Recent Comments

Prev  1313  1314  1315  1316  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  1324  1325  1326  1327  1328  Next

Comments 66001 to 66050:

66001. Rob Honeycutt at 10:14 AM on 21 January 2012
       Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
       saltspringson... "Is global warming happening? - Yes, its been happening since the Little Ice Age, long before manmade greenhouse gases had any chance of affecting temperature rises." Mmmm... Not so quick there cowboy. That would clearly depend on which temperature reconstruction you were looking at. You're treading in with assumptions where there happen to be significant uncertainties.
66002. Tom Curtis at 10:13 AM on 21 January 2012
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       Eric (skeptic) @66, I presume this is a continuation of the discussion from here, and is a reference to the information in figure 3b from Knutti and Hegerl, 2008: That being the case, as presented your comment is nonsense. It is not possible for a method to be (or for the uncertainties to contain) "No, poorly understood, large uncertainties, very few studies or poor agreement, (un)known limitations, low confidence". For your comment to make sense, you need to split the analysis into the respective categories, and then apply the appropriate descriptor. If you do not do that, then you would need to apply all three cluster descriptions, for (for all paleo methods) they have both red, yellow, and green classifications. More importantly, that analysis does not recognize the concordance across a range of paleo studies. Studies of both the Last Glacial Maximum (20 thousand years ago) and of Pliocene (5.3 to 2.6 million years ago, and when CO2 levels where last at their current levels) both study periods when the Earth did not have a "Similar climate base state" to its current condition, the LGM being about 6 degrees C colder, and the Pliocene was about 2-3 degrees warmer. Never-the-less, studies of both periods have come up with climate sensitivities in the range of 2 to 4 degrees C per doubling of CO2. The supposition that climate sensitivity for the current climate base state will some how be much lower than that range, when both warmer and colder conditions have a higher climate sensitivity is magical thinking. In short, paleo-climate studies show the climate sensitivity to be very robust with respect to climate base state. That is not evident from looking at just studies of the LGM, or just studies of the Pliocene. Hence looking at the seperate categorization provided by Knutti and Hegerl with regard to climate base state is misleading if you do not recognize the robustness of the results. While I have focused on the LGM and Pliocene as the best understood paleo-eras, the robustness of climate sensitivity has extended across a range of conditions from snowball Earth through to Saurian Sauna. There is undoubtedly some variation of climate sensitivity across that range, but that range is very likely to be smaller than the uncertainty in determination of climate sensitivity, ie, the range of climate sensitivities is likely to fall in the 2 to 4 degree C per doubling of CO2 range. Finally, even if we suppose ourselves to be in a goldilocks zone for climate sensitivity, that is bad news. Suppose the modern climate sensitivity is in fact 2 degrees C per doubling, but that this is due to the fact that we are in a goldilocks zone. At that climate sensitivity, business as usual will still lift global temperatures by about 2-3 degrees C by the end of this century. But that is enough to lift us into a Pliocene base state with its higher (on this supposition) climate sensitivity but with our having much higher than Pliocene CO2 concentrations. In other words, we would face accelerating global warming even if we had managed to stop further emissions. In this scenario, the equilibrium temperature would still be that determined using a Pliocene (or even Cretacious) base state because our current activities would lift us to that level.
66003. skept.fr at 10:01 AM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Kate : very clear and informative, but I don't understand your conclusion, "You could take climate models right out of the picture, and the answer wouldn't change. Scientists would still be telling us that the Earth is warming, humans are causing it, and the consequences will be severe - unless we take action to stop it." The sole radiative effect of a doubling CO2 on surface temperature is not so severe, approx 1,2 K. So, don't we need a model to evaluate the coming feedbacks from 2xCO2 and the real equilibrium temperature after relaxation? After all, if models were concluding that negative feedbacks equilibrate with positive and that 540 ppmv CO2atm would produce something like 1 K of surface warming, we would probably be quite indifferent to AGW. It is just because models do not conclude in this way that we have some reasons for concern. So, I would say we do need climate models and rely on their quality to inform our collective decisions.
66004. JulianRGP at 10:00 AM on 21 January 2012
       Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
       Thank you for the explanation Dana1981. Yes I do now recall the issue with the most recent BEST data - by including those points they did leave themselves open to misinterpretation.
66005. bill4344 at 09:58 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       

       Since when does “adapted” mean “redrawn or drawn from the data”? If I had the data that went into the graph, then I would have plotted up a new graph—but what’s the difference if I plot a new graph the way I want or alter some other graph so it plots what I want to show?

       Chip Knappenberger defends the erasure over at Eli's.
66006. Bob Lacatena at 09:35 AM on 21 January 2012
       Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
       saltspringson, Welcome to Skeptical Science. Please note that unlike other sites, this is not the wild west. You do not get to come in, guns blazing, then twirl your six-shooters and drop them into your holsters while grinning manically. More to the point: 1) If you have something to say, say it in an appropriate thread. Every comment you have here will be deleted for being off-topic. That's not to say that you can't try to make a point (although honestly, looking through your words, I don't see a single meaningful point in there). But you have to make it on a thread with a relevant topic. 2) You must support what you say with citations. You cannot make an assertion without supporting evidence (e.g. "Will warming eventually lead to cooling? - Yes", "but we're not sure if the temperature effect of manmade greenhouse gases is significant" , "Do we produce greenhouse gasses? - Yes, but not as much as Mother Nature", etc. etc.) 3) We discuss science, not opinions, conjecture, or pseudoscience. As such, it would be best if you raised one point in a comment, not a herd of them, so that it can be discussed and debated rationally. Oh, and you might want to read the Comments Policy. You've already violated it by being and staying far off topic.
       Moderator Response: [Rob P] - saltspringson's off-topic comments have been deleted. I have left this post here so that he will hopefully read and absorb the advice it contains, and post any additional comments on the appropriate thread.
66007. pbjamm at 09:09 AM on 21 January 2012
       Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
       saltspringson@28 the topic at hand is "Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf", not "What I think various deceased authors would have though of Global Warming." Pointless Distraction.
66008. Albatross at 08:42 AM on 21 January 2012
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       Regarding the value of climate sensitivity and the paleo data. This is what respected scientist Dr. Matt Huber (Purdue University) whose research is "focused on past, present and future climate, the mechanisms that govern climate, the different forms that climates can take on Earth, and the relationship between climate change and life [Source]: "Climate scientists don’t often talk about such grim long-term forecasts, Huber says, in part because skeptics, exaggerating scientific uncertainties, are always accusing them of alarmism. “We’ve basically been trying to edit ourselves”, Huber says. “Whenever we we see something really bad, we tend to hold off. The middle ground is actually worse than people think. “If we continue down this road, there are really is no uncertainty. We’re headed for the Eocence. And we know what that’s like." Dr. Matt Huber, October 2011. Now some might be so arrogant to believe that they know more about this issue than does Dr. Huber; I for one do not. Also, to most reasonable people his observations and expertise should be quite worrisome.
66009. climatesight at 08:36 AM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       #1 barry - I see what you mean about the last sentence, but I would disagree that it's "advocacy". It's just cause and effect. If we stop emitting so many greenhouse gases, the problem will diminish; if not, it will continue to be a problem. I tried to go for the "policy relevant but not policy prescriptive" angle. Thanks for reading! Kate
66010. Albatross at 08:04 AM on 21 January 2012
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       Eric @69, You are ignoring my key points. I'm not even sure what your post @69 is meant to be in response to. I was speaking to Fig. 3a. And again, I do not need for you to explain to me how to read a graph, you can quit being condescending. "the first two boxes are red because the base state and feedbacks and forcings are not similar." Yet the the fact remains that "There is very close agreement between the 66% probability ranges (and medians) for EQS derived from the "General circulation models" and those derives from "Proxy data from millions of years ago". Do you deny what those data shown in Fig. 3a are showing? Do you deny that?
66011. Jeff T at 07:56 AM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Thank you for a clear description.
66012. Rob Painting at 07:29 AM on 21 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy - "Thermal expansion and ice loss affect all the ocean evenly" It would help to correct your lack of knowledge if you were to actually read the post you are commenting on. You missed the heading entitled "Sea level rise is not level", and all the accompanying text. Does figure 2 (reproduced below) look like an even sea level rise? No? Yes, we may see further anomalous sea level rise at Tuvalu and nearby western Pacific Islands, but we may not. Two contradictory scientific papers about the future trend there doesn't provide any illumination.
66013. Manwichstick at 07:27 AM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       RE #15 Patonomics: " a formula which I and many others can "validate agw (impact of human induced co2)conclusively" I don't have a formula, but I have an experiment you can try: Find a Infrared microscope, look at the spectrum you get then exhale across the viewing area. You will see infrared absorption by the CO2 in your breath. This experiment doesn't show GHG are exculsively to blame for warming - but it is startlingly difficult to show they are not a significant contributor.
66014. Eric (skeptic) at 07:25 AM on 21 January 2012
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       Albatross, applicability is what part b of figure 3 is all about. For both the LGM and millions of years old data, the first two boxes are red because the base state and feedbacks and forcings are not similar. The text explains further that "simple calculations" relating the cooling to changes in radiative forcing yield sensitivity ignoring all the nonradiative changes (e.g. convection, weather in general) that determine equilibrium temperature. The other choice is using a GCM with LGM or older conditions but that does not produce an independent sensitivity estimate.
66015. dana1981 at 06:37 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       Agreed with Geologist @162. I've made a similar point in a few comments. The underlying problem is that Michaels and Chip completely ignored the data that was inconvenient for them. Their deletion of the data from the figures was just a graphical representation of their overall method of pretending that the results they didn't like didn't exist.
66016. Albatross at 06:27 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       Eric @161, My apologies, I missed Tom's challenge to you @150-- I will modify my post above accordingly. Regardless, you have actually not addressed Tom's challenge to you by pasting a bunch of URLs. If you wish to respond to this, respond on the appropriate thread. Thanks.
66017. Geologist at 06:25 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       I believe that this discussion is a bit too focused on how to treat the graphics themselves. Chip Knappenberger has a point in that graphics might sometimes need to be redrawn or replotted and as long as both the original source and the changes are acknowledge this may very well be ok. It is certainly good practice to tell exactly what you have done with it but this is more of a gray area. What is never ok is to ignore the data that is problematic to your interpretation. This is true with your own data as well as when you use others. You might not always be able to discuss it in detail but you may not ignore it. In these cases the deleted material would clearly have weakened the argument. In addition the authors have highlighted the problems, both in their graphics and in their texts, as honest scientists should, while WCR has done neither. In the example by Sphaerica (#159) using only the Quelccaya graph and ignoring the rest in a discussion about the MWP would clearly be wrong, if it on the other hand was used in a discussion about the climatic history around Quelccaya I would say that it is ok. As previously said, it is all about the context. Sometimes it can be hard to tell if a change is misleading or not but if your readers can't see the caveats and the original authors think that what you did was misleading or close to scientific fraud you have obviously failed. The honest way to handle it would be to apologize and make a clear errata.
66018. Albatross at 06:03 AM on 21 January 2012
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       Eric @66, "As I explained above about a year ago, the transition from glacial to interglacial conditions have starting conditions that don't apply to today's climate." Thanks, but we do not need you to explain this matter to us Eric. Besides, you are floating a red herring, b/c what you say is not necessarily true as shown in Fig3a of Knutti and Hegerl (2008). You need to look at Fig 3a again very closely. There is very close agreement between the 66% probability ranges (and medians) for EQS derived from the "General circulation models" and those derives from "Proxy data from millions of years ago". In fact, multiple independent lines of evidence (including those from modern/recent times)are largely consistent with the 66% confidence interval and median reported in AR4.
66019. Eric (skeptic) at 06:01 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       Albatross, I scoured at Tom's suggestion (150), otherwise I would not have spent time on it. The figure should be discussed in context within an appropriate thread (which we have started).
66020. angliss at 06:01 AM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Oh, another interesting point - you can apply Shannon's Sampling Theorem to determine how small a surface grid you need to accurately represent the climate in a region, or to say how much accuracy you get from a given grid. 5x5 degree grids are pretty inaccurate (they'd miss pretty much all of the climate variation in my home state of Colorado), but a 1x1 degree grid gets the bulk of it. Sampling theory indicates that horizontal resolution isn't nearly as important as vertical resolution, too. Fun stuff. :)
66021. angliss at 05:56 AM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       I'd have preferred "projection" instead of "prediction," as I think that's more accurate, but that's a nit compared to the overall post. Thanks!
66022. Philippe Chantreau at 05:56 AM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       Patonomics, we don't learn in science about the hierarchy of certainty that you enumerated. Hypothesis, law and theory are 3 differents concepts with different functions that can not be fitted in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. A hypothesis is a key element of scientific reasoning on a particular problem, and could be described as a provisional explanation for an observed phenomenon. That provisional explanation can be tested in a variety of ways, the easiest being through its implications: if hypothesis a is correct, then it implies that its consequences x and y should be observed, are they? Another way to test it is by experimentation. A law is a stripped down, basic relationship between objects or forces that always holds true, as far as we know, under certain conditions. Newton's laws of motion and gravity are useable for all practical purposes within the Newtonian domain of application, but they are not sufficient when velocity or mass goes beyond that domain, hence the necessity of using Einstein's laws for the orbit of Mercury or GPS calculations. Laws are not always true and break down near or at the limits of their domain. A theory is a generalization, a far reaching construct explaining an aspect of the physical world for which a law is not enough. Theories put the laws together and make sense of them. They can allow to make predictions, which can be verified by observations, and that are beyond what a single law would allow to predict. All of Wien's law, Schrodinger's equation and Heisenberg's unertainty principle are necessary to Quantum Theory. The theory does not have a lower level of certainty than any one of its laws, principles, or any given underlying component. In fact, it has a rather higher level. If any of the laws I mentioned above was to be found not quite as true as we thought, it would not draw from the theory, which still remains extremely successful at predicting what we can observe. It would have to be revised, but its past sucesses would not cease to exist. By the same token, Einstein did not invalidate Newton, it simply changed its domain of application. I don't know where you received that hierarchy of certainty idea from but you should rethink it. I do know that it is an argument often touted by creationists denying Evolution. It does not correspond to the reality of how science works and it misrepresents what a scientific theory is.
66023. sidd at 05:48 AM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Do any models use adaptive grids or adaptive timestep ? sidd
66024. Composer99 at 05:30 AM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       There needs to be an Internet version of the proverb: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."
66025. muoncounter at 05:28 AM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       patonomics#15: "those who claim with 100% certainty" No one produces claims with 100% certainty in any science. Global warming is a prediction (or a result) based on known physics: Energy in - Energy out = energy gain -> increasing temperature. That was shown to be scientifically valid many years ago. Anything that alters the flow of energy will thus have a predictable result, which matches what we observe. By your highly artificial requirement of a 'general mathematical formula,' there are no fully complete sciences at all. So that requirement is nonsensical.
66026. Bob Lacatena at 05:28 AM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       I agree with patonomics, except my area of concern is modern medicine. Doctors and nurses and such expect me to believe they are able to cure and prevent certain diseases, and to suggest lifestyle changes that I should adopt in order to improve my chance of a longer, healthier life. I think that if this were true, they should be able to provide me with a general mathematical formula that can be used without any exception L(lifespan at time t) = f (X1, X2, X3, .... Xn)* + c by the people who claim to be "Authority in the Subject', claim that their claim is Conclusive. * Where X1, X2, ...., Xn are variables, and they may very well be multidimensional.
66027. chudiburg at 05:19 AM on 21 January 2012
       It's cooling
       11th warmest year on record, but 1st warmest comparable la nina year on record according to NOAA...hmm? Does this mean anything?
66028. John Hartz at 04:57 AM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       patonomics: The twelve part series, “Atmospheric Radiation and the ‘Greenhouse’ Effect” posted on The Science of Doom website, would be a good place for you to start. It is a 12-part series providing more explanation of how the atmosphere absorbs and emits radiation, including a simple model to provide insight. The model uses fictitious molecules pH2O and pCO2 (which have only a passing resemblance to the real molecules) to demonstrate some key points. Part Six even explains the real equations used.
66029. michael sweet at 04:56 AM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       Patonomics: You do not understand the basic definations of Theory and Law in science. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Laws are descriptions of a number of observations. Theories explain how things work and predict future observations. Both theories and laws can be changed if new data becomes available, but that does not happen very often. Climate is too complicated to have a simple mathematical formula to describe it. In the past the land masses were in different places, the sun was colder and many other things were different. There are explainations of all these differences but you need to search them on your own. I suggest you start with The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart. It conatins all the information you seek. If you have a less combative tone you will find people more helpful.
       Moderator Response: [Sph] Link fixed.
66030. Albatross at 04:46 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       Eric et al., Eric (skeptic) you are desperately trying to get traction with something that does not have traction, all the while admitting that the use of KN08 Fig3 here is not the same as Pat Michaels doctoring several graphs. So really this all amounts to nothing more than a very protracted strawman argument and attempt to fabricate debate on your part. As several people have noted, what panels one could/should include is highly subjective, is situation dependent and depends on the context. You do not seem to get those points. Moreover, given that you insist on feeding fodder to the uncritical readers at WUWT confirms my observation that you are not operating in good faith on this issue. And earlier you took offense/exception when I suggested that people were now going to "scour" SkS looking for examples of alleged figure doctoring, claiming that you had not done that (and that was true at the time). However, you have gone on to do just that at 158 above-- a fine example of duplicity on your part. Now can we please take this KN08 "discussion" to the appropriate thread, future comments about KN08 here will be summarily deleted.
       Moderator Response: [Albatross] Text no longer relevant struck out.
66031. patonomics at 04:40 AM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       We learn in Science, there is progression in knowing through 1)Hypothesis, 2)Theory and 3)Law. Scientific law is the place where one can validated a claim, and after validation time and again, its agreed to get settled. I am not a Climate scientist, but I have the capability to understand science & technology of Physic, Chemistry, Mathematics, Fluid Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Heat & Mass Transfer. People who claimed to be "Subject Authority in climate science", claims there is AGW(impact of human induced co2). If I assume for a minute to be absolutely true "Like a law of Science"for a minute, then May I humble ask those who claim with 100% certainty to produce (or refer me to any scientifically validated research article) a formula which I and many others can "validate agw (impact of human induced co2)conclusively" for any point of earth's history of temperature during which we have temperature and natural (and human induced)co2 record? I expect the response must produce/pointer towards general mathematical formula that can be used without any exception T(temp at time t) = f (X1, X2, X3, . . . . . Xn)* + c, by the people who claim to be 'Authority in the Subject', claim that their claim is Conclusive. * Where X1, X2, . . . . , Xn are variables, and they may very well be multidimensional
       Response:

       [DB] As one possessing Subject Authority in this site's Comment Policy, I must humbly ask you to both familiarize yourself with said policy and expect you to also refrain from posting in all-caps without any exceptions.

       Also, claims made must be supportable with source citations (this is a science website, after all).  Please provide a supportive cite for your assertion:

       People who claimed to be "Subject Authority in climate science", claims there is AGW(impact of human induced co2).

       Or withdraw it.
       

66032. Albatross at 04:26 AM on 21 January 2012
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       Eric @66, "Even if a 3C estimate of paleo-sensitivity is accurate (considering it uses the same models as other estimates so it is not an independent estimate), it doesn't apply to modern climate. " I think you meant to say "...it doesn't necessarily apply to modern climate". You do not unequivocally know that a priori.
66033. J. Bob at 04:25 AM on 21 January 2012
       Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
       DB from J. Bob @ 27 while I may look at climate4you, and they do have some good graphs, which I have checked out, I make it a point of using primary sources. owl905 & 29 here is a ref. to a graph using yearly HadCRUT3gl data up to 2009, which I did last year. In addition I used some different filters to evaluate to reduce the "noise". These included the MOV, MATLAB "filtfilt" (Chev 2-pole), & Fourier Convolution. Filter cutoff for the upper was 10 years, while the lower had 30 yrs. http://www.4shared.com/photo/3P7Sufpf/Filter_Comp_10_30yr.html I still think Whitehouse made a good bet, and when I update this with 2011 data, I bet he could win again, since the above curves indicate a plateau or maybe a dip. DB, question, when you do a preview, are posted images, or referenced images, checked for the correct format?
       Response:

       [DB] "when you do a preview, are posted images, or referenced images"

       If they are in a standard graphic format such as ,jpg, .gif or .png, then yes.  Other formats may work, but the Preview function will show what will post.  If the Preview shows only an image outline or no image, then no.

       Images and grphics contained in .pdf's normally cannot be linked directly (except if they contain embedded hyperlinks).  Use a screen capture utility such as MWSnap to extract them, then upload to a hosting service or to a blog of your own to then reference them.

       Wiki pages often have images on a root page, so ensure the URL string ends in a graphics format (such as .jpg) before linking.

66034. dana1981 at 04:10 AM on 21 January 2012
       Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
       Julian - the original BEST data included two final data points which were incomplete, only containing data from Antarctic temperature stations. They were probably included erroneously. Various "skeptics" used those data points to argue that BEST showed global warming had stopped. You can't get a recent cooling trend without including those two points, so I kept them in the "skeptic" view, but removed them in the "realist" view, since really they should have been excluded as incomplete.
66035. JulianRGP at 04:04 AM on 21 January 2012
       Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
       Looking at Figure 2 (How "Skeptics" & Realists View Global Warming), the dark green graph is of course the same in either the "Skeptic" or the Realist view, because the dataset is the same. But there's one exception. On the Skeptic (becoming tired of hunting for the double quote key!) view, there's a huge dip down to -1 deg C. I don't understand what that is. Is it a jokey impression saying that a Skeptic would say that it'll be cool next year? If so, it's not coming over well because it looks as if it's in the past and it's the same colour. If I've missed the point of the huge dip, please say what it is! Enjoyed the article in general. I guess it's like betting on a usually winning racehorse that has occasional off days!
66036. Martin Lack at 04:01 AM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Excellent work, Kate. It's nice to see the fruit of all your work in preparation for the AGU meeting. Your final paragraph says it all though: Palaeoclimatology tells us all we really need to know (as in James Hansen's Storms of my Grandchildren). Unfortunately, so-called "skeptics" refuse to accept the evidence of either models or palaeoclimatology. May be record-breaking numbers of tornados over places like the University of Alabama in Huntsville (Roy W Spencer's home turf?) and the spiralling insurance costs of fixing what were once rare events will change their minds? We can but hope...
66037. KR at 03:51 AM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Excellent article! I have in the past used the zero dimensional model in discussions and for my own evaluations - use one of the many radiative transfer programs such as MODTRAN to see how changes in GHG's affect total emissivity, and directly calculate resulting global temperatures from direct forcings. Or look at paleo evidence such as Milankovich insolation changes, calculate the direct forcing changes, compare to recorded total temperature changes, and see what that tells you about feedbacks and climate sensitivity. High resolution? Regional forcasts? No. But even the simplest model can provide useful, indicative results.
66038. barry1487 at 03:41 AM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Very accessible explanation of climate models. Great job. I'll be sharing it. Personal nit - the advocacy in the last sentence jars with the rest.
66039. Eric (skeptic) at 02:18 AM on 21 January 2012
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       What's missing from the paleo paragraph in the OP is that paleo estimates of uncertainty contain one or more of the following: "No, poorly understood, large uncertainties, very few studies or poor agreement, (un)known limitations, low confidence" for most estimation criteria, particularly similar climate base state, similar forcings and feedbacks, etc. As I explained above about a year ago, the transition from glacial to interglacial conditions have starting conditions that don't apply to today's climate. Even if a 3C estimate of paleo-sensitivity is accurate (considering it uses the same models as other estimates so it is not an independent estimate), it doesn't apply to modern climate.
66040. John Hartz at 02:18 AM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       Zachary Shahan at Planetsave reposted Dana's article with the following introduction: “In another wonderful post on global warming, Skeptical Science conducts a comprehensive review of scientific studies on the causes of global warming.”
66041. Bob Lacatena at 02:10 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       Concerning the "which figures" to include discussion, I believe it is very much a matter of context and perceived intent. Without going into the details of the examples discussed, let me offer one that is equivalent but distinct. The CO2 science "MWP Project" purports to demonstrate that the MWP was as warm or warmer than today. As evidence they offer this graph from one particular paper that studied South Andes ice cores: This is one segment of a single figure (figure 6) of 3 such graphs for two other cores from that particular paper (Thomspon et al, 2003): That, in turn, is also paired with another figure (figure 5) of 3 Tibetan cores: These 6 graphs make the heart of the paper. Clearly, the inclusion of one carefully selected graph from figure 6 supports their contention, while the exclusion of five other graphs makes their selection seem... tilted. In particular, they demonstrate how widely temperatures varied even within the same continent, and that the peak presented by Quelccaya is not at all contemporaneous (off by several hundred years) with peak temperatures in any of the other cores. In fact, this one paper, if presented fairly, serves as strong evidence that the MCA was not a global event that is any way comparable to current warming. Obviously, there is always more information that could be included. As an editor or author, one is always faced with the choice between too much and too little. As an observer, one can always argue the wisdom of such choices after the fact. The question is not was it a good choice. The question is was it a clearly biased choice, intended to misrepresent the actual available information and the likely, most reasonable conclusion one might draw from that information. The question is, seeing what was there, do you feel that you (and others) have been misled by the selection of information presented.
66042. Daniel Bailey at 02:05 AM on 21 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       @ Tealy I believe that part of the stumbling block impeding your understanding of SLR is implicit in the perception that the Earth is a sphere and that its mass is equally distributed. It is not a sphere precisely (equatorially bulging) nor is its mass equally distributed. It is thus more precisely described as a geoid. The reason this matters is that as ice sheets such as the Greenland Ice Sheet and those at the South Pole (the West Antarctic Ice Sheet plus the East Antarctic Ice Sheet) lose/offload mass (such as they are currently doing), the redistribution of mass that occurs will alter sea levels in a dynamic fashion: some localized areas may actually experience sea level lowering while yet other areas, such as Tuvalu, may experience a disproportionate amount of sea level rise.
66043. Eric (skeptic) at 02:04 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       Tom, thanks for the mockup. You have proven that it is possible to create an independent figure from K&H08 figure 3b with just a little work. I don't agree that it is perfectly sensible without knowing that it applies to the estimates in K&H08 fig 3a. Otherwise you are correct, it is now independent of 3a.

       Here's my list of uses of 3a: wide version:
       /climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
       /lindzen-illusion-4-climate-sensitivity.html
       /ppm451.html
       /Schmittner-climate-sensitivity-goood-bad-ugly.html
       /christy-crock-6-climate-sensitivity.html
       /Monckton-Myth-4-Climate-Sensitivity.html
       /spencer_ocean.html
       /climate-sensitivity-skeptic-end-game.html

       upright version:
       /climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
       /detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html
       /co2-warming-35-percent.htm
       /working-out-climate-sensitivity.html

       some offsite uses (incomplete search):
       http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/11/a-new-estimate-of-climate-sensitivity
       http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/09/19/206503/climate-sensitivity-lukewarmers

       I'll comment on one of those threads as you suggested.

66044. KR at 01:59 AM on 21 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy - As I noted here, Tuvalu has gained attention because the islands are indeed suffering from sea level rises, and because they are populated. Hence that set of islands have become a "poster child" example of climate change affecting us. But regardless of trade winds, all atoll islands are going to suffer consequences from sea level rise - Tuvalu is just one of the first. It's simply a matter of time - as Becker 2011 notes, we're going to lose many of the western Pacific islands in the next 150 years, and other islands in other regions will follow depending on local sea level rise rates. And that's because the seas are rising, at rates that are only going to increase with further warming. If you disagree, I would suggest moving to the more relevant threads here or here.
66045. Tom Curtis at 01:43 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       KR @156, I probably would have done that, except that Watts had so recently threatened to ban me.
66046. KR at 01:39 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       Tom Curtis - I have had that experience on a couple of WordPress sites (including WUWT, but also others). Whether due to some cookies being cleared, refresh issues, or site database handling while a post is actually being moderated, I cannot say, but I believe it's simply structural to the mechanics of WordPress blogs. I've learned to come back and look at sites the next morning before getting concerned.
66047. Tealy at 01:35 AM on 21 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       CBD and Stephen Bains @32 & 33. Thermal expansion and ice loss affect all the ocean evenly, in other words these only increase the average sea level not the zonal tilting. For one part of an ocean to have a difference in level there must be a driving force. The difference in level is the effect, I am questioning, delving into, and asking what is the cause. Because to say the effect will continue to increase (ie that sea level rise around Tuvali will continue to rise at a greater rate than the ocean average), requires you to take a view that the cause will increase. I don't think you can take a view that a cause will continue to increase if you don't have a position on what you believe that cause to be. I would like to understand the cause. Reading through this article the basis for the extrapolation seems to be that the sea level around Tuvalu has been observed to increased at a greater rate than the ocean average for 50 years, and that trend somehow must continue for 100 more years. I don't see any evidence or basis put forward to support the extrapolation of zonal tilting, and there should be. What is the nexus? What causes zonal tilting? Why will the cause continue to increase for 100 years? To quote:- "The onus is on he who says it is so". There is evidence and basis that global warming will increase average sea levels, ie a warmer ocean will thermally expand (as long as it is above 6C otherwise it contracts with warming) etc. To say zonal tilting will increase due to global warming is insufficient. The nexus between more co2 and more zonal tilting is not my hypothesis to prove, and just because the two have increased does not prove a relationship. But I do want to understand so I can take a view as to whether the cause and therefore the effect will continue for 100 years.
66048. Tom Curtis at 01:31 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       Sphaerica, two comments of mine did not appear on Watt's up with that when initially posted. Not even the usual "awaiting moderation" status appeared. As a result I incorrectly surmised that I had been banned from WUWT. Hence my intemperate and inaccurate remark (since snipped) at 141 above. While I think the comment is well justified on other grounds, it was not in this case and offer Anthony Watts my (obviously qualified) apology for that remark. However, this is not a case of my being censored at WUWT, although I have been in the past.
66049. Tom Curtis at 01:26 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       Eric (skeptic), as you are persisting in your line of questioning on WUWT, I have produced the following edited version of Knutti and Hegerl's figure 3b for illustrative purposes only: Now, I put it to you that if you where reading Knutti and Hegerl, and having come across their actual figure 3a as figure 2, and then came across a figure 3 as represented above, you would not think the figure was senseless. You would not find it was impossible to understand. It would be a perfectly sensible figure to you. It follows from that that, logically, figure 3b is an independent figure from 3a in Knutti and Hegerl. It is, of course, not independent of the entire discussion in Knutti and Hegerl, or independent of discussion of climate sensitivity. Despite that, I can certainly imagine contexts in which that figure could be found without the equivalent of figure 3a and nobody would bat an eyelid. Please note that the 1901-2000 data in the Gillett figure is also logically independent of the 1851-2010 data. It could have been produced as an independent figure and, again, nobody would bat an eyelid. However, it was not produced as an independent figure. Presumably it was not because the authors (or reviewers) thought the disparity of results raised significant questions about the robustness of the main result, and did not want that issue to escape notice. In contrast to the authors (or reviewers), Michaels and Knappenberg did want the issue of robustness to escape notice, even though it was clearly pertinent to Michaels' discussion. It follows that there is a clear ethical difference between the two cases. But had Gillett produced the 1901 to 2000 data on one figure, and the 1851 to 2010 data on another seperate figure (even if part of the same cluster), and if Michael's had then reproduced the figure for the 1851-2010 data, then Dana's inclusion of the Gillett case in the above post would have been absurd. What is more, while Michaels' article may have been subject to criticism on basis of intellectual merit because it did not discuss relevant issues, issues of misepresentation of sources would not have arisen. Conversely, had Knutti and Hegerl included figure 3a and 3b as part of one single figure 3 without distinct discussion, separating them would have been problematic. Finally, I dislike your raising questions to me on WUWT. I rarely visit that site, and even more rarely comment because a large part of the commenting participants have a demonstrated inability to follow logical argument, and a clear unwillingness of follow basic rules of reasoning. Discussion with them is literally pointless. The Biblical injunction to not cast pearls before swine is very relevant. There appears to me to be no reason for you to raise issues with me on WUWT unless you feel the presence of an abusive, and scientifically illiterate audience to distract me is necessary for your argument.
66050. Bob Lacatena at 01:07 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       144, Eric (skeptic),

       BTW, your reply to me has appeared at WUWT.

       Oh, no. Censorship at WUWT? Erasing something just because it's inconvenient? Who'd have thunk it.

Prev  1313  1314  1315  1316  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  1324  1325  1326  1327  1328  Next