Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 Next
Comments 63301 to 63350:
-
skept.fr at 00:09 AM on 23 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
A layman question (from recent posts 63-72) : when a volume of ice melt (typically arctic sea-ice), it consumes energy but the phase transition from solid to liquid also changes the radiative property of the surface, with far less albedo in the new state of the system. How do you count (in energy balance from state S0 with ice to state S1 without ice) this radiative effect, quite different from sensible/latent heat distribution? -
John Brookes at 23:59 PM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
Monckton is so convincing, and so wrong. We are not trained to deal with someone who knows enough to lie convincingly, and then does so with great authority. I'm reminded of Julius Sumner Miller, who would ask a rhetorical question, and then if an audience member was dumb enough to attempt to answer, Julius would "correct" them with his enthusiastic "rigour". But he'd "correct" them, even if they were right... Of course, if you challenge Monckton later, and persist (as Peter Hadfield aka potholer54 has), he backs down. But its too late then, as the show is over, the theatre is dark and everyone has gone home. -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:56 PM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Eric (skeptic) I don't see how you have come to the conclusion in your first paragraph. The warming we should expect to see depends on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the magnitude or direction of fluxes that result in it being there. Unless climate sensitivity has changed, the similar amounts of CO2 radiative forcing will have similar effects on the climate. Please can you clarify. -
skept.fr at 23:55 PM on 22 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
#40 Rob : I agree with your points about the interannual variability of total forcing and, of course, the possibility of a decreasing (less positive) imbalance because of fossil depletion, either by natural constraint or by political choice. On the very same thematic, I think you should discuss on SkS the last Douglass and Knox paper . There are for me some interrogations: Why did they choose 0-700 m rather than 0-2000m? What is the importance of XBT / MBT / OSD / CDT instruments in the Levitus 2010 base they used? To which extent their "climate shifts" is nothing but the natural variability for very short term energy balance? Etc. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:31 PM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
This post demonstrates some misconceptions about the applicability of the paleo record ("if this gave us this, what will this give us?") In the paleo chart arming oceans were a net source of CO2 which provided positive feedback to the warming ("cyclical warming gave us CO2 which gave us more warming"). Currently oceans are a net sink. Due to that fact alone, the current rise will give us a lot less warming than the depicted paleo CO2 rise did. Second, the argument given above ignores numerous non GHG forcing factors as outlined in The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm? Third, the paleo argument ignores the other feedbacks: ice albedo, dust, water vapor etc which worked in tandem with the CO2 feedback. -
Lloyd Flack at 23:12 PM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
Joe, it is not that Monkton lacks the intelligence to understand climate, it is that he does not try to understand. He tries to win and that prevents him understanding. He wants to believe that it is not happening and looks for evidence to support his preferred beliefs. There could be an element of game playing and trying to prove how smart he is too. -
CBDunkerson at 23:11 PM on 22 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Ken, I'm trying to follow your logic and just can't see how you get from A to B; "If the imbalance zeroed tomorrow the energy absorbed to then would appear in the system somewhere. Global temperature rise would also stop tomorrow." If the energy absorbed remains then it is gradually going to get spread around the system... which means that it will result in a net loss of ice (i.e. "ice melt... will absorb some of the heat")... which means that the planet's albedo will change... which means that there will be an additional ongoing forcing... which means that global temperature rise will not "stop tomorrow". The only way for that to happen would be for your hypothetical magical pixie dust solution to eliminate the ongoing energy imbalance and extract sufficient energy such that global ice cover (and other long term feedbacks) would remain constant rather than continue responding to the energy built up in the system. All of which is rather moot given the general lack of magical pixie dust of a non-hypothetical variety. -
chriskoz at 23:06 PM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
The bad link in question is: http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-17-denniss-debate.html in the very first paragraph. I think it's also bad in the first part. Without it, we don't understand the full basis of this series, so please fix it. -
Alexandre at 22:55 PM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
Link to the Monckton x Dennis debate leads to an empty page. -
JoeTheScientist at 22:38 PM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
Monckton seems like an intelligent person but makes copious errors in logic. Given that by definition half of the population has an IQ below 100, is there any hope for them when so many more intelligent people get it egregiously wrong? Is there really only a small fraction of the population capable of understanding this science? -
Tom Curtis at 21:29 PM on 22 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
Michael of Brisbane @43, Australia has a medical industry (in your terms). A very large one. But nobody seems to worry about that, because before we had a health industry, we had a health problem. The health industry exists only because there is a health problem, and the health industry helps to solve it. We have judicial industries, and law enforcement industries, and even a defense industry as well (in your strangely flexible use of the term). Again, nobody is to much worried. Nobody gets on the internet and says in aghast tones, but look how much money the law enforcement industry rakes in compared to the Heartland Institute donations. If they did, they would be thought fools and not worth talking to. The reason they are thought fools is because the base questions are these: 1) Is there a genuine problem which the industry solves; and 2) Is the industry cost effective at solving the problem. If you don't ask those questions, then you contribute nothing of interest to the conversation. And if you do ask them, and are committed to rational, scientific answers, the answer is yes, there is indeed very large AGW problem; and no, the industry is not adequately funded to deal with the problem. I invite you to discuss the answers to those questions on appropriate threads. But until you do, and show that your answers are correct you are just making empty noise. (Of course, in the unlikely event that you do show your answers to be correct, then you won't need to have this discussion in any event.) -
Bernard J. at 21:18 PM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
I'd typed another addendum but whilst wrestling a brood of small children to bed Tom said essentially the same thing (although much better) in the interim. Still, for the sake of saying it... If climate sensitivity really was one degree per doubling of CO2, then we would have expected only around 0.48 of a degree increase in global temperature to 2011. Given that we've already seen 0.74 of a degree increase, without having reached equilibrium, Myers' assumption on sensitivity is out by probably at least a factor of two. And if one assumes that Myers was talking about warming that is to follow from the present, he needs to remember that we've already experienced that 0.74 of a degree - a small fact about which he seemed to want to avoid reminding his audience... In business one does not cavalierly forget to declare a significant proportion of one's profits or losses: why does Myers think that it's OK to do so in climatological accounting? Unless of course one is trying to lead the shareholders... -
Michael of Brisbane at 20:23 PM on 22 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
Hi Phillippe. If something has to be a part of every day human existence to be an industry, then surely living with our new Carbon Tax, soon to become an ETS with its Carbon Credits traded in a a market as a commodity would count? I googled the words "industry definition" The first result was: Industry noun /ˈindəstrē/ industries, plural 1. Economic activity concerned with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of goods in factories - the competitiveness of American industry 2. A particular form or branch of economic or commercial activity - the car industry - the tourist industry 3. An activity or domain in which a great deal of time or effort is expended - the Shakespeare industry 4. Hard work - the kitchen became a hive of industry Please note especially points 2 and 3. (We have a Tourism Department too) I still say there is an AGW Industry! (But who ever heard of "the Shakespeare Industry?? .... then again, I guess there is such a thing as an "elvis industry" and a "beatles industry" ....) By the way, I totally agree that the Earth's Climate should not be an industry, and there should be no such thing as the AGW industry. Yet, there is. I guess, ironically, when you think about it, Heartland is a part of that industry. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:57 PM on 22 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
ELSA If someone provides proper logical answers to my detailed criticisms I will be happy to shut up and go away. Nobody wants you to shut up and go away, what we want is for you to have a rational discussion of the science of climate change. At the moment you are failing to do so because you repeatedly fail to answer questions that would make your position unambiguous, for instance Elsa, just what observations do you think AGW theory is based on. Note that the core of the theory was fully fleshed out by Gilbert Plass in the 1950s. Please tell me which observations he used that are non-repeatable. and Now, what is your evidence that AGW theory has been modified to explain the 40s-70s cool period? Point to a paper where this modification was published. If you carry on making assertions and not being able and/or willing to state the evidence for your beliefs, your posts will come accross as trolling and/or a bad case of Dunning-Kruger. This does neither side of the discussion any good, so please, answer these two questions explicitly and unambiguously and without equivocation. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 19:52 PM on 22 February 2012Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
les #63, Mann does not say "tree ring data could dominate the analysis if he hadn't actually done the PC analysis correctly." He says that tree ring "data appeared to be of critical importance in establishing the reliability of the reconstruction" in the tests he did on his own data, with his own methodology. That directly contradicts what his paper had said: On the other hand, the long-term trend in NH is relatively robust to the inclusion of dendroclimatic indicators in the network If you think I've misread anything, I'd be happy to discuss it. However, please remember I've quoted, quite extensively, to support my commentary. Given that, it would be appropriate to refer to the quotes I provide rather than your personal paraphrase of what the book says. -
Philippe Chantreau at 19:37 PM on 22 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
Agriculture, fisheries and forestry are endeavors closely related to every day needs of human existence, and directly relevant to many types of commodities exchanged on markets. There is no such thing as an AGW industry. You might as well say that there is a gravity industry or an evolution industry. That is strecthcing the meaning attached to any piece of scientific knowledge beyond what's meaningful. Let's not go there. -
Philippe Chantreau at 19:31 PM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
Reality and Monckton reside in 2 different worlds that intersect only occasionally, causing the latter to devise all manners of defense mechanisms against the revelations that suddenly hit him on these occasions. I would not be too worried about him not being able to access any piece of reality, I'm sure he carefully avoids such voluntary encounters, since dealing with the inevitable ones is enough work already... -
Ken Lambert at 19:27 PM on 22 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
KR #69 We are discussing the cessation of any TOA imbalance (see #63 where this started) - "Yes transient *temperature* response - not energy gain." Without an imbalance - existing heat will flow around the system creating temperature and phase changes - but *not* a global temperature increase or decrease in the Earth system. "There are no phase changes, no temperature changes, without energy changes." Quite right - the issue is whether or not there are global increases or decreases - not 'changes' shunting around existing heat energy within the Earth system. -
Tom Curtis at 18:55 PM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Bernard J. @11, If you are going to round to a single digit than 2 is certainly better than 1 for total warming. However, it appears Myers has calculated the radiative forcing of 800 ppmv relative to 390 pppmv, which is 3.84 W/m^2 equating to 1.04 degree C of warming if the climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2 is 1 degree C. What is neglected in his calculation is that the Earth is not in radiative equilibrium, so he has to add on to that figure the warming which is currently in the pipeline. Regardless, suggesting the the climate sensitivity is only 1 degree C per doubling is just absurd. As can be seen from this figure derived from Knutti and Hegerl,the probability that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is 1 degree C is indistinguishable from zero (see the combined evdence).
-
Bernard J. at 18:39 PM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Tom. I should probably have been more explicit in my posts at #7, and originally at #6. My original rounding was to 2, although I mistyped "3" in my post at #6. The actual figure I calculated for an increase in temperature resulting from an increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 800 ppm, assuming a sensitivity of 1 degree celcius per doubling of CO2, was 1.51 degrees celcius over pre-Industrial levels. The reason I rounded to 2 was because Myers said:But even if we were to hit a relatively pessimistic level of 800ppm by the end of the century, this would, by the numbers above, imply a warming of about one degree.
By using the phrase "about one degree" Myers was trying to make the value sound insignificant,and possibly even less than one degree. I was simply pointing out that a better 'approximation' would have been "almost 2 degrees", as I used, which rounds to the same number of significant figures but which is essentialy double (in the minds of those reading) the value with which Myers tried to trick his readers. Had I more time when I typed the earlier posts I would have tried to explain it a little more, but I was about to head out for a meeting and I probably rushed the explanation more than I should have. -
Rob Painting at 18:39 PM on 22 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
skept.fr @ 38 - I wouldn't say it's strictly accurate to say the imbalance is permanent, it will eventually be restored once fossil fuels run out. I think you pretty much have it, but caution that the net climate forcing, that is the total forcing including greenhouse gases, aerosols, and the solar cycle, is not a monotonically increasing trend. The figure below, is what Hansen (2011) has calculated. Note that the sharp dips are due to large volcanic eruptions close to the equator (they get entrained into the powerful rising motion at the equator and get spread out in the upper atmosphere):
-
macoles at 18:07 PM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
If we want even a remote chance that Monckton will read the rebuttal "Ben Santer changed the 1995 IPCC report", then we best fix the link :) -
Michael of Brisbane at 17:49 PM on 22 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
Good point CraigR. John, I wasn't saying anything about the Department of Climate Change being an industry in itself. But to use your example of The Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, that is a department that is involved in an industry or industries isn't it? Do you accept that the Department of Health is involved in the Medical industry? Well, by the same token, The Dept of Climate Change is involved in the AGW "Industry". Do you accept that? -
owl905 at 17:43 PM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Added to Tom Curtis @8 - if the real world only reacted 1dC of warming to 2xCO2e, the glacial to interglacial climate transition is inexplicable. Milankovich cycles give it the kickstart, but takeoff co-incides with GHG increases, and the total rise of 7dC is a mismatch to the ~50% rise in GHGs. -
barry1487 at 16:59 PM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
It is no easy thing to unpack the kind of layered distortions Monckton lays on without making the rebuttal convoluted, and to make the text easy to read and follow. This post succeeds admirably. Great job. -
Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Byron: I apologize. I should have included the temperature unit in the graphs. I'll correct this. I too have read 5-8 deg C change between glacial and interglacials. However, I meant to highlight just the rapid onsets that start out colder than the preceding glacial and end up hotter than the following interglacial. E.g., at ~342,000-334,000 ybp, I see jumps from -9.56 to +3.5 C. This part of the temperature record makes the abstract risks of warming-amplifying feedbacks more concrete to me. Bernard, thanks for adding what my post left out. jg -
Tom Curtis at 15:37 PM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Bernard J. @6, while I admire your fervour, your maths is wrong. An increase of CO2 levels over pre-industrial levels to 800 ppmv would result in a forcing of: 5.35 * ln(800/280) =~= 5.6 W/m^2 The forcing for doubling CO2 concentrations is 3.7 W/m^2, so if that caused just 1 degree C of warming, then the 5.6 W/m^2 would cause approx 1.5 degree C of warming, or around 0.7 degrees C additional warming relative to the warming already experienced. That would be welcome news indeed. The problem is, an increase of only 1 degree C per doubling of CO2 is extraordinarily unlikely. Not only is it well outside the IPCC expected range, but it becomes very difficult to explain why we have seen a 0.8 degree C increase in temperatures from the 1.8 W/m^2 increase in CO2 forcings seen since the industrial era, especially given that the climate response is slow and takes decades to reach the equilibrium response. Even if we hold out for the one in twenty chance that climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 is only 2 degrees C, that still represents 2.2 degrees additional warming for the 800 ppmv scenario, and takes us beyond the guardrail beyond which the consequences of Global Warming are not just deleterious, but potentially catastrophic. Assuming just a 2 degree C climate sensitivity represents the hail mary pass of climate policy. Assuming 1 degree C is a hail mary pass from a drunk, blindfolded quarter back. -
Bernard J. at 15:37 PM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Erm, I should watch where I'm putting my fingers. I meant:...result in almost 2 degrees celcius of warming.
Which, of course, is still regarded as a significant increase, as (failing) efforts to restrict current increases to below this target demonstrate. -
Doug Hutcheson at 15:28 PM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
GreenCooling @ 248 said"steel yourself for a brief look at Fakegate."
It takes a strong stomach, I must admit. Methinks the Heartland doth protest too much. I wonder who they are fooling? The confirmed-valid documents provide enough rope to hang them, with any luck. The disputed document is still just that: disputed. Hands up all those who agree that it is a fake, just because Heartland says so. -
muoncounter at 14:50 PM on 22 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
I've asked Hillary Olson for a copy of the study she did; as I recall it was in painstaking detail. As for misrepresentation, one doesn't have to look very far. -
Bernard J. at 14:45 PM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
It would seem that Myers is attempting to undermine the type of challenge that I and many others often put to deniers, where they are asked to specifically explain at what point they digress from the science that supports global warming, and its sequelæ. My own challenge used to amount to around 10 questions, but the most recent iteration poses 11: 1) Is the planet warming? 2) Is the planet warming as much as climatologists say? 3) Is CO2 a 'greenhouse' gas? 4) Is the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increasing? 5) Are humans causing the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2? 6) What is the contribution of CO2 to the observed contemporary global warming? 7) What is the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of atmospheric CO2? 8) What will be the abiotic consequences of warming resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2? 9) What will be the biological/ecological/agricultural consequences of warming resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2? 10) What will be the political/social consequences of warming resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2? 11) What ethical/moral responsibility do polluting nations have to non-polluting countries, to future generations, and to the non-human species on the planet? It seems that Myers and his ilk find such questions uncomfortable because such scrutiny results in a dissection of their ideology. Myers seems to be reversing the investigative train that attempts to locate a denier's divergence from science, and pretending that the whole issue of the danger of global warming will disintegrate if enough doubt is sown about the components. Myers says:Its probably irresponsible to call anything in a science so young as climate “settled,” but the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 will warm the Earth by some amount is pretty close to being universally accepted.
Note how Myers, without substantiation of his claim, repeats the denialist lie that climatology is a "young" science": with a century and a half of work behind it, climatology is NOT a "young" science. Note also how Myers slips in the concept of irresponsibility, and how he introduced both of the preceding concepts before casually throwing in the concession that CO2 will warm the planet by "some amount", in a manner that itself appears intended to cast the increase as being insignificant. Myers subsequently repeats the notion of "debate" a number of times, without explaining how much debate or otherwise there actually is in the scientific arena. It seems that he is using the term as a rhetorical device to subliminally implant doubt in the minds of his readers. As jg notes in the OP Myers basically ignores the influence of feedings-back. But not only does he do this, and not only does he round down sensitivity to 1 C as jg observed, but he completely mangles his arithmetic:While some of the talk-show-type skeptics have tried to dispute this greenhouse theory, most of what I call the science-based skeptics do not, and accept a number circa 1C for the direct warming effect of a doubling of CO2. So what’s the problem? Why the debate? Isn’t this admission a “game over” for the skeptics? Actually, no. To understand this, let us do a bit of extrapolation. Current CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere today are around 390ppm, or about 0.039%. But even if we were to hit a relatively pessimistic level of 800ppm by the end of the century, this would, by the numbers above, imply a warming of about one degree.
Wrong. Completely wrong. Even at a 1 degree celcius sensitivity, an increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration to 800 ppm would result in almost 3 degrees celcius of warming. This is because the reference concentration for sensitivity is the pre-Industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration (~280 ppm), and not the present atmospheric CO2 concentration. Myers is demonstrating that he doesn't know what he's talking about. And if he does understand the mathematics underpinning sensitivity - well, forum protocol prevents me from making explicit accusations, but in my own personal opinion he would, in such an instance, be lying. Now, even with a rounded-down sensitivity and with no feedback, going to 800 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration and a concommitant 3 degrees celcius warming would be "catastrophic" for much of the biodiversity and agriculture/horticulture of the planet. That Myers does not understand or acknowledge this shows his complete ignorance of human-, crop-, and eco-physiology, as well as of the long-term abiotic responses to that amount of warming. Myers uses many FUD words such as "second chained theory" (?), "assumed", "exaggerated", "Al Gore", "flat [sic] surface temperatures","missing heat", "Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My [indeed...]", "purportedly", and so on. I differ with jg on the non-necessity of debunking Myers' wide suite of scientific garbage, but I certainly acknowledge that it would take a whole chapter's-worth of writing to address it all. The guy is a veritable fountain of garbage. Oo, and not that I am one to speak, and not that it's of any direct consequence, but Myers' grammar and vocabulary are both dismal. The piece doesn't even seem to have been run past an editor, but if it had it would be invisible under all the red lines... -
CraigR at 14:40 PM on 22 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
Wow that's alot of money that the Heartland Institute gets ...I wonder what financial support the likes of World Wildlife Fund and or Greenpeace have at their disposal, it would be helpful to see comparisons..just curious? -
GreenCooling at 14:34 PM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Only "partly a political struggle"? Although I'd defer to muoncounter on just about anything else, I think this rather understates the situation here. A very sophisticated analysis of the campaign we confront is provided recently by Associate Professor Donald Brown of Penn State University's Environmental Ethics, Science and Law Department at Think Progress. An if anyone needs a reminder of how responsive and unrepentantly duplicitous our friends over at Heartland are, please take a few deep breaths and steel yourself for a brief look at Fakegate. The #deniergate induced Heartland trainwreck has a long way to play out yet, but we can be sure it will get a lot more ugly and messy down here in the trenches of the climate war. However it's certainly not too soon to recognise the enormous debt of gratitude we owe to Dr Peter Gleick for blowing the whistle on this fraudulent abuse of the public interest. If Heartland wish to sue me for saying so I'll be only too happy to provide them with my details. -
chriskoz at 14:25 PM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Byron @4, You are incorrect in your assumption that above temps are scaled in F. Temp anomalies in ice cores do span indeed 6-8K (or degC), as we've shown here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm whereas the anomalies in a similar graph scaled in F, do span ~20F, (interestingly the denialist sites are more likely to scale it in F), e.g. here: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/vostok-cores-show-zero-climate-sensitivity-2/ -
skywatcher at 14:16 PM on 22 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
#66 "Ice melt and evaporation (phase changes) will absorb some of the heat at constant temperature..." You're funny, Ken! While still not getting around the difference between heat absorbed by the system and overall energy balance, you mention ice melt as if that will stop temperatures rising. It might... in places where there is ice. Did you notice that nearly all the world's glaciers are in retreat (WGMS), Arctic sea ice is declining (as is global sea ice). This is some of that phase change at constant temperature, you mention. Except that this phase change means the glaciers and ice sheets end up at a lower elevation, or uncover dark land or water, all of which leads to more melting and warmer temperatures! Thanks for clearing that up. /sarc -
Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Ken Lambert - "Yes transient *temperature* response - not energy gain." I have to find your last post, um, *stunning* in it's failure of physics. As long as there is an imbalance at the TOA, there will be ongoing energy change. Phase changes absorb a good bit of energy, but do not change ambient temperature - hence they go nowhere in terms of redressing the TOA imbalance while the energy accumulates. Temperature rises are themselves energy changes - and the only thing that can redress the TOA imbalance. There are no phase changes, no temperature changes, without energy changes. I strongly suggest you read up on your physics - what you have just posted pushes the "not even wrong" envelope. -
scaddenp at 13:58 PM on 22 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Hmm, that is interesting because it doesnt take much effort to see that the paper was misrepresented and the data edited in the pseudo-skeptic version. What sites to we know of that are publishing Robinson's effort or derivatives? Could we send them a suggestion to remove and if not create a little page of "These sites knowingly misrepresent Keigwin's paper". -
muoncounter at 13:45 PM on 22 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Misrepresentations of Keigwin's Sargasso Sea temperature data seem deeply embedded in denial-world. Our good friends Art Robinson and Willie Soon beat the esteemed viscount to it by quite a few years. Unfortunately, the Olson paper exposing this fraud has vanished from UT's earth and space science project website. Also see the abstract of this 2010 GSA presentation: Misrepresentations of Sargasso Sea temperatures by Arthur B. Robinson et al These are outright lies masquerading as valid science. But that's ok if you put your hands over your ears and repeat 'not listening' over and over again. -
scaddenp at 13:12 PM on 22 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
So Ken, are you willing to bet on such odds? If so, I have a few other propositions to make to you. -
scaddenp at 13:04 PM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Dana, I think you put above on wrong thread (should be Duped on climate change) -
Ken Lambert at 12:57 PM on 22 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
KR #65 Loeb says the imbalance is between 0.07 and 0.93W/sq.m so it could be zero now at the lower confidence limit. Add a few more of Hansen's aerosols and you won't need leprechauns. -
JP40 at 12:55 PM on 22 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
Well....... We'd better start inventing that technology, so that we can make it practical and implement it before we go the way of the Romans, Maya, and Easter islanders. -
Ken Lambert at 12:53 PM on 22 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
CBD #64 KR #65 Ice melt and evaporation (phase changes) will absorb some of the heat at constant temperature - just as freezing and condensation will give up heat at constant temperature. KR Yes transient *temperature* response - not energy gain. -
Steve L at 12:50 PM on 22 February 2012New research from last week 7/2012
Hi CBD, I think there may be a common understanding of tipping point wrt Arctic Sea Ice referring to summer ice melt (and thus solar absorption into the Arctic Ocean) being self sustaining after CO2 tips it. I think a definition compatible with this hypothesis would be something like: global temperature required to melt the Arctic sea ice being higher than global temperature required to keep it melted after it does. Still loose, unfortunately, but the best I can do. -
adelady at 12:48 PM on 22 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
owl905 "And the big reason for that is technology; hint- read the 1972 Club of Rome report. - they also missed the technology factor." And what technology was that specifically? It was converting oil into fertiliser. The green revolution in places like India (and some people say the obesity epidemic in western countries) is entirely due to converting a non-renewable resource into food. How will we continue to feed 7 billion+ people as the major contributor to the soil productivity of the last few decades steadily becomes more expensive and eventually disappears? Technology can probably do it. But not the technology we've known over the last 50 years. -
Byron Smith at 12:46 PM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
"If a long slow wobble (precession) was sufficient for Earth's feedbacks to raise the global temperature 8-12 degrees, we should be cautious, wary, risk-adverse of a global disturbance of 1 degree C, as this one degree disturbance occurs on top of an interglacial." I assume that the graph labelled "Temperatures and Sunlight" is in ºF rather than ºC, which makes the above sentence somewhat confusing. I've read in many other places that the end of the last glacial was associated with a rise in global surface temperatures of about 5-6ºC (which is roughly 8-12ºC). -
tonydunc at 12:23 PM on 22 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam, My "cursory dismissals" are based on reading comprehension, a general understanding of physics, and the use of google. They are very uncomplicated, and they are EXACTLY what you asked for. There were a couple of points that I was not qualified to comment on and I didn't, but the rest are all easily understandable and if read alongside Moncton's response, very clearly analyzed. They are certainly only slightly more cursory than Moncton's initial response to Abraham. You do not offer ANYTHING to contradict what I wrote. And there are actually a few things which are more a matter of opinion than anything else and a couple where he has a valid point. The issue at hand however is that in the first 77"points" Moncton shows Abraham's critique not only to be fairly accurate, but also that Moncton's refutations are themselves filled with distortions, errors and (if the moderator will allow) lies. I must say, I am disappointed in you Adam. So I am NOT going to go through the rest of the list. Too bad, maybe at 79 his arguments against Abraham start being valid. -
skywatcher at 12:19 PM on 22 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam, Monckton's selecting individual papers that suggest a warm MWP (and misrepresenting others such as Keigwin) still fails the test of asking if the whole globe was at the same time warm. You construct a strawman by suggesting climate scientists only think Europe/Greenland was warm in the MCA. You might want to check Fig 2 of Mann et al 2009, where you'll find some little yellow, orange and red squares in Africa and China, for example. You'll also find some wide swathes of blue areas, such as central Russia and Alaska. Net result: globally a muted signal. For a strong MWP = high climate sensitivity argument, simple physics says so. Climate responds to forcings. Unless you have a mysterious hitherto undiscovered large forcing on the scale of modern CO2 forcing that drives the MWP, you need high sensitivity to drive such a change (as you do to drive the glacial cycles too). If the driver is merely slightly elevated solar + reduced volcanics, then sensitivity must be high to explain a warm MWP. You can try Hegerl et al 2006 for a discussion of forcing over the past 700 years. Also: "the pseudoskeptic's dilemma" (h/t muoncounter). Climate sensitivity, as presently understood, allows for climate change over the past millennium, as presently understood. It will be worrying for all of us if the MWP turns out to have been a hot, widespread event. Arguing for a strong MWP and low climate sensitivity is one of the many self-contradictory statements made by Monckton and other so-called 'skeptics'. -
dana1981 at 12:14 PM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Lessons from Past Predictions: Wallace Broecker may help elsa's understanding on this issue. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:27 AM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Funglestrumpet, I am not qualified to diagnoses but I seem to recall that what you describe may be called histrionic personality disorder.
Prev 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 Next
