Recent Comments

Prev  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  1324  1325  1326  1327  1328  1329  1330  1331  1332  1333  Next

Comments 66251 to 66300:

66251. jmorpuss at 17:49 PM on 21 January 2012
       It's satellite microwave transmissions
       

       Here are some other things that belong in this thread 1 1.5 kW – tech: legal limit of power output of an amateur radio station in the United States 2 50 kW to 100 kW – tech: highest allowed ERP for an FM band radio station in the United States 3 10 MW – tech: highest ERP allowed for an UHF television station I did some maths and found this as reference LINK One thing I didn't do was add all the repeater stations and satalite links I just used the main stations which came to 27,190 x 10MW= 271GW of accumulative ERP (Effective radiated power) 4 Radars are also on my list to search ERP levels (weather,shiping and aircraft radars) and lets not forget space research 5 The mobile phone network is also a problem and needs to be callculated 6 The military will be the hardest to callculate no power restrictions when it comes to war, the one with the most power wins

66252. Tom Curtis at 17:22 PM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       barry @14, I think there is a little in what you say, but it is also a little cock eyed. Consider, for example, the post supporting Katherine Hayhoe. It is not advocacy. On the contrary, it is merely standing up to say that death threats and threats of violence against children are not acceptable means of public discourse. I happily grant that that is not a scientific point, but nor need it be. It is perfectly acceptable, regardless of the particular objectives of a website, to take a stand against such torrents of hate. I am certain that should a prominent denier receive similar threats against them, SkS would take a stand against that as well, and would not thereby be advocating their political position. Consider also the Debunking Handbook. That is an exposition of the tools and pitfalls of rational exposition. As such it is useful (in principle) to any side of politics, and to any side of a scientific argument. One of the reasons for its great success is its very applicability outside of the climate debate. Its publication, therefore, does not take sides, and does not advocate. Indeed, where the various opponents of climate science as science orientated as they purport to be, the debunking handbook would be as useful a tool to them as it is to us. Or, again, consider the Stephen Schneider video. Stephen Schneider's message was straightforwardly scientific. That the science has policy implications does not alter that fact, for Schneider did not advocate any particular policy response. That the comments focused on issues of communication rather than the scientific issues canvassed by Schneider is hardly the fault (and definitely opposite to the intention) of the author of the article. However, there have been some examples of more political blog posts on Skeptical Science, some of which undoubtedly qualify as advocacy. Two examples of more political posts have been posts by Daniel Bailey simply asking the question as to what climate responses would be considered consistent with a conservative political philosophy given the fact that a response does seem necessary based on the science. While definitely political, that is not advocacy. A recent blog by Sphaerica could reasonably be characterized as advocacy. Although based on science, it went beyond science to reflect a personal view of why Sphaerica has concerns for the future. The key feature here, however, is that it is a blog post. The articles which form the back bone and reason for existence of Skeptical Science are the myth rebutals. All 173 of them. They are strictly science only. So are most of the blog posts, but as blog posts there is room for occasionally greater latitude. I don't see a problem with that.
66253. Rob Honeycutt at 15:38 PM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       barry @ 14... I think it's tough because so many of the SkS authors are also people who frequently comment of various online forums where there is an element of "doing battle" with severe attempts to undermine climate science. I believe the intent is to persuade people to listen to the science, warts, uncertainties and all. Honestly, I still continually deal with people who are absolutely emphatic that CO2 is too small a part of the composition of the atmosphere to have any effect whatsoever. And there is everything from that extreme up to even Dr Pielke who recently stated to high school students that "Arctic ice is melting but Antarctic ice is growing" without any hint of how completely misleading such a statement is with regards to global ice mass loss. I think the intent is to persuade people to better understand climate science in the face of considerable and organized efforts to the contrary. Sometimes that may translate into over reactions. If there is any advocacy, it should be the advocacy and communication of science.
66254. climatesight at 15:18 PM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Hmm, good point about prediction vs projection. Although the correct scientific term is projection, in light of Susan Joy Hassol's and Richard Sommerville's paper in Physics Today, I thought prediction would be easier for a general audience to understand. Worth reconsidering, though - it's a grey area.
66255. barry1487 at 15:14 PM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       (Following comment not to be conflated with my response to Kate) Generally, it appears to me that SkS has started to move beyond the purely scientific towards a kind of advocacy that is implied more than charged - what has been in the background is beginning to come forward. To corroborate what I mean, here's a recent post on the email abuse of a Christian scientist and in-article comments on her 'values', as well as a link to a facebook page where one can register support for a cause. Also there have been various recent discussions on how to be persuasive in arguments (eg Debunking Handbook), public relations and so forth, including in the linked post. I commented similarly in the thread on the Stephen Schneider video recently, where much of the discussion was about how to persuade. There's always a trade-off in the public discourse between being purely scientific and making the information accessible. It's a constant refrain here in the comments section, whether implied or directly said. It seems to me that SkS has been erring more towards being persuasive than being 'solely scientific' There is nothing wrong with being more active in this regard, but it should be flagged, as SkS has described itself as a neutral, pure science site. "Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science." http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml If you're not seeing what I'm seeing then I may be cock-eyed, but with a growing stable of writers for SkS and thus a wider range of approaches and perspectives on the general subject, perhaps the SkS mission statement needs updating? If not, then tighter editing should be exercised.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] A quick look through the archives shows that such 'advocacy' posts have shown up from time to time. Posts regarding communication of climate science, whether intended to persuade or inform, are always relevant.
66256. climatesight at 15:10 PM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       #3 Martin Lack - at the AGU meeting, I was struck by some of the work by James Hansen and Ken Caldeira that showed climate sensitivity in the PETM to be around 6 C. That may or may not be a good analogue for today, though, because climate sensitivity can change depending on factors such as the position of continents.
66257. PLbrunson at 15:09 PM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Very worthwhile read. I would join in a small concern about the use of prediction instead of projection. Prediction is so closely associated with weather that using it in place of projection invites problems. Weathermen are about 50-50 in prediction success.
66258. ribwoods at 15:02 PM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       @15 patonomics Look at the paper cited as "Evans 2006" "Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate" W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin Abstract: http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm quote: "... Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." Extended abstract: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf
66259. owl905 at 14:43 PM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       Patonics@15 The groundwork you're looking for appears to be in section 4a of "A Survey of the Radiative Properties of Carbon Dioxide", published in 1968: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/cp/0981.pdf Your multi-disciplinary background suggests you'll find this easy to digest. hth.
66260. barry1487 at 14:24 PM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Kate @ 8 One of the best things Pielke Snr has said is that we should take action not because we're certain (which we're not), but because we DON'T know what's going to happen. There's a chance the disruption could be less than we fear, but it's also possible that the consequences could be dire. If you had written that there could potentially be severe consequences, then I'd have no nit to pick. No, you're not prescribing policy, you're prescribing a generalised future. It may be that I'm overly sensitive to unqualified language from many rounds with argumentative contrarians, but OTOH, I'm sure sci profs would also raise an eyebrow at unqualified predictions. When the rest of the post is a straightforward explanation of the science, the last sentence seems to come from a different place. ------------- Well, I've beaten that nit to death. Your post is the clearest, most accessible description of climate models for lay people I've yet read (reading on climate sci voraciously since March 2007). Good on you.
66261. actually thoughtful at 14:19 PM on 21 January 2012
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       The date of the last update at the end of the article does not match the Update date.
       Response:

       [DB] The article update date is indicative of the last update/rewrite/iteration of the main article.  The date of the "update" below that indicates the date of the specific revision mentioned (correction of the incorrect quote).

66262. Tom Curtis at 14:15 PM on 21 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       actually thoughtful, first thanks. Second, "Soros funded" we wish.
66263. muoncounter at 13:34 PM on 21 January 2012
       Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
       skeptikal#14: "Recent articles seem to point to global warming taking a break." This is a science site; unless you are willing to state which specific articles you refer to, your statement is unsubstantiated and therefore merely your opinion. If you seek credibility as a 'skeptik,' you must act the part. For factual analysis, see this discussion of Foster and Rahmstorf 2011. Global warming has not taken a break: the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010.
66264. actually thoughtful at 13:29 PM on 21 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       Tom Curtis - thank you. I had spent the previous two days on WUWT - I think I was losing perspective. Like many, I routinely direct confused posters in other venues to SkS - it would be a shame if the site became sullied over these issues - but I have been around enough to realize that emotion matters more than science for many (humans, not just skeptics). In fact, it probably matters more for those who have legitimate doubt and certainly those who have decided against the science - they have self-selected away from the science, leaving them only emotion and endless rationalization. One could say well just leave them to their delusions, but I think one reason this site exists is to document that we DO know what is happening, and to be a resource for those legitimately interested in learning - thus the drive to be beyond reproach. I realize I am amongst like minded people, and I hope I am viewed as prodding us to be our best, and not a gadfly. KR - It is very likely that SkS will set the standard in moderation as it already sets the standard for debating the science. I do think SkS has a ways to go before the claim of complete transparency can be made, but I can also envision that happening, and I think it will be a huge win - and perhaps put a stop to the seeming endless "SkS - you mean that Soros funded site that deletes comments and modifies posts" and on and on and on and on - anything to avoid talking about the science.
66265. Tom Curtis at 12:37 PM on 21 January 2012
       Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
       (un)skeptikal @14, what you have just produced is called a Gish Gallop. It is the typical marker of the very unskeptical AGW deniers that frequently visit site, post their Gish Gallop and then disappear when they find out that reasonable standards of rational discourse are actually required here (see the comment policy). The purpose of the Gish Gallop is to "... drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised." Well, consider me drowned. I do not have time to respond to all the half truths and full false hoods you have spewed forth. I will, however, address two. You claim that "Climate scientists stand to lose their research grants if the increase in temperature proves to be a natural variation." Well, possibly, but as most of the well respected Climate Scientists have tenure, that would make no appreciable difference to their income. More importantly, of the many careers in science, Climate Science is one of the least attractive in terms of financial gain. Much better to go into chemistry, or medicine where there is the potential of a big payoff from patentable discoveries. Or better yet, become a geologist specializing in oil, where the salaries are better and a successful career will lead to paid positions on the boards of mining companies. That gives you the prospect of being a muli-millionaire like Ian Plimer. The fact that any person has chosen to be a climate scientist therefore means that person has chosen the pursuit of knowledge over the pursuit of income as a primary motivator in their life. In contrast, choosing a career in fossil fuels shows that you have made the reverse choice. So don't try setting up your false equivalencies here. We are not that gullible. You also claim, "I tend to distrust data that has been manipulated ...". Well, I have bad news for you. All data is "manipulated". We cannot measure temperature directly. Instead we measure a distance, specifically the expansion of a metal (mercury) in a glass tube, and then convert that into a temperature scale. Granted the thermometers we use have the distance scale marked as degrees for our convenience, but it is still a conversion of a distance measurement into a temperature measurement, and hence a "manipulation". The case is even worse for satellite temperature measurements, which take a measure of electrical current induced by microwaves, and after some manipulation produce a measure of radiation intensity, which is then, with further manipulation turned into a measure of temperature. Spencer and Christy do not get the credit they deserve among fake AGW skeptics for the level of mathematical sophistication (ie, manipulation) involved in their product. Yet the same fake skeptics who claim that they do not trust manipulated data prefer the far more manipulated UAH temperature product to the very minimally manipulated HadCRU surface temperature product (or the slightly more manipulated, but more accurate GISTEMP product). Finaly, in the very unlikely case that you are not a fake skeptic, but merely gullible and misinformed, instead of posting screeds at your first appearance, read the various articles here at SkS and post specific and relevant questions at those articles where you have further questions. But if you are going to instead quack like a fake skeptic duck, remember it's always duck hunting season here at Skeptical Science.
66266. Composer99 at 12:28 PM on 21 January 2012
       Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
       skeptikal: If you're stating nonsense such as this - In 1970, scientists of the day were saying that the planet was heading into an ice age. Clearly they were wrong. I want to know what makes scientists today right, when the only thing they have is computer models. - or this - Recent articles seem to point to global warming taking a break. If the planet's natural variability can over-ride the apparent induced warming by CO2 emissions, then is CO2 warming really that much of a problem? - then you are not, in any meaningful fashion, a skeptic in the contemporary sense.
66267. skeptikal at 11:47 AM on 21 January 2012
       Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
       As a true skeptic, here's the way I see it; Fact: Big oil stands to lose big money if people are forced to move away from carbon. Fact: (-snipClimate scientists stand to lose their research grants if the increase in temperature proves to be a natural variation-). As a skeptic, I tend to distrust data that has been manipulated or if you prefer to, you can call it "adjusted". A lot of controversy stems from how the data was adjusted. Obtaining the raw data isn't all that easy and from what I understand, the scientists doing the adjusting are keeping the algorithms a closely guarded secret. One of the first things I was taught about computers was GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). I'm concerned that what's coming out of scientist's computers is as worthless as the manipulated data that's going in. The time scale being used is something that also bothers me. A lot of the graphs being presented are of the 1970-2000 timescale which coincides with the Pacific Ocean being in the warm phase. Is a 30 year time scale really sufficient to draw definitive conclusions? Recent articles seem to point to global warming taking a break. If the planet's natural variability can over-ride the apparent induced warming by CO2 emissions, then is CO2 warming really that much of a problem? In 1970, scientists of the day were saying that the planet was heading into an ice age. Clearly they were wrong. I want to know what makes scientists today right, when the only thing they have is computer models. As far as I'm concerned; predictions, prophecies, crystal balls and tarot cards all fall into the same basket. I want cold hard facts... and unfortunately, a computer model "prediction" based on adjusted data doesn't qualify. I don't like the alarmists attitude that either you believe the AGW theory, or you're some kind of demon. Being a skeptic simply means that I'm not yet convinced.
       Response:

       [DB] As Tom Curtis has quite rightlyfully pointed out, your comment is little more than an unsubstantiated Gish Gallop.  Please apprise yourself of this site's Comments Policy before posting further here. 

       Furthermore, please utilize the Search function in the upper left of every page at SkS & post your comments on the most appropriate thread.  Subsequent off-topic comments such as this one will be simply deleted.

       Imputation of impropriety and fraud snipped.

66268. Tealy at 11:44 AM on 21 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Does anyone have references to articles as to the causes of zonal tilting? Anyone studies up on such articles? As zonal tilting is the crux of this main article, I would like a better understanding of it's causes, noting the above article is observational rather than analytical.
66269. Tealy at 11:36 AM on 21 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Rob @39 Ok Rob, please read my questions again. I will help you with you lack of comprehension. I am not asking about average sea level rise which is caused be ice melt etc, I am asking about zonal tilting.
66270. Dave123 at 11:21 AM on 21 January 2012
       Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
       I wonder about having a "Hall of Shame" where drive-by posters who behave as SaltSpringson did can be memorialized... came, posted,left, made no attempt to provide evidence to back up any assertions.
66271. Rob Painting at 11:21 AM on 21 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy - it's not a personal attack it is a factual statement. You wrote that sea level rise was even, it isn't. And this was clearly spelled out in the article. Doesn't get much easier to comprehend than that. Sea level rise (SLR) is complex, it will be complicated by wind and ocean circulation changes, the distribution of icesheet melt (greater Greenland icesheet melt will give a different pattern of SLR than greater West Antarctic icesheet melt), land mass uplift in some regions. And that's just for starters. But this thread is about Tuvalu, the bigger picture will have to wait for another post. Also, I've mentioned numerous times on this thread that sea level projections for the western tropical Pacific are contradictory. That's just a reflection of how split the climate models are on future warming trends in the Pacific, i.e will the Pacific Ocean background state of the future resemble a La Nina, El Nino pattern, or stay much the same?
66272. Albatross at 11:06 AM on 21 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       All, A big hat tip to Eli Rabett, who just posted the following quote from Paul Krugman. It perfectly encapsulates what is going on here. Paul Krugman [my bolding]: "Let me instead go meta; this is an example of why policy debate is so frustrating, and why I’m not polite. The key thing about how the conservative movement handles debate is that it never gives up an argument, no matter how often and how thoroughly it has been refuted. Oh, there will be more sophisticated arguments made too; but the zombie lies will be rolled out again and again, with little or no pushback from the “respectable” wing of the movement. In comments and elsewhere I fairly often encounter the pearl-clutchers, who want to know why I can’t politely disagree, since we’re all arguing in good faith, right? Wrong." Exactly! And instead of there being pushback from so-called 'skeptics' (e.g., WUWT), what do they do instead? They promulgate the misinformation and take steps to try an detract form the doctoring of graphs by Michaels.
66273. Albatross at 10:48 AM on 21 January 2012
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       Tom @72, "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." That was pretty much the gist of my post @68. That is not my opinion of course, but what is borne out by multiple, independent studies by people who specialize in this field. I have a sneaking suspicion though, that Eric thinks he knows better than KH08 and Dr. Huber and the collective body of (robust) evidence.
66274. Eric (skeptic) at 10:41 AM on 21 January 2012
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       Albatross and Tom, thanks for your responses. I have to go to meeting right now, but I will try to give a thorough answer later.
66275. Albatross at 10:36 AM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       skept.fr @9, I agree, but only to a point. We both know that there are other ways of estimating equilibrium climate sensitivity. We also know about, for example, the Clausius-Claperyon relation and how that relates to the WV feedback. We also know that way back when Arrhenius and Tyndall estimated what might happen if we doubled CO2 without the aid of complex AOGCMs (coupled atmosphere ocean general circulation models). Additionally Annan and Hargreaves (2006) wrote a neat paper. This is how RealClimate describe what they (A+H) did and found: "A+H combine three independently determined constraints using Bayes Theorem and come up with a new distribution that is the most likely given the different pieces of information. Specifically they take constraints from the 20th Century (1 to 10ºC), the constraints from responses to volcanic eruptions (1.5 to 6ºC) and the LGM data (-0.6 to 6.1ºC – a widened range to account for extra paleo-climatic uncertainties) to come to a formal Bayesian conclusion that is much tighter than each of the individual estimates. They find that the mean value is close to 3ºC, and with 95% limits at 1.7ºC and 4.9ºC, and a high probability that sensitivity is less than 4.5ºC. Unsurprisingly, it is the LGM [Last Glacial Maximum] data that makes very large sensitivities extremely unlikely. The paper is very clearly written and well worth reading for more of the details. The mathematics therefore demonstrates what the scientists basically thought all along." We also know from paleo data, that rapid injections of CO2 (and other GHGs) into the atmosphere changed the climate dramatically and that those changes brought about significant changes to the biosphere. This is what respected scientist Dr. Matt Huber (Purdue University) has to say on lessons we can learn from the past: "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. RealClimate also provide a neat back-of the-envelope calculation in six easy steps.
66276. 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.
66277. 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.
66278. 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.
66279. 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.
66280. 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.
66281. 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.
66282. 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.
66283. 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.
66284. 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
66285. 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?
66286. Jeff T at 07:56 AM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Thank you for a clear description.
66287. 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.
66288. 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.
66289. 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.
66290. 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.
66291. 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.
66292. 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.
66293. 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.
66294. 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).
66295. 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. :)
66296. 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!
66297. 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.
66298. sidd at 05:48 AM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Do any models use adaptive grids or adaptive timestep ? sidd
66299. 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."
66300. 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.

Prev  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  1324  1325  1326  1327  1328  1329  1330  1331  1332  1333  Next