Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 Next
Comments 66851 to 66900:
-
Doug Hutcheson at 19:09 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Glenn, Bernard, thanks for the moral support. Sniff. Still think I need a band-aid on my scraped ego. Sniff. -
skywatcher at 19:04 PM on 10 January 2012New research from last week 1/2012
The irony present in the Dorman abstract is palpable.It is well known that the system of internal and external factors formatting the climate is very unstable; decreasing planetary temperature leads to an increase of snow surface, and decrease of the total solar energy input into the system decreases the planetary temperature even more, etc. From this it follows that even energetically small factors may have a big influence on climate change.
And, so the role of the radiatively powerful CO2 is? The suggestion, using outdated information (as noted above), is that tiny factors can have a big impact 'cos the climate is unstable y'know, yet somehow big factors with an already physically-demonstrated link aren't important? What value of climate sensitivity would they have? -
Mark Harrigan at 18:58 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
The current comments policy on this site is exemplary (at least i think so) AND it is generally applied sensibly in a balanced manner to conform with the policy without being TOO rigid. A possible suggestion would be to strengthen it further along the lines of "No claims without substantiation from recognised or peer reviewed science or other established and credible data sources" I would also support some of the ideas about "martyrs" and those who clam to have been treated unfairly by SKS. May I suggest something in this area? I have come across a few people on other sites who claim to have been "victimised" and "censored" by SKS. Investigating these "claims" usually reveals they are persistent pseudo-skeptics and Tiresome Repeaters Of Logical Lacunae Silliness (if you take my acrostic "drift"). This can be ascertained from the "Deleted Comments" section BUT - they are listed ONLY in time order. Would it be possible to also list/group deleted comments by author (and the thread they came from as well)? And for persistent recidivists perhaps publish a "policy" decision as to why they have been blocked/removed that can easily be referred to? May not help on this site but sure helps to dismantle the "victim" claims in other places. Just an idea - but otherwise please keep up the great work - I apprecviate the moderators working hard to make these threads so informative, frequently scientifically erudite and generally very readable. :) -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:32 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Bernard, Doug. Let me second, third, millionth the request for a basic WYSIWYG editor here. I think I just broke another thread with a bad bit of HTML. And I am meant to be one of the team here - hangs head in shame, whimper, whimper. -
chirhophoros at 18:29 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
From the Comments Policy: No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives.From muoncounter @ 32: What makes this award-winning behavior is that it is pure unvarnished hypocrisy. From Albatross @ 40: The contrarian, professional slanderer of climate scientists and cherry picker Steve McIntyre.From the Comments Policy: No politics. Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted.From Mond from Oz @ 24: ...it involves some aspects of 'World Government' And its in the context of a growing realisation that we inevitably face an end to 'Growth', and with that, the collapse of capitalism. Beyond the consequences of drought and storm and shortage, which, despite denial they can see as well as we, lies the challenge to the established hierarchies of government, religion and social order.I assume most of us accept the Law of Non-Contradiction as fundamental to scientific endeavour. Indeed, the BS awards hinge upon the premise that the BS laureates contradict themselves. Would it be too much to ask for similar rigour in the application of the comments policy?Response:[DB] Note that this comment was originally deleted for tone-trolling, but has been reinstated due to popular demand.
Given the nature of this thread more latitude is being given than usual in enforcement of the Comments Policy.
Note: This does not give any license nor free rein to not adhere to the policy; any comment not conforming to the policy at the discretion of the moderator may be summarily deleted without warning.
References to comments deleted by moderators struck out.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:26 PM on 10 January 2012New research from last week 1/2012
I didn't get past the Introduction in Dorman before the alarm bells went off: "It is now obvious, according to past data on large variations in planetary surface temperature over timescales of many thousands (even millions) of years, that the Earth’s global climate change is determined not only by internal factors but also by factors originating in space." What a huge statement to open a paper with. Surely the purpose of a paper is to draw a conclusion rather than state it outright. Even wording like "In this paper we will show that ....." If any scientist wants to be taken seriously they need to pay serious heed to the dry, conservative, dot every i, cross every t language of science. It is there for a reason. Great to see this series up Ari. Hopefully it will help the wider audience here become aware of just how much research is being done, by so manny people around the world. It isn't just the James Hansen's of the world. Its all the dedicated & (largely, see rant above) diligent worker ants of science that are looking at every thing from every angle that is the real story here. It would be interesting to see a skeptic version of this report. How many skeptical papers per week? ... (chirrupping of crickets.....) -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:08 PM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
DeWitt Payne @8 Sort of true. The satellites have three sensors that read microwaves at slightly different frequencies. These each record for three nominal altitude bands - Mid Troposphere, Upper Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere. The first 2 have roughly 20 & 50% of their signals respectively originating from the lower stratosphere. Incontrasr the 3rd sensor only gets about 5% of its signal from the Upper Troposphere. What you are referring to is a 4th 'pseudo-sensor'. RSS & UAH take the data from the first, mid-tropspheric centred sensor and apply additional processing that removes much of the stratospheric bias (although not all) and also produces a result that is centred in the Lower Troposphere. This is the data series (referred to as TLT) that is usually shown as the headline 'Atmospheric Temperature' However the other series are taken from the 3 sensors without this additional processing so they show data that still contains the stratospheric bias. Also there is another group that is doing satellite temp series with some quite different processing methods and they are showing significantly higher readings for the mid-Troposphere sensor. As yet they haven't produced a TLT product although they apparently plan to. http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/mscatmain.htmResponse:[DB] Fixed link.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 16:44 PM on 10 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Pirate You might to want to read this link. Their estimate is that Milankovitch forcing at present is around 0.0 to -0.1 W/M^2. Over an entire Milankovich Cycle it is 3.4 W.M^2. In contrast a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/M^2. And even at the current 393 ppm that is already around 1.8 W/M^2 http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles GC "What difference will it make if Scafetta is vindicated?" Wrong question. "What difference will it make if Scafetta is NOT vindicated?" If we have the rising temps predicted, then by the time we have waited decades and decades to vindicate or not Scafetta, if he is not vindicated we are locked into a dangerous higher temperature future. So we would need profoundly strong reasons for thinking he was right, where as we have profoundly strong reasons for thing that the current understanding of Climate is right enough.Response:[DB] Hot-linked url.
-
gallopingcamel at 16:22 PM on 10 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
The pirate made his case. Much of the Holocene was warmer than the present. Take a look at some hard science for a change. The ACRIM satellite shows some interesting correlations between Earth's climate and the gyrations of Saturn and Jupiter. Astrology you say? Westrology all know that correlation does not imply causation but one has to admit that Scafetta's model does a better job than any of the IPCC's models when it comes to back casting. Looking ahead, Scafetta says that temperatures are going to trend downwards while the IPCC predicts the opposite. Scafetta may be wrong but he has put forward a testable hypothesis. We won't have to wait very long to find out if his predictive skills are better than the IPCC's. One is predicting rising temperatures to 2100 while the other is predicting oscillating temperatures. What difference will it make if Scafetta is vindicated?Response:[DB] "Much of the Holocene was warmer than the present."
Unsubstantiated and incorrect. Unless by present you mean about 1950 or so. The graphic apirate uses goes through 2004 (hint: the arrow points to it...and it is above the level of the HCO):
Note the temperatures in 2004 relative to 2010:
The present is clearly warmer than 2004 and thus the HCO. QED.
For greater explication of the first graphic above, please see Tom Curtis' comment at number 9 above in this thread.
-
2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
A simple suggestion - rename the Comments link to Recent Comments, which is both far more accurate and more of a lead-in as to where recent conversations are occurring? -
Bernard J. at 15:52 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Scaddenp at #34. Ah, too simple. It's bleeding obvious that I ignored the headline linkies to my detriment! [And speaking of bleeding, move across a bit Doug H...] -
Doug Hutcheson at 15:40 PM on 10 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 2)
Thanks Mark. Another tiny typo, I think: "frozen likes in Siberia". -
Pete Dunkelberg at 15:20 PM on 10 January 2012New research from last week 1/2012
Ari gives a small selection of a far larger number of papers on climate and related matters published each week. Scientists ate busy people! Does anyone have an estimate of how many climate papers are published per week? Two of Ari's papers this week might well be analyzed together, if one had the text: the first one, relating El Niño and the NAO http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011JD016493.shtml and about the seventh, relating Westerlies and the NAO http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3416/abstract -
Doug Hutcheson at 15:14 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Aaaaaarghhhh! Stoopid me didn't notice you meant the Comments link on the site header. Sigh. Mumble. That's why I'm only worth $0.02 before inflation. [Crawls back under rock, bleeding] -
Doug Hutcheson at 15:12 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I agree with Bernard J that a gadget providing links to currently active threads would be nice. Just clicking on the comments link for a given thread, as suggested by scaddenp, does not do the same thing. I frequently encounter threads here and elsewhere that have been inactive by the time I come along with my $0.02 worth (no, really, that's all my guff is worth :). On the topic of moderation, I think this site is a shining example of probity and balance. I just don't know where the mods find the time. Please accept this as a pat on the back. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 14:56 PM on 10 January 2012New research from last week 1/2012
Week after week Ari highlights a collection of interesting new papers. I'm glad to see his Papers of the Week getting more prominence. The review of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf as a source of greenhouse gasses (Semilitov et al.) is fine as far as it goes but it ends with old data for these gasses (CO2 and CH4). I hope this is just to prepare the way for another paper with the new numbers.Response:[DB] Work nears completion on the first of a series of posts on the ESAS.
-
muoncounter at 14:42 PM on 10 January 2012New research from last week 1/2012
The Dorman 2012 paper on cosmic rays is worse than you indicate. I particularly like this statement in the abstract: ... it follows that even energetically small factors may have a big influence on climate change. In our opinion, the most important of these factors are cosmic rays and cosmic dust through their influence on clouds, and thus, on climate. -- emphasis added - He primarily cites data from 2000 and ignores newer data - He ignores Dragic 2011's findings of pitifully insignificant effects on climate from 40+ years of Forbush decreases. See this discussion. - He relies heavily on the Maunder: The importance of cosmic ray influence on climate compared with the influence of solar irradiation can be seen clearly during the Maunder minimum, without providing any evidence of how the influence of low solar output can be separated from higher cosmic ray flux. This is correlation without causation. - He cites Enghoff et al 2011 as some form of experimental confirmation of cosmic ray induced ionization. However, Enghoff used a 580 MeV electron beam, which bears no resemblance to either CERN CLOUD's experiment or GCRs of any significance. Even worse, Enghoff notes that he can see the same effect using low energy gamma rays from natural radioactive decay. What does this have to do with GCRs? See this prior discussion. And of course, there's no mention of the Laschamp magnetic lull. No CR-climate connection booster will touch that with a 10 foot pole. But I have no doubt that the pro-Svensmark lobby will be shouting from the rooftops about this. -
Rob Painting at 14:34 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Tristan - the Poptech deletion was my mistake. I don't know if you saw the performance by a poster called Bulla the other day, but Poptech was doing the same thing - taunting the moderator and asking for deletion by repeatedly contravening the comments policy. I wasn't going to stick around all night deleting his worthless comments and so hit the spam button. Didn't realize it deleted all his posts. Oops. Clearly we need some kind of 'timeout' function, so that moderators can deal with these kinds of people on-the-spot. The strength of SkS is that you can actually have a rational science-based discussion. That's not possible on most other climate blogs. -
dana1981 at 14:34 PM on 10 January 2012It's a climate shift step function caused by natural cycles
Thanks Bernard. The beauty is that it's purely artificial with a linear warming trend built in as the cause of the long-term trend, and yet it can easily be fit with a step function. This is exactly what the fake skeptics are doing with the temperature data - taking a linear trend with cycles superimposed on top of it, and playing curve fitting games with step functions. Tamino did a good job showing the same thing in the post that you link. -
scaddenp at 14:20 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Bernard J. Just open the "comments" link on the top. Shows you all the recent comments. Easy to see where the action is. -
actually thoughtful at 14:19 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Scaddenp @30 - Why cart off the bodies? Leave them in-thread - this is what happens when you bring your anti-science to SkS - an object lesson in what the comments policy really means. That way the comments policy isn't just something that is linked to when we screw up - you see its effect everywhere, and those who would like to troll the site will quickly learn there is no profit, but their silliness is available for all to hear (to the pain) and see. -
Bernard J. at 14:13 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I know that John Hartz asked to keep this discussion focussed on the comments policy, but this is tangential so perhaps my diversion will be tolerated...? I have been wondering for a while if there is any way that Skeptical Science can include on its front page a list of most recent active threads. Sometimes there is a vibrant discussion occurring on old threads, but no outward sign that it's occurring if one doesn't have the actual thread up. I think that Skeptical Science is currently the only climate-related blog of note that doesn't have such a list. I apologise profusely if I am digressing too much. -
actually thoughtful at 14:09 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Another idea for trolls is this - say a typical article (written, of course, by Dana1981). The header would include "troll warrior: Daniel Bailey". So we the people would understand that any troll comments would be addressed by DB, and DB only. In this way we could count on the troll getting corrected (and more importantly, future readers) and not clog the thread with endless "please provide your sources or retract your unfounded claim; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; In order for your point to be valid you would need to explain why CO2 isn't causing the warming" and on and on and on and on. This would require a behavior change by the rank and file, but I have faith in this community getting the hang of it (especially if moderators start deleting non troll warrior response to the troll...). I do think we should be careful what we wish for. Sometimes it is quite enjoyable to set someone on the one true path (boot to the head) - if you look at the vast majority of posts that have more than 50 comments - it is the battle against a willfully ignorant person that adds the heat and comments to the thread. And then size attracts posts and on it goes. Does SkS want to give that up? I honestly don't know if that is good for the site or not. -
scaddenp at 13:58 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
This is good point. Final post(s)(when terminated) could be moved to equivalent of RC's Bore hole. This also needs a convenient method for moderators to move a post from one thread to another. -
skywatcher at 13:57 PM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
Maybe an award to JamesWilson for the most entertainingly incorrect posts? CFCs introduced as a cooling agent, and IPCC thinking sulphates as warming agents - two perfectly backwards statements compared with the truth... -
Bernard J. at 13:54 PM on 10 January 2012It's a climate shift step function caused by natural cycles
Heh, I missed this piece first time 'round, and only saw it after you linked at Tamino's. Your flicker illustration of an an artifical climate that is not stepped, but that appears to exhibit steps, is indeed elegant. I wish that Anthony Cox and David Stockwell would come here and defend their own 'step' interpretation of global warming in light of this post, and the one at Tamino's. If someone knows of their current whereabouts, perhaps they could tap the lads on their shoulders... -
actually thoughtful at 13:49 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Tristan's points are well made - the challenge I see for SkS is the perception of unfairness (obviously not true) that deleted posts leave in their wake. Much better, as Tristan so colorfully put it for "certain heads (to) remain affixed to the pikes of their own devising". Then when we are doing battle on another site, and the troll claims they were treated unfairly, we can find their posts and expose their (presumably still false) claims for what they are (again, but this time on the other site). Hoist them high, by their own petard. -
skywatcher at 13:40 PM on 10 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 2)
Nice summary Mark, good to have a go-to for some of the key new research. A quick typo - Knutti and Hegerl is 2008, not 2006 (as twice referenced). -
Daniel Bailey at 13:30 PM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
Gidget is a conflation of gadget and widget...all in portent of what you are working on, 'cause 'tis 'portant... -
Bob Lacatena at 13:24 PM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
Dan, What the heck is a "gidget"? Do you even know what "gidget" means? Gidget (character) Gidget (TV series) Gidget (Film) -
Tristan at 13:18 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I'm a big fan of the way comments are handled. It's very useful for people learning about the state of the science (such as myself) to be able to read the back and forth between those from different camps. It's heartening and educational to see the smackdowns. The only time I've been bothered by the comments policy is when people get erased. I think for instance that deleting 250 posts from one stubborn fellow lets him claim martyrdom and just leaves a bunch of contextless replies. Better that certain heads remain affixed to the pikes of their own devising. It's important evidence. Perhaps when conversations are sufficiently long and circular they can be moved from the main thread and linked to with an appropriate explanation. Often when I link 'skeptics' here one will pipe up 'you'll just get disappeared like me after I started winning the argument'. Moving, rather than deleting will quash these fanciful notions. Of course, the general policy of warnings followed by probation works wonders in the cases where moderators have the time and energy to engage in that. -
Fran Barlow2 at 13:16 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
[It may be worth while having some threads or posts preserved as examples of what fails the various tests of the comments policy.] Yes ... that's a good idea. A page (not open to comments) which gave examples/extracts from actual posts received, showing why they hadn't been published and where links to comprehensive debunkings were. Then when someone's effort was deleted, they could be referred with a link to the relevant section(s) of that page. -
scaddenp at 13:07 PM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
Also, "Oh and here is the IPCC talking about Sulfate as a greenhouse gas. (ie warming) http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/310.htm" Read it more carefully. It shows that including sulphate (a negative forcing) in combination with the positive forcing of CO2 gives better match to actual data than just using CO2 alone. It references sections of 2nd IPCC WG1 report in support of that which you should do, though careful reading of the paragraph after the figure also makes that clear. The IPCC definitely does not think that sulphates are greenhouse "gases". -
muoncounter at 12:54 PM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
JamesWilson mentioned that CFCs were "much more of a GHG than CO2. Lending them actually higher credibility as the driver of Global Warming" on a prior thread. This assertion is unsupported, primarily because it is absolutely incorrect. The GWP values in the table linked here should be convincing enough: CO2: 1.76 W/m^2; CFC-12 0.17 W/m^2; other halocarbons an order of magnitude less. These values are based on current (12/2011) atmospheric concentrations. But if not, how about this graph?
So until we have our facts straight, let us dispense with the basic physics lectures, the instructions to Google this or that and the misquotes from IPCC documents -- all in favor of fostering a more civil discourse.
-
Bob Lacatena at 12:29 PM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
13, calywhatever, Are you serious? Type "litany" into Google. Look at the definition that Google displays at the top of the page. Or click on the dictionary.reference.com link. Or click on the Merriam-Webster link. Or the thefreedictionary.com link. Or actually pick up a dictionary. You really have to be kidding me. You're in denial about what a fricking word means?Response:[DB] And with that, let us close this chapter on the definition of words, lest we again question the definition of is...(unless it's an unknown scientific term, such discussion is now OT on this thread).
My kingdom for a built-in dictionary gidget...
-
Bob Lacatena at 11:50 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
37, scaddenp, I think James on the thermal conductivity point was actually making a point in favor of GHG theory, i.e. arguing against people that discount radiation as a major factor. This is only a guess, but I don't think he actually ascribes to that position himself (based on the rest of his writing). -
scaddenp at 11:42 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
Some more finer points. "GHG ratings by the IPCC are defined by how many frequencies of IR a gas absorbs" By "ratings" you mean GWP? If so then only part of the story. Sulphates might absorb IR but they are not gases (they are aerosols) and mostly act within climate as reflectors to incoming light. Right at start of IPCC report, you have this graphic clearly stating CFC (halocarbons) as positive forcing agents not cooling. It would really help if you told us where you got this strange idea. And now where is the evidence that any climate science thinks global warming is "caused by thermal conductivity"? This is a straw man. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:37 AM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I would agree with Stephen above. I do tend to quote text but I try to keep it short. Sometimes I quote papers or abstracts, which I think should be tolerated, so long as there is a link that the reader can follow to get some context for the quote. Many readers will not necessarily peruse a long thread, let alone click on links provided along the way. I think the mods are doing a great job and I kinda like the snipping, especially as it is always accompanied by the justification for the snip. Anyone who has read the comment policy and sees why part of a comment is snipped will quickly gain a precise idea of how the discussion should be conducted. It should be emphasized that the comment policy and its application, together with the patience od moderators, have to date produced a discussion of excellent quality. In fact, some of the contributions of skeptics who have made efforts to comply and participate here over time are possibly the only meaningful ones I have seen anywhere on the web or in the press. I'm tempted to say you shouldn't change a formula that works. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:20 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
James Wilson, you are giving multiple indications that your condescending tone is unwarranted. -
Bob Lacatena at 11:10 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
33, JamesWilson, A few things. First... sulfates. They both absorb in the IR (a GHG property) and reflect visible light (a cooling property). The latter outweighs the former, by far, especially if the aerosols exist primarily near the equator where reflection (increased albedo) is key. IPCC on Sulfate Aerosols Specifically:The optical parameters of sulphate aerosol have been well documented (see Penner et al., 2001 and references therein). Sulphate is essentially an entirely scattering aerosol across the solar spectrum (ωo = 1) but with a small degree of absorption in the near-infrared spectrum. Theoretical and experimental data are available on the relative humidity dependence of the specific extinction coefficient, fRH (e.g., Tang et al., 1995).
Second... when you make a statement like "As of 2007 the IPCC was using CFCs as a cooling factor to generate their graphs" please support that with a link. It is the sort of statement which leads to the confusion we are currently trying to untangle. Where have you read this? This is what I asked before, as did several others. What is your source of this assertion? Please provide it. Without the source, we cannot figure out what you misunderstand (such as your misunderstanding about sulfates above). -
Stephen Baines at 11:07 AM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I think the comments policy is fine, even though I sometimes get sucker punched by responding to posts that get eventually deemed in conflict of it. I just don't see a way around that if you want to keep the site effective, and different in a good way from it's "peers." In fact, I would tend to be more aggressive. When people make points that have been covered in main posts, I would simply direct them to those posts and prevent them posting unless they had some question that actually hadn't been addressed. It may be worth while having some threads or posts preserved as examples of what fails the various tests of the comments policy. I am in favor of snipping as well -- although I imagine that takes a lot of work. As for quoting text, I think it's important at times, but I try to hard to limit the amount of text quoted. Seems to me the moderators understand the proper role of quotation in a thread. -
Robert Murphy at 11:01 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
#33 James Wilson: "As of 2007 the IPCC was using CFCs as a cooling factor to generate their graphs. This is *not* requiring of links because it is discussed on this site..." From AR4: "The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer regulates many radiatively powerful greenhouse gases for the primary purpose of lowering stratospheric chlorine and bromine concentrations. These gases include the CFCs, HCFCs, chlorocarbons, bromocarbons and halons." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3-4.html "Oh and here is the IPCC talking about Sulfate as a greenhouse gas. (ie warming" from the link: "In transient simulations to 2050, the inclusion of aerosols based on IS92a (y,z) reduces the global mean radiative forcing..." Their main net contribution is cooling, and this is well known by the IPCC. -
JamesWilson at 10:36 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
scaddenp congrats on the best response. Here is the scientific answer. Here is the basic physics of Global Warming. Global Warming is created by IR absorption and then thermal radiation of gasses. CO2, CFCs, SO2, etc. The energy comes into the earth as primarily visible light and radiates out as IR. Any gas that absorbs IR and reradiates it acts as a thermal blanket on the earth. More IR scatter equates more temperature sent back to the surface. This is the standard physics gas spectrometry is based on. Any gas that absorbs IR and radiates it back is a GHG. GHG ratings by the IPCC are defined by how many frequencies of IR a gas absorbs. CFCs absorb a lot of IR because they have a lot of molecular connections. Sulfate absorbs IR. See link below. Please read this on thermal absorption or google something http://www.habmigern2003.info/future_trends/infrared_analyser/ndir/IR-Absorption-GB.html Please read this on thermal radiation or google something http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation As of 2007 the IPCC was using CFCs as a cooling factor to generate their graphs. This is *not* requiring of links because it is discussed on this site... It is also highly unlikely to be correct: see above for how Global Warming works. The article you quote scaddenp quotes the same theory for IR absorption as a reflection. If you look at this article on IR absorption you will see that sulfate absorbs in the IR spectrum. Thus it cannot cool it heats. This is the first response from google check a few others if you want. http://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/VirtTxtJml/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.htm Oh and here is the IPCC talking about Sulfate as a greenhouse gas. (ie warming) http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/310.htm For those who think Global Warming is caused by thermal conductivity. Ask yourself this. How many molecules are there in a vacuum (space). Or look up how a vacuum flask works (commonly known as a Thermos). The earth is a really good vacuum flask without the silver lining. -
Fran Barlow2 at 09:56 AM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I'd like anyone posting climate denial dissembling without citation (eg stuff from the top ten or in Climate Crocks) a) not to get the stuff published b) to have a note placed explaining that they had to address directly the debunking material in detail if they wished to be published at all Mods to err on the side of deleting when stuff is in the 'grey area' or OTT (with an explanation). Let's keep this excellent site free of trollish posting. -
skywatcher at 09:52 AM on 10 January 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
#147: you think that a global temperature change of a scale that will give us a glacial-interglacial transition in short order is a "minimal" change. Wow. Based on... looking out of your window? Eyeballing a graph and thinking that the numbers look kinda small? What is the context of the numbers? You have a lot of reading to do, and clearly a fair way to go before you comprehend the observed reality of the enhanced greenhouse effect and just how significant and rapid out current global warming is (much faster than the PETM). Start with the links above - and especially this Richard Alley AGU presentation -
calyptorhynchus at 09:46 AM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
Re: litany which dictionary? I haven't seen one where the wrong meaning has been adopted for this word. Does it also have the wrong meanings for: belabo(u)r, careen, disinterested, enormity &c?Response:[dana1981] Any dictionary. See definition #4 here or #2c here, for example. It's very common usage to describe a long list of something as a litany.
-
MarkR at 09:36 AM on 10 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 2)
I guess I was aiming more at the definition '2. a person who is easily alarmed'. Some believe that there is a serious chance of a methane 'gun' like event happening and have raised the alarm. We'd better hope they're wrong. Fortunately, the latest work, which I covered in the post, suggests that it'll mean more global warming which will probably be disastrous, but not necessarily the collapse-of-human-civilisation level disaster we'd get with the full blown methane release hypothesised by some. -
mikeh1 at 09:27 AM on 10 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 2)
Alarmists? Is that a scientific term? Weird language coming from a SKS author particularly given the loading put on it by climate change deniers. -
Albatross at 09:23 AM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
I love the strawman constructed by Pat Michaels in his Forbes article. Nowhere in the IPCC assessment reports do they speak of “apocalyptic global warming”– so his point is a complete strawman and red herring. He falsely claims: “In other words, the UN’s average forecast of 3.2°C of warming this century is off by about 40%, which should spell the victory of the lukewarmers and the death-knell of apocalyptic global warming. Indeed, it is not the heat, it’s the sensitivity, which looks to be quite a bit lower than what’s in those computer simulations.” I discussed the issue with this misleading statement in my previous post. But there is an equally important issue that Michaels would have readers of his article ignore. Like other “skeptics” Michaels likes to try and claim that models are the only way of estimating climate sensitivity. They are not, and he knows that. Matt Huber’s (Purdue University) excellent quote below calls BS on Pats’ above assertion. The sage words of the respected Dr. Matt Huber are well worth reading: “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. Also, like Mr. Taylor, Pat is happy to let readers remain blissfully unaware of the problems with the satellite record (especially the UAH product) and that other groups processing the satellite data arrive at higher rates of warming (close to 0.20 C per decade for the satellite era) in the lower troposphere. Pat also wants readers to remain ignorant of the fact that the weather balloon data also shows a rate of warming for the middle atmosphere (about 1.5 km to 10 km above sea level) satellite era of near of ~0.18-0.20 C per decade.Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed close italics. -
Albatross at 09:14 AM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
Pat Michaels engages in some very disingenuous cherry picking and lying by omission in his Forbes article. Sometimes I wonder if people like Taylor and Michaels have an honest bone in their bodies…. One especially good example of this is his very confident claim that: "The average warming trend in the one-third century of satellite data is 0.14°C per decade, but the warming rate in the UN’s midrange climate models is 0.25°." Ironically, the warming rate of 0.25 C/decade is from Santer et al. (2011), a paper that includes amongst it conclusions that: "There is no timescale on which observed trends are statistically unusual (at the 5% level or better) relative to the multi-model sampling distribution of forced TLT trends. We conclude from this result that there is no inconsistency between observed near-global TLT trends (in the 10- to 32-year range examined here) and model estimates of the response to anthropogenic forcing." So Pat is using data from a paper that finds no statistically unusual in the trends between the rate of warming predicted by the models and found satellite estimates to try and demonstrate that the models are wrong and that there is no concern for doubling or trebling CO2. Similarly to Santer et al. (2011), Thorne et al. (2010) find that: "It is concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively." Now it is true that the models are running slightly too warm, at least when compared against the satellite estimates, but the satellite data are far from the gold standard and still have unresolved issues. Not for one minute does Michaels share with readers the possibility that the satellites have unresolved cool biases as noted by Mears et al. (2011): "This further confirms our finding for our data set that unambiguously resolving the diurnal drift effect correction and its impacts is likely to be a key determinant in reducing the uncertainty in long term tropospheric temperature changes from MSU/AMSU records." Michaels then goes on to make his uber confident statement of fact: "....the UN’s average forecast of 3.2°C of warming this century is off by about 40%, which should spell the victory of the lukewarmers and the death-knell of apocalyptic global warming." Note how definitive his language is, completely void of any qualifiers or mention of uncertainty. He says "is off by 40%" (not "perhaps", "could be", "may be"). This brazen overconfidence in "skeptics" assertions while calling into doubt the findings of real climate scientists is a consistent theme in this misinformation campaign being waged by people like Michaels and Taylor. Additionally, Michaels chooses not to share with readers that part of the outstanding discrepancy between the model estimates and satellite estimates could be attributable to the fact that the any of the model runs have not included some negative forcings (e.g., increased aerosol loading, the recent prolong solar minimum). Instead, Michaels is trying to have people believe that the sole reason for the discrepancies is attributable to "model response errors" and for that reasons there is no cause for concern should we double or treble CO2. Wrong, and I suspect deep down he knows it.
Prev 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 Next
