" One should never allow one's argument to become contaminated with facts (or data for that matter).
-- image linked to source page
800 years of minimal fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 (at what might be called a 'pre-industrial level'), followed by an abrupt upswing. Why would anyone base a hypothesis on that?
Prev 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 Next
