Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 Next
Comments 65501 to 65550:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:55 AM on 25 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Wow. This is fantastic. I look forward to this being a weekly feature. It'll be interesting to see how many papers get posted each week. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:50 AM on 25 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
37, Pirate, I object to your interpretation of climate change as an indirect cause. In this case it is not exacerbating other existing issues. From Rob's quote from Pounds 2006 (emphasis mine):...we conclude with 'very high confidence' (> 99%, following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) that large-scale warming is a key factor in the disappearances. We propose that temperatures at many highland localities are shifting towards the growth optimum of Batrachochytrium, thus encouraging outbreaks.
Simple facts:- Prior to the increase in temperatures, this pathogen existed but did not extinguish the species for many tens of thousands (millions? tens of millions?) of years
- Temperature changes towards the optimum for this pathogen made outbreaks more frequent and virulent.
- The species is now extinct.
-
dana1981 at 04:49 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
MarkR @3 - as noted in the post, a major issue is that 13+ years later, after his errors have been pointed out to him several times, Michaels inexplicably continues to argue that he was right when he was obviously wrong. I agree that making the mistake in 1998 is somewhat understandable, although a really bad mistake for a supposed climate science expert. Not a mistake one should make in testimony to Congress, but as you say, a relatively easy mistake to make, if one were being lazy and careless. But to continue to defend the error to this day rather than admitting the massive blunder (and to attack anyone who points out the blunder) is absolutely inexcusable. It's the opposite of how a skeptic and scientist should behave. -
WheelsOC at 04:44 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
It's almost as if he chose the most divergent scenario on purpose and went back after the fact to rationalize the choice, rather than start with the data and see which scenario matched it the best. Doesn't that kind of thing sometimes cause editor resignations when it happens in the peer-reviewed journals? -
MarkR at 04:24 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
#1 Robert Murphy: It's an easy mistake to make and a lot of people (including me!) have made it. However, if I were testifying to Congress I would certainly check the background to the data I was using, in this case by reading and understanding the Hansen paper. I wouldn't just use a rhetorical flourish ('business as usual! He said busines as usual!') to delete the data that didn't agree with my opinion. Perhaps Michaels didn't know about this, and should be very embarrassed about this massive blunder. It would certainly make me suspicious about calling him up as an 'expert witness' until he could accept the clear errors and guarantee he was working to prevent them happening again. -
dana1981 at 03:24 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Robert @1 - yes, CO2 levels don't begin to significantly diverge in the various scenarios until 2000, and even later than that between Scenarios A and B. However, even in 1998, CO2 levels were closest to Scenario C, as discussed in Part 1 of this post. Michaels' entire presentation and continued defense of his distortions are based on a wrong assumption which is very easily checked simply by looking up the GHG data. So the two options are (1) Michaels didn't bother to take the simplest step to confirm the accuracy of his claims, or (2) he did check their accuracy, discovered they were wrong, but continued to make them anyway. Neither possibility reflects very well on Michaels, to put it kindly. -
Robert Murphy at 03:19 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
The thing that has to be understood when looking at the different scenarios (something I didn't fully consider at first myself) is that CO2 was only one component. Scenarios A and B had essentially the same CO2 levels for most of the 20 odd years since 1988. Where they differed greatly was in their assumptions about the other GHG's like N2O, CH4, and especially CCL3F and CCL2F2. The RC page here makes that point very well. People can get distracted by the CO2 levels. It's the totality of the forcings that matter. There never was a reason to think scenario A was close to what actually happened, and Michaels should have known that. -
pbjamm at 03:10 AM on 25 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
apiratelooksat50@37 "My original question was pertaining to extinctions directly from climate change. There are obviously instances where climate change is exacerbating other existing issues such as the chytrid fungus and that I acknowledged." Any environmental pressure could be argued an indirect or second order effect. What would qualify as a direct effect in your opinion? -
Phila at 03:02 AM on 25 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Pirate: However, I can see where we could get hung up on semantics and this could go on endlessly with no positive outcome Hung up on semantics? Really? Whether you define "extinction" as a process of decline or a completed event, evidence provided in this thread proves you wrong. To insist regardless that NCES needs to change its text -- for no other reason than that you chose to read it though ideological blinders -- really is the height of arrogance. As usual, the solution here is not for working scientists to change their terminology to suit your prejudices, but for you to do your homework and develop some humility. Your students deserve nothing less. And at this point, so do the generally patient people who read these threads. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:22 AM on 25 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Patonomics, you are demonstrating exactly what I argued. If you were sincere, you would already have found on your own all the info linked by moderator above. Language seems to be a barrier but I get your drift with your "man on the street argument." I'm sure the man on the street expects this "packaging" no more than he would with oncology. Do I hear anyone demanding determinism with cancer treatment? [crickets chirping]. No, I guess something that works will suffice after all. Of course, in these matters too the answers will be unwelcome and subjected to all sorts of denial, as with the tobacco wars. It is becoming more and more obvious that you are no interested in learning about reality. If you were, you'd already know better. I'd recommend all: DNFTT. -
prokaryotes at 01:30 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
About projections and models. Long lived CFC’s, Methane, Nitrous Oxide uptake and the destruction of the northern hemisphere Ozone Layer The ozone hole which appeared in 2011, 220dobson was predicted by Shindell et al in 1998 to occur 2010-2019. Now with all the other Greenhouse gases and BAU++ scenarios we are on, the ozone layer's future is at peril. -
dhogaza at 00:51 AM on 25 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Absolutely fantastic, Ari. -
apiratelooksat50 at 00:13 AM on 25 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Rob at 20 Sorry, I was away from the computer yesterday. My original question was pertaining to extinctions directly from climate change. There are obviously instances where climate change is exacerbating other existing issues such as the chytrid fungus and that I acknowledged. In my perception that is an indirect effect. I would like to see the statement on NCES reworded to reflect that. However, I can see where we could get hung up on semantics and this could go on endlessly with no positive outcome, and therefore I will accept your position. -
DrTsk at 23:34 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
@"AGW is no science". Could not be more wrong. AGW is basic physics, as basic as you can get. You either have no clue what science is or you are trolling. By the way. Chaos is deterministic. Not random. That does not mean you can model a chaotic system 100%. -
CBDunkerson at 23:27 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
patonomics wrote: "why then so much noise around AGW?" Because... nature is demonstrating the impacts of AGW. Duh? Or hadn't you noticed the decreasing global ice coverage, species migrations, seasonal shifts, atmospheric circulation changes, weather changes, rising temperatures, ocean acidification, et cetera? To look at nature and not see AGW one needs to be willfully blind. -
patonomics at 23:25 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
DrTsk#64: "It is a good insurance to reduce our GHG emissions." - I support that though process completely. (-snip-)Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:23 PM on 24 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
I'm continually amazed that so many studies are being released each week. It is good to see work on nailing down cloud impacts and the sea level and radiation budgets. The uncertainties on those factors have become the 'last refuge of scoundrels' in the climate change 'debate'. -
Tom Curtis at 23:15 PM on 24 January 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Eric (skeptic) @77, your assumptions about the GEOCARBSULF model are incorrect. It includes geographic changes including rate of erosion due to expose land area and orogeny, rate of vulcansim, effects of erosion rates due to glaciation, and the effects of vascular and non-vascular plants. More details can be found in the description of the GEOCARBSULF model by Robert Burner. For some details you will need to consult the description of the GEOCARBIII model, which preceded GEOCARBSULF. The later reference shows the sedimentation rates and the "weathering uplift parameter" for various epochs of the phanerozoic, and discusses how they are determined. The important point at this level of discussion is that they are determined empirically. Given these factors, and given the fact that temperature plus CO2 concentration control the rate of chemical weathering, and given a particular ratio between CO2 concentration and temperature, it is possible to retrodict the CO2 concentration in a given period using the model. By varying the ratio of CO2 concentration to temperature, you can determine which ratio gives the best fit to the geological record of CO2 concentration. Of course, as the CO2/temperature ratio is just the climate sensitivity, you at the same time determine the best fit climate sensitivity over the entire phanerozoic. This was first done by Berner, Royer and Park (2007), which explains the methodology. It is true that GEOCARBSULF does not model specific geographical distribution of continents. This means there are significant factors which effect temperature, but which are not modeled. The question is, however, how significant? If their impact relative to CO2 concentration and temperature is large, then it will be impossible to get a good match between predicted CO2 levels and CO2 levels as observed in the geological record using this technique. Contrary to that, however, the fit is quite good:
(From Park and Royer 2011, fig 9d. Alternative fits under different assumptions in figures 9 a-c and figure 10 should also be examined)
There are, of course, to periods of significant mismatch. That may be because of problems in the record of erosion (see figure 10 and related discussion). More probably, IMO, it is because particular geographical configurations changed the climate base state. Or it could even be because the climate sensitivity was significantly different in those periods (which is a distinct possibility from the geographical change of the climate base state).
Finally, the PDFs are indeed PDFs. Given a set threshold for explained variance in the CO2 concentration, the PDF maps the probability that a particular climate sensitivity (or climate sensitivity pairing, where glacial is distinct from non-glacial) will explain that degree of variance. However, like all statistical measures, a simplistic interpretation can be risky (and I am not the one too explain the risks of over interpretation in this case). However, it is not over interpretation to say that given the evidence in this study, "...the empirical PDFs for glacial climate sensitivity predict T2x(g)>2.0 °C with 99 percent probability, T2x(g)>3.4 °C with 95 percent probability, and T2x(g)>4.4 °C with 90 percent probability", and that "[t]he most probable values are T2x(g) 6° to 8 °C."
-
DrTsk at 23:14 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Huh??? How did you manage to make the connection between what I said and "why then so much noise around AGW?". Ehhh, sorry for a microsecond I thought you are honest and not trolling. We are the forcing!! We understand that, even if we cannot 100% quantify it. Sorry but the insurance industry works with infinitesimal percentages. You don't go back and ask them where is their 100% certainty before you pay your bills!! It is a good insurance to reduce our GHG emissions. Sorry but there is no GEICO for nature. Nobody will replace it if we total it!! -
patonomics at 23:04 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
DrTsk#61 "The only true quantitative solution of the fully coupled physics is nature itself." - I could not agree with more. why then so much noise around AGW? What it helps one "to claim as science" in their respective profession? -
Daniel Bailey at 22:52 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
I reluctantly must agree with DrTsk here on patonomics (not because of anything with DrTsk, as the good doctor always has pertinent insights to share). Patonomics is simply trolling with the straw man arguements & goalpost shifting. Science is difficult, at best, to understand. And as (essentially) a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary field, climate science is even more so difficult. Proof that he has some understanding of this is found on his own website, which I will not link here. Patonomics therefore sets up an artificial barrier to understanding by the conditions he imposes. There simply is no substitute for doing the hard work needed to gain the level of comprehension he asks. And to then further limit possible answers to predetermined formats is also trolling. Do the work. Or accept the answers already locatable at many websites, not just this one. Else you are here simply to waste time. Ours and yours. -
DrTsk at 22:23 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
@patonomics. Trolling!!! Really, you profess to ask for knowledge, but you ask for "definite", "deterministic", "breakdown by source/sink". Either you do not understand how science of the big works or you are doing that on purpose, ergo Trolling!!. There are no deterministic/precise/exact answers. Only observations, attributions, trends, cause and effect relationships. The same way that you were asking for a simple equation!! There is no simple answer. We know all the components, we understand most of the physics,and we realize the connectivity between the various physical phenomena in models to test if the connectivity is accurate to give us further understanding. The only true quantitative solution of the fully coupled physics is nature itself. Back to sink/sources and respective weights??? We know them as well as we know GDP. -
patonomics at 21:50 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Philippe Chantreau#58: "It's all there but we have to package it nicely for you eh?" - Not at all. I am asking to the guys who might claim the knowledge is definite/deterministic in AGW, then don't you think that "any 'man in the street' expecting that packaging is done already". Is that expectation is too much to ask, or its obvious expectation? -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:45 PM on 24 January 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Thanks Tom, for the answers and the link to the paper. I had an unexpected trip and am 4 pages of comments behind. I don't think that potential willful misrepresentation of fig 3b is a valid reason to exclude it, so the bottom line is it was deleted for space reasons. The paper with Royer has this claim: "We confirm the conclusion of Royer and others (2007): the necessity for greenhouse-weathering feedbacks in Earth’s long-term carbon cycle makes low values for Earth’s long-term climate sensitivity (delta)T2x highly unlikely." I understand that the driving factor for weathering is geography, not temperature, For example it is the explanation for The End of the Hothouse The drop in CO2 at the end of the hothouse explains the drop in temperature, but is difficult to resolve to a sensitivity number due to the large amplification from the newly formed Antarctic ice sheet. I don't believe their "empirical PDF" is a PDF, it appears to be a result of multiple runs an oversimplified model that leaves out factors that cannot be determined from the paelo record or are not included. The way I read the paper is that GEOCARB/SULF models are temperature to weathering models, but do not include geographic changes, is that correct? -
Esop at 21:35 PM on 24 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Most excellent! Great info. -
patonomics at 21:34 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
muoncounter#57: "Consider looking at the fundamental paper by Meehl et al 2004, if it is not too much bother." Thank you very much. "3) GHG (CO2, water vapor, O3, CH4, N2O, CFC12, CFC11) (G)" I am really looking for, each component breakdown of GHG and then for each GHG component, further breakdown for 1) 'by source' and 2) 'by sink' for those sub-component and there respective weights. If you know some peer reviewed document, you may through some light.Response:[DB] "If you know some peer reviewed document, you may through some light."
Fiat Lux. Try the IPCC AR4, found on this page:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
A very accessible and useful search tool for it can be found here:
-
fouquart at 20:53 PM on 24 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
This is a tremendous tool! Thanks a lot -
Ari Jokimäki at 19:57 PM on 24 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Thank you, I'm glad you like it. :) -
shoyemore at 19:10 PM on 24 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Let me add my "Amen" to #1. Well done, Ari. -
John Mason at 19:09 PM on 24 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Interesting ideas, William. Am accumulating literature on this whole problem, which deserves more exploration I think. However, a rapid methane release in the order of many tens of Gt would show up starkly as a much-bigger-than-usual CO2-spike, compared to those you cite. From what I am reading, though, smaller events may actually be quite common, as a response to falling sea-levels, and ironically then trigger deglaciation. Need to read up much more on this, though. -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:07 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
It's all there but we have to package it nicely for you eh? Radiative transfer laws, fluid dynamics, atmospheric chemistry etc, etc. Patonomics's thought process and sequence of actions is unfortunately all too common. It usually proceeds like this: One comes on this site touting very entrenched ideas on the nature of scientific knowledge and/or the scientific process, all of these ideas being somewhat supeficial, wrong, oversimplified or misguided. From there, one proceeds on to claim that climate science findings are moot unless such or such demand is met. However, when more specific concerns are adressed, the poster reveals that he/she has not done the ground work, but then states he wants others to do it for him. I am not about to do that work, I have enough of my own. In my several years of reading and contributing to SkS, I have seen this, and worse things, happen more times than I can count. If Patonomics considers himself to have the intellectual honesty needed, then he must do his own research. Starting with Spencer Weart, going to Meehl, Trenberth, Iacono and Clough, etc, etc. Last thing Patonomics: You have no authority to dictate reactions to your posts. If this one does please you, move on. I did not write it specifically for you but for any reader who would happen to have an interest in this thread. -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:35 PM on 24 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Ari, this weekly review is a fantastic resource. I love it! Keep up the good work. -
Tom Curtis at 14:30 PM on 24 January 2012Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Waldo @48, looking a little closer, Environment Canada estimates the measures will result in a reduction of 175 MtCO2 equivalent over the period 2015 to 2030. That equates to 0.022 ppmv, or 0.012 ppmv after the typical 45% absorption by the deep ocean/biosphere and natural sequestration is accounted for. That is in agreement with Monckton. Monckton estimates the CO2 concentration would rise to 437.676 without the regulations. Therefore, the difference in equilibrium temperature ignoring long term feedbacks as a result of these measures ignoring all else would be ln(437.676/437.664) * 5.35 * (3/3.7) where the last term is the feedback factor for scaling a forcing to temperature. It assumes the IPCC sensitivity for doubled CO2 is of 3 degrees is correct. Ergo, the temperature effect (at equilibrium) is 0.00012 C if only Canada implements measures to reduce CO2 emissions, and this is the only measure Canada implements. This compares to the 0.00007 C reduction calculated by Monckton. The first thing I should note is that clearly I made an error last night, for which I apologize. The difference between my figure and Monktons' figure is just 42% which can be ascribed entirely to the fact that he only estimates the transient climate response. We are, of course, far more interested in the equilibrium climate response. The second thing to note is that Monckton's calculation depends on the assumption that nothing else is done about CO2 emissions. If other measures are taken, the 0.012 ppmv will represent a greater percentage of the atmospheric concentration in 2030, and hence be more effective in reducing temperature. If emissions are halved relative to the A2 scenario, for example, the Canadian measure would be 6% more effective at reducing CO2 emissions. More importantly, we need to see past Monckton's dishonest approach of determining effects based solely on the Canadian contribution, while showing costs for a global application of the scheme. In fact, based on Monckton's own figures we can determine that applied globally, this scheme wold reduce transient climate response in 2030 by 0.35 degrees C. That is 55% of the expected transient climate response for the interval 2011-2030 on the A2 scenario (multi-model mean). That the Canadian measure by itself has limited effect is because Canada has a relatively small population, and correspondingly low absolute emissions. That is not a reason for Canada to do nothing, and this evidently is a cost effective measure proportional to Canada's expected contribution to solving the global problem. (Well, it's half of the expected contribution, in any event.) The question then resolves to cost effectiveness, on which I am no expert, but would trust environment Canada over a self promoting conspiracy theorist any day, even if I did not know Monckton's personal record for honesty and accuracy. -
dana1981 at 13:05 PM on 24 January 2012Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
There are a bunch of factual and logical errors in Monckton's piece. There's the Tragedy of the Commons, for starters. That may be the post Tom is referring to. There's the fact that Monckton makes assertions about the costs of the legislation while mostly ignoring its benefits (as discussed in the post above). That's really his main error, as you noted in #46, Waldo. He does cite a bit of literature from Tol and Lomborg, which are basically the only two economists who think the costs of climate inaction will be relatively small. Monckton also makes a claim about CO2 concentrations being doubled in 2100. They'll be doubled decades before that unless we take major action to reduce our emissions, which is exactly what he's opposing in this article. That completely screws up his 'warming by 2100' calculation. What he's actually calculating is the immediate warming when CO2 doubles, which yes, will be somewhere close to 2°C. His claim that this is lower than IPCC values is total BS, it's actually right in the middle of the IPCC range (which is basically 1 to 3°C transient climate sensitivity). His other calculations are equally screwed up. -
Waldo at 12:42 PM on 24 January 2012Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Tom @ 47, Thanks for the reply! I have read Environment Canada's economic impact analysis. It appears to be much more grounded than Monckton's attempt to question it. Monckton tries to scale up the cost to be the cost per 1 deg C avoided. That sounds like a rather naive metric to me. Can you give me more detail on the math showing how Monckton underestimates the temp effect? That would basically blow his other estimates of the cost/benefit of the mitigated CO2 out of the water! -
actually thoughtful at 12:19 PM on 24 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
Ale and Dana - thanks to you both - I am getting a handle on it. I understand the 4.2 vs 3.0, and that aerosols were a cooling factor not completely understood in 1988. It seems, in a sense, that Hansen got lucky in that he overestimated sensitivity and ignored aerosols, and those two were of roughly the same magnitude (no disrespect to Hansen about luck - I understand one earns luck through hard work). I will read tomorrow's and see if that doesn't fill in the missing pieces for me. -
muoncounter at 12:17 PM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
patonomics#54: You asked a virtually identical question on this thread and rejected all replies. Then you stated you couldn't be bothered to do the research. So what is different this time? Consider looking at the fundamental paper by Meehl et al 2004, if it is not too much bother. The late-twentieth-century warming can only be reproduced in the model with anthropogenic forcing (mainly GHGs), while the early twentieth-century warming is mainly caused by natural forcing in the model (mainly solar). However, the signature of globally averaged temperature at any time in the twentieth century is a direct consequence of the sum of the forcings. There follows considerable discussion of principal component analysis. And please do not presume to instruct others whether they can respond to your requests. -
skywatcher at 11:46 AM on 24 January 2012Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Tom #117, Apparently, according to #104, all the water you and I naively feel as rain, actually is dropped off by passing comets, the water having never evaporated from the ground. This also accounds for sea level rise and so there is nothing to worry about. /sarc -
Tom Curtis at 11:41 AM on 24 January 2012Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
skywatcher @116, are you suggesting that averaged over time, just as much water falls to the ground as raine (or snow etc) as evaporates. What sort of radical new theory is that. (/sarc) -
skywatcher at 11:39 AM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
#54 patonomics, in addition to KR's links, if you really want to know how global surface temperature records are constructed, you would do worse than to look at Glenn Tamblyn's 4-part series "On Averages and Anomalies" here at SkS (first post linked). They are an excellent complement to the above post, and will tell you a great deal about how we determine the surface temperature record. And remember, readers here are free to respond to any post they like, so long as they conform with the Comments Policy! -
skywatcher at 11:27 AM on 24 January 2012Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
And of course whoever originally wrote post #104, that was plagiarised by dana69, also neglected to discuss evaporation: whereupon liquid water absorbs all that extra energy to become the water vapour that is able to release energy. I presume they just forgot... -
dana1981 at 11:18 AM on 24 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
We're also going to address the climate model sensitivity in Part 2 tomorrow. -
Alex C at 10:56 AM on 24 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
actually thoughtful @14: Comparing the Scenario results raw to temperature data isn't exactly the best thing to do because the models are erroneous in two regards. The first doesn't have to do with the models, but instead with the input - too high of assumed future greenhouse gas concentrations, and the lack of aerosol forcing. The net forcing for Scenario B is higher than reality, so the model will predict a higher temperature due to that. The second reason is that the model gives a climate sensitivity of 4.2˚C/2xCO2, which is higher than the accepted mean of 3.0˚C. These issues are better explained in the rebuttal to the "Hansen is wrong" myth. -
Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
patonomics - "Are there any peer reviewed article there that gives deterministic answer for "How global surface temperature is reconstructed with each worldly known contributory factors and its corresponding weights?"" What you appear to be looking for are attribution studies. I would suggest you read the Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming, as the papers listed there are exactly what you are asking for. You can use those as references regarding forecasting and hindcasting temperatures. In addition you might benefit from looking at Trenberth et al 2009, Earth's global energy budget, which discusses energy flows. "Please only provide pin-point reference matching the need expressed, else refrain responding." - Please avoid the inflammatory tone, lest you simply get ignored. -
Stephen Baines at 10:25 AM on 24 January 2012National (US) Strategy Proposed to Respond to Climate Change’s Impacts on Fish, Wildlife, Plants
My read is like KRs. I think calls to abolish EPA and the endangered species act are largely a means to motivate base and local support, and as leverage. The missions of EPA, National parks and fish and wildlife etc are generally appreciated by most americans at present. Consequently, I don't think they are under threat of extinction...but they could be under threat of serious budget cuts. I hear second hand that such cuts, and the political climate generally, have a demoralizing impact on staff. -
patonomics at 10:08 AM on 24 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Are there any peer reviewed article there that gives deterministic answer for "How global surface temperature is reconstructed with each worldly known contributory factors and its corresponding weights? In short, I am only looking for temperature defining budget balance statement template, that can be used over the years to clearly test with observed data. Additionally one can also give temperature-flow statement, similar like we have cash-flow statements in accounting and auditing professions. Please only provide pin-point reference matching the need expressed, else refrain responding. -
Stevo at 10:04 AM on 24 January 2012National (US) Strategy Proposed to Respond to Climate Change’s Impacts on Fish, Wildlife, Plants
KR and John, thanks. KR I don't think you have much to worry about regarding your comments. They simply stated what the general policy position of each party is. John, thanks for the link. You've given me some informative reading. -
Tom Curtis at 09:21 AM on 24 January 2012Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Dana69 @109 appears to not recognize that climate predictions are made with climate models that use (relatively) high resolution grids of the surface. The GISS-HYCOM model, for example, uses a 4 degree latitude by 5 degree longitude grid, thereby dividing the Earth's surface into 3240 cells. The model has 20 layers for the atmosphere, meaning the atmospheric model divides the atmospheric model divides the atmosphere into 64,800 cells in total. Oddly enough, the model does not constrain all cells to maintain the same temperature, a necessary constraint for Dana69's comment to have any relevance. GISS also runs a 2 x 2.5 degree model, which therefore has 12,960 surface cells, if that is not enough resolution for you. Dana69 may feel that dividing the Earth into 12,690 cells does not sufficiently account for regionalization, but that tells us more about Dana69 than climate science. When will the fake skeptics wake up to the fact that pretending climate science is based on a single zero dimensional model, as Dana69 has done, reveal them to be cranks pushing an agenda in no uncertain terms? -
dana1981 at 08:54 AM on 24 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
There's also the question as to whether we should be comparing Hansen's scenarios to the GHG-only forcing or the net forcing. I think there are two different answers, depending on the situation: If you want to evaluate the temperature response (as we'll do in Part 2), then you should look at the net forcing. This is because the model temperature response prediction is based on the total net forcing. It just so happens that the only forcings input into Hansen's model are GHGs (and a couple volcanic eruption simulations). If you want to evaluate whether we're on a 'BAU' path based on my definition in comment #15, then you should compare Hansen's to the GHG-only forcing. This is because Hansen's definition of 'BAU' only included GHGs, not aerosols or land use changes or other forcings. Michaels' definition of BAU also only examines GHGs. That's why I plotted GHG-only as BAU in Figure 2. -
dana1981 at 08:50 AM on 24 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
actually thoughtful @14 - Scenario C was closest to reality in 1998. Currently, Scenario B is closest to reality. Scenario B is arguably closest to 'business as usual', depending on how you define the term. My definition of BAU is continuing with the same rate of emissions as in previous years. The BAU dashed line in Figure 2 is extrapolates the 1978-1988 emissions rate forward (in other words, if emissions after 1988 continued to rise at the same rate as they had from 1978-1988). See the figure caption.
Prev 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 Next
