Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 Next
Comments 67651 to 67700:
-
Albatross at 15:38 PM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Tom @40, I know time is an issue, but I encourage you to please do that. -
Tom Curtis at 14:36 PM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Addendum, looking through the UAH readme file, I have found more positive corrections not reported in the above chart and not included in the calculations I performed. I may produce a more accurate record later if I have time and interest. -
Tom Curtis at 14:26 PM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Eric (skeptic) @38, I believe you are over interpreting the graph's title. The graph does indeed show corrections to the "University of Alabama-Huntsville temperature record over time". Every data point, except the most recent is a journal article reporting a correction. The articles are presented so as to show the reported trend for each journal article. It is true that as presented in the blog, the graph invites your misunderstanding, which is a problem. However, it is certainly not clear that the problem lies in the graph, which as originally produced and presented by Abrahams may well have explained the issue we are discussing. Taking a different approach to that issue, I have just come across this figure detailing corrections to the UAH record:
(h/t to Eli)
Together with the correction of 5th Dec 2006 (listed here, they sum to a total correction of + 0.079 degrees C per decade, ignoring some minor corrections whose effects are not given. That means by Spencer and Christy's own account, corrections represent 39% of the total change in reported trend from 1994 to 2011. Adjustments post 97/98 El Nino amount to 0.049 degrees C per decade, meaning the El Nino itself contributed 0.052 degrees C of the trend in 2000. That is, the 97/98 El Nino, which Spencer and Christy call the largest effect, is approximately equal in effect to adjustments since 1998, and less in effect than total adjustments which they consider not worthy of mention. I need only add that the significance of the 97/98 El Nino declined with time given the warm years that followed.
-
Steve L at 14:01 PM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Great post. I'm impressed with the apparently high variance among larvae in damage (Figure 4). It would be useful to find out how much of this was additive genetic variance, and therefore learn something about potential of populations to evolve in response to this stressor as it worsens. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:52 PM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Tom: you are mostly correct, although the jump in trend after 98 "tilted the trend to be much more positive after that date." as Christy claims. But you are right that the trend after that should have decreased if "... little or no additional warming" since 1997 is a correct claim. It is clear that the 1997 claim is not correct looking at trends. Assuming that Christy is misleading in that latter claim, it still does not justify using the label on the graph in #27 which I quoted in #36. It is not possible to say that the label is correct given the jump in 1998, the start of trending in 1979, and the relative flatness in the 80's. What would make the label correct is saying it applies post 1998 or something along those lines. -
Tom Curtis at 13:07 PM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Eric (skeptic) @36, using current UAH data, the trend from 1979 to 1997 is positive, whereas in 1998 UAH showed it as negative. The difference is such that around half difference between C&S 1998 and CS&B 2000 is a result of corrections, and so it is not true that, as Christy would have it:"The major result of this diagram is simply how the trend of the data, which started in 1979, changed as time progressed (with minor satellite adjustments included.) The largest effect one sees here is due to the spike in warming from the super El Nino of 1998 that tilted the trend to be much more positive after that date."
Further,on their current product, the trend from 1979 to 2002 is less than the trend between 1979 and 1999. Therefore that 0.03 C/decade increase in the trend is entirely due to adjustments. In all, based on a visual inspection of this graph, around three quarters of the total increase in trend over time is due to adjustments. Attributing the "major result" of the diagram to being "...simply how the trend of the data ... changed as time progressed" is a substantial misstatement. Further, if there had been "... little or no additional warming" since 1997 as Spencer and Christy maintained in their press release, then the trend would have declined gradually after 1997 as the years lengthened but the temperature did not increase. In other words, if their statement in the press release had been true, the trend for 2011 would have been less than that reported in 1998, with any difference being the result of adjustments. Being generous, the decline in trend should follow the result reported in 2000, meaning that if their press statement was correct, and their criticism of Abraham's graph were also true, the current UAH trend should be 0.05 C/decade or less. This constitutes a major contradiction between their two statements, and is not reconcilable as an honest mistake. If they thought a week ago that the data indicated no increase in the trend after 1997, then one weeks data cannot have justified a switch to the position that most of the increase in trend since then has been the result of warming. If, on the other hand, the claim that the increase in trend since 1997 reflects the data rather than adjustments is their honest opinion, they cannot also have believed just one week ago that there has been "... little or no additional warming since then". -
ubrew12 at 12:05 PM on 22 December 2011It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
When climategate broke, I told friendly skeptics 'the hockey stick doesn't matter'. That's because the subject is global heating, not atmospheric heating. SURE the hockey stick is important, if you want to know how global heating might impact our atmosphere and hence, our climate. But GLOBAL heating must be proven in the oceans, where 95% of all Earth's thermal mass (influenced by radiative factors) is located. You can turn the celebrated 'hockey stick' upside down, and Earth is still heating, if the ocean's show heating. Its like you were standing on a scale with 10 other guys, and you say the scale is going to go down because you've been on a diet. But the other guys weigh twice as much as you, and they are gaining weight. Lose all the weight you want to, it doesn't change the uptick of the scale. -
Rob Painting at 12:05 PM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Muon - atmospheric CO2 in parts per million (ppm) can also be expressed as a mole fraction - micro mol/mol. According to Dalton's Law (of partial pressure) the ratio of CO2 partial pressure to total atmospheric pressure will be the same. Therefore to convert to Pa (Pascals) - 2300 micro mol/mol x 101.325 kPa (standard atmospheric pressure) = 233 Pa. Or expressed another way: 0.0023 x 101325 = 233. -
Bruce at 11:49 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Atlantic Cod stocks have taken a beating in a lot of their range. A large part of the current fishery takes place in Iceland. There is a very good pH dataset for the Iceland Sea(Olafsson 2009) the aragonite saturation horizon is at about 1700 meters and shoaling four meters a year but it is still a long way from the 600 meter depth range of Atlantic Cod. There is never good news in OA but the fact that Atlantic Cod are a very large aqua-culture fishery in Norway means the sensitivity of Cod eggs and juvenile fish to elevated pCO2 will be studied carefully. Maybe like the oyster industry in the Northeastern Pacific agua-culture will find some ability to adapt. For fishermen like me who are dependent on wild stocks the effects of O/A will much more difficult. We will be somewhat tethered to what aqua-culture can learn about our mutual problems. Bruce -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:42 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Albatross, I agree when you say "Or it is both, which is what I think is the most plausible explanation", and I agree that Christy's comment about 1998 is wrong (as are most "skeptic" comments that mention that year). The current blog post of S&C does jive with your "But Spencer and Christy do not agree that the rate of warming is increasing". By saying that the rate is decreasing, S&C are admitting that the some of the trend increase (particularly recent) in the graph was due to correction of errors in the UAH data. So the corrected error in some cases may be more than what is shown in the graph and in other cases is obviously a lot less as they explain (e.g. the jump in trend due to El Nino in 1998). But the graph does not separate out which is which. The label in the article "Corrections made to the University of Alabama-Huntsville temperature record over time." is misleading. -
Albatross at 11:20 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Eric @33, That is not my understanding or how I interpret the graphic. My understanding is that those corrections are applied to the entire record, retroactively. Those corrections have resulted in a net increase in the rate of warming in the UAH data. Either that or the rate of warming is accelerating quite rapidly over the satellite era. Or it is both, which is what I think is the most plausible explanation. But Spencer and Christy do not agree that the rate of warming is increasing. In fact, Christy is claiming in the press release that there has been little or no warming since 1998. Now where have we heard that fallacy before? The fact remains that many of the errors in the satellite data led to a low bias, and going by other groups like STAR and UW, the UAH data (and to a lesser extent the RSS data) are still biased low. And let us not forget that Spencer and Christy were reluctant to accept that their product had a cool bias when it was pointed out to them by Trenberth and Hurrell back in 1997. The history and observations hardly supports Spencer and Christy's claim that their product is the gold standard. This is all about spin and PR for Christy and Spencer, sadly not about science. Science for them is just a means to an end. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:06 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
In the comments section at the Washington Post article (link above), John Abraham defends the graphic shown in #27 thusly: "The intent of this graph is to show that there have been continuous errors in the UAH results and as time has progressed, fixing those errors has resulted in UAH data being brought into closer and closer agreement with the rest of the scientific community." But the graphic shows neither the errors in UAH results nor a comparison with the rest of the scientific community. The points in the graph (and specifically their upward slope) are the result of two things: the temperature trend increasing over time (especially considering that UAH starts in 1979) and errors in the UAH results that were fixed. The label under the graphic in the article is still misleading, unfortunately. -
Rob Painting at 10:58 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Tom, cold water being able to absorb more CO2 is definitely part of the answer, but so too is eutrophication - where nutrient run-off from agriculture (mainly) ramps up phytoplankton growth (they're surface-dwelling marine plants). During phytoplankton blooms, large volumes of CO2 are utilized as phytoplankton absorb CO2 into organic tissue. When they die a week or so later, they fall to the ocean floor and are broken down by bacteria, thereby releasing the CO2 they stored in their tissue (remineralization). This makes the ocean floor seawater more acidified. The 'Biological Carbon Pump' was discussed in the SkS post Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea And another culprit is increased upwelling in some regions in response to ocean circulation changes brought on by global warming. These processes acting together are rapidly acidfying the subsurface ocean in cooler regions of the globe, and are also de-oxygenating these areas. Anyway, I have future ocean acidification posts covering these topics. -
muoncounter at 10:42 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
The linked paper under 'equivalent to atmospheric CO2 levels of 2300 ppm' in the post states: Peak pCO2 values of >230 Pa (>2300 μatm) and pH values of < 7.5 Those are pressures; I understand that 230 Pa is equivalent to 2300 x 10^-6 atmospheric pressure, but how does that produce an equivalent volumetric concentration of 2300 ppm? -
mancan18 at 10:19 AM on 22 December 2011Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
In describing Ian Plimner’s new book, How to Get Expelled From School: a guide to climate change for pupils, pundits and parents, John Howard referred to leftie science teachers as being the problem regarding proper debate in relation to climate change. The book is supported by the Institute for Public Affairs, and the comments were made at the book’s launch at a meeting of mining company executives. Ian Plimner, and his fellow IPA scientist mate Bob Carter, have attacked the scientific consensus related to climate change; that global warming is occurring and is causing climate change and is due to excess human emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. In trying to debunk this hypothesis, they have also attacked the integrity of world’s climate scientists. They have attacked the integrity of the national science academies of the world’s leading nations. They have attacked the stance made by many of the world’s leading companies. They have attacked the integrity of the scientific process and now, in publishing this new book, he and John Howard have attacked the integrity of the nation’s science teachers. Is there nothing and no one that these climate deniers will besmirch in order to deny the basic scientific hypothesis: “That carbon dioxide is increasing, average global temperatures are increasing and that climate change is occurring at an unprecedented historical rate and it is due to human activities”? However, Plimner and his IPA and conservative political mates like Howard, do not attempt to disprove the hypothesis, they simply deny it. They have conducted no scientific research related to climate change and they have published no scientific papers related to climate change in the recognized scientific journals for peer review and scrutiny by recognized climate scientists. What have they done? Nothing. Instead they publish their politically motivated scientifically distorted views in the public media because what they are saying is so scientifically inconsistent that the mainstream scientific media won’t print it. And how do they do it? Make statements like Plimner’s “undersea volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans do”. Do we see the research? Have we seen the Plimner undersea volcano survey with its CO2 measurements from a representative sample of volcanoes? No, we see Plimner’s estimates of what he thinks are the number of volcanoes and how much CO2 he estimates is emitted. Now this type of pseudo scientific research might be enough to fool the popular media but it will not fool reputable climate scientists. Like any good propagandists, deniers of the likes of Plimner (and Carter, Monkton, Spencer, McIntyre, and Lindzen et. al.) will use their scientific credentials gained in other fields and use most of the truth to appear credible but in doing so confuse the scientifically uninformed. In reality, they fail or neglect to clearly explain scientifically; how greenhouse gases can be increasing, how temperatures are increasing, how climate change is occurring, and is having significant impact on the biosphere that we all rely on for life and how all this is natural. Plimner might be a good mining geologist and mining CEO but as a climate scientist, he is a dud. -
Tom Curtis at 10:16 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Rob Painting @7, I think it should be made clear that high levels of carbonate and bicarbonate in Norwegian seas relative to current atmospheric levels of CO2 is because of the cold water absorbs more CO2. Therefore colder waters will be more acid for a given CO2 concentration than will warmer waters, as can be seen below:
It is not because of unusually high CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere above Norway, or because of local water pollution.
At least, that is as I understand the situation.
-
muoncounter at 10:05 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Rosco#6: "natural sources of atmospheric CO2 are far larger than manmade releases." Of course, you are aware that those 'natural sources' have been in place for a long, long time. So long that an equilibrium known as the Carbon Cycle is well-established and well-known. So those 'natural sources' aren't part of this problem; the folks that dumped a large mass of carbon into the atmosphere in under 200 years; more than half of that in the last 60 years - that's the problem. -
Tom Curtis at 10:02 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Westerwick @9, I believe Rosco is referring to the fact that CO2 at the Earth's surface is held in three large reservoirs, the upper ocean, the atmosphere and the biosphere. Exchanges between these reservoirs dwarf any additions to the total system by humans. Of course, all three systems are in effective equilibrium, so that net flux between any two reservoirs is close to zero. To increase the amount of CO2 in all three reservoirs requires CO2 from another source, and human emissions dwarf all natural emissions from other sources. Of course, the full facts of the matter have been carefully concealed from (or by) Rosco to create a misleading impression. -
Stevo at 10:01 AM on 22 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
John Hartz @ 16 The quick and dirty answer to your question is that efforts were made in the 1990s to limit the amount of media ownership by another media moghul. While all attention was limiting the extent of the Packer empire, particularly in television, the newspaper market was slowly shrinking. Fifteen years ago most Australian cities had two competing newspapers for consumers to choose from. Now, all but Sydney and Melbourne have only one paper each. Murdoch papers now dominate because the smaller operators have died off. Attention was paid by government to limiting how much of the market a company could buy up but had no answer for how to stop a near monopoly growing by virtue of it's competition witherring on the vine. -
Westerwick at 09:46 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Rosco--You are correct about CO2 solubility as a function of temperature, but that effect will be totally overwhelmed by the other equilibria considerations. As with any gas-liquid interface with a soluble gas, the system will always attempt to reach equilibrium, and be concurrently losing gas out of solution from the water and absorbing gas from the air. Increased water temperature will shift that equilibrium point to lower net CO2 absorption. In the past century or so, the overall water temperature has increased overall roughly a degree or so. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by nearly 50%. All other things being equal, the net absorption into the water will increase because of the increased concentration and it will try to reach its new equilibrium point based on that, with a slight modification because of increased temperature. Your argument about all CO2 increases due to water temperature increases, well, doesn't hold water (sorry). There isn't enough CO2 in the ocean to "boil off" like that with a small temperature change, aside from the inconvenient increases in the CO2/carbonate/acidity concentrations. If the overall system was that sensitive to temperature, we would see very high CO2 concentrations in the tropics since the CO2 would leave, and very low levels in the northern oceans. In actuality we only see only a couple ppm difference, and most of that seems to be a result of delays in mixing from sources to lower concentration areas. As for "government agencies" and their claims, I think we need to see specific citations and contexts. The natural sources are huge, but when we put the system out of balance and have system response times measured in centuries, it will take time to get back to equilibrium. In the meantime, the climate changes and the oceans become more acidic. -
Paul D at 09:21 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
fydijkstra many fish are sensitive to even small changes in ph levels even if it doesn't kill them. The question then is whether species would adapt or would migrate. But why conduct a massive experiment with CO2 emissions just to find out what happens? -
Rob Painting at 09:18 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Yvan -"The only problem with this analysis is the CO2 level used are on the extreme high end of the possible" That's not correct. 2300ppm (equivalent) is already experienced over summer and autumn in Kiel Fjord, an area close to cod spawning grounds. This was pointed out in the post. If you look at figure 4 (medium =1800ppm scenario), you'll notice an increase in cod larvae tissue damage and, undoubtedly, a consequent increase in mortality. Also, many regions along the Atlantic coast of North America (home of the inland silverside studied in Baumann [2011]) are seeing acidification much worse than anticipated. In other words, ocean acidification is very likely affecting these fish egg/larvae today. -
Rosco at 08:57 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
A well established scientific fact - increasing water temperature results in lower solubility of CO2 in the oceans. The net result is less not more CO2 in the water - some well qualified scientists even say the increases in water temperatures observed are responsible for most of the atmospheric increases in CO2 levels. There are numerous references including US government agencies which claim natural sources of atmospheric CO2 are far larger than manmade releases. Either way, no matter what you believe the fact remains - CO2 is less soluble in warm water and rapidly escapes to the atmosphere.Moderator Response: [Rob P] Do yourself a favor and read the rather extensive SkS series OA is not OK which is written by actual experts on the topic. The warming oceans will make relatively little difference to CO2 uptake by the oceans. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:56 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
CBDunkerson, you should read Spencer and Christi's explanation of what that graphic is, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/addressing-criticisms-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-at-13-century/ In a nutshell it is the increase of temperature trend over time (i.e. the world is warming). It is not a graphic showing biases in their estimates (although there were some). -
Brian Purdue at 08:45 AM on 22 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
Yvan Dutil – You misread the tenor of the article. I am definitely not optimistic, but very pessimistic about the way the mass media communicate information. In the print media example cited there was an overwhelming “imbalance” in the media coverage. The statement was made in article “So what message should the mass media be communicating about climate change science?” The mass media is NOT getting the climate science message out – you have to go to specialised media sources for that. The decline of journalistic standards (not the fault of most journalists) is self-evident in the absence of “accurate and unbiased” communication of climate change science. Your example of the introduction of pseudoscience by the media is not an isolated case but typical of the way the industry operates. The article was about highlighting the mass media climate science communication problem - not fixing it! -
Yvan Dutil at 07:52 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
The only problem with this analysis is the CO2 level used are on the extreme high end of the possible. From the data they give, actual high CO2 concentration are not cause by the increase of atmospheric CO2. However, increase of organics matter in ocean due to fertilizer run-off my increase it. -
Utahn at 07:13 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
Interesting link Gerda, it would be even more interesting if they went back to 1900 or so ;) Like their acronym as well, apropos... -
littlerobbergirl at 07:00 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
thanks utahn, i was thinking that also. it's obviously a tool that can be used for both, as i found a nasa site specifically dealing with smoke http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/FIRE/GASP/gasp.html presumably the natural and man made signals are distinct and easily separable... -
littlerobbergirl at 06:53 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
maybe something to do with the location on the sensors? e.g. wdca sites seem to be mostly in europe, n.america and africa, none in asia; http://wdca.jrc.it/data/parameters/data_AOD.html which would give good results for background (mostly natural) haze but not human emissions on the timescale and period we are dealing with here? -
Utahn at 06:53 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
skept.fr (and Gerda) I think the links to AOD are found embedded in Tamino's article . Plus you could ask him directly there...I'm not sure if human aerosols get to the stratosphere as easily as volcanic... -
littlerobbergirl at 06:42 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
fyd.. and where is that buffer coming from in shallow water where these fish babies are? oh yes, mainly the shells of reef forming organisms. slowly, and patchily. so it's quite possible to get extreme acidity locally, as mentioned in the article. the 'steady state' model just doesn't fit on less than geological time scales or smaller than ocean wide geographical scales. -
pbjamm at 06:26 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
fydijkstra@2 Do you have a link to your paper/study? -
John Hartz at 06:17 AM on 22 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
Speaking as a Yank, why on earth did Australians let Murdoch's news empire gain control 70% of the country's print media? -
fydijkstra at 06:08 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
The oceans form a pH-buffered system. This means (check your lower grade chemistry lessons) that large changes in CO2-concentration will result in small changes in pH. The present pH-change is insignificant. Predictions of extreme pH-changes are incredible. Not much to worry about.Moderator Response: Your comment demonstrates you have not read our extensive OA not OK series. Please read this before commenting further. I consider your comment to be trolling and will delete further trolling without notice. [Doug] [muon] fixed link -
dana1981 at 05:42 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
Hi Gerda. I haven't researched exactly how AOD is developed, but I don't think so. Look at Figure 2b above - volcanic eruptions are clear, but there's no indication of human aerosol influences. -
littlerobbergirl at 05:42 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
oh bother! sorry, didnt read the second page of comments. -
dana1981 at 05:41 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Tristan - that's an interesting idea, though it seems a little mean :-) I wouldn't want to imply that because the UAH trend estimates have been trending upward at 'x' °C per decade, that trend will necessarily continue. The trend might be worth a brief mention though, with that caveat. -
littlerobbergirl at 05:38 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
hi dana, nice graphs! i get it, only too well. am i right in thinking the optical index will filter out effects not only from volcanic activity, but also from human produced black carbon etc? if so, why no mention? i'm thinking of changing my handle to 'einstein's barmaid' :D -
AussieinUSA at 05:37 AM on 22 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
#6 - While I applaud Julia for what she is achieving, I do wonder if she would be implementing any Carbon Tax if she had a clear majority after the elections. IMO I don't think she would have. Thank goodness for a hung parliment! @14 - You have hit the nail on the head with one of your quotes about the person with the loudspeaker. I find this to be quite common even in basic dialogue with fellow workers. One denialist shouts or yells out loud that AGW is a hoax, so everyone likes to believe him and think he is an expert. Frankly it reminds me of one of my childrens temper tandrums. However as he shouts it out loud I think the average Joe see's this as confidence and therefore believe he must know what he is talking about. -
michael sweet at 05:22 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
CBD: excellent graph. It should be added to every post about Spencer and Christy. The entire Post article was a good read. -
Tristan at 05:17 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Dana, I hope you fit a line to their predictions ;) -
Mikemcc at 04:59 AM on 22 December 2011Animals and plants can adapt
The link to Univ of Texas climate change impact article (marked by the text "timing of breeding, migration, flowering, and so on") is broken. It looks like they've moved the article. I think the link was to this article http://web5.cns.utexas.edu/news/2004/11/global-warming-2/ -
DrTsk at 04:41 AM on 22 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
@JH Not off topic at all, when it is presented as a clear example of the problems that we are facing with respect to accurate and effective communication by the media. The guy with the loudspeaker trumps all voices. Especially, with all the social media noise. I like the saying "Death by data", where you generate so much irrelevant data for a project that in the end you don't have time to analyze or even find the relevant data. The same is true with information : "Death by information". That is the problem that social media have generated for people that do not have the time, the will, or event the tools (mental or otherwise) to collect, analyze, draw conclusions etc. I despair looking at the fact that politicians, forming the policy for the response or not to global warming, are IMO at a low point with respect to the quality and accuracy of information that are fed to them by their underlings.Moderator Response: [JH] With all due respect, you re-posted a statement made by a climate denier on a comment thread to an article. The original post is about how the mainstream media in Australia covered climate change policy-making in Australia. -
dana1981 at 04:10 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Yes, look for our response to the UAH 33rd anniversay release, probably on Monday. -
Albatross at 03:23 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
CBDunkerson @27, Agreed. Spencer and Christy have way too much confidence in their product. Other satellite products such as STAR show much greater rates of warming in the mid-troposphere than do UAH and RSS. So to claim that the satellite data are the gold standard or the benchmark for global temperatures is just plain wrong. This was a pretty blatant PR exercise and misinformation campaign by Christy and Spencer-- and I suspect that we will keep hearing them repeating the same debunked myths each year. They seem to be under the impression that if they keep repeating falsehoods they will become true. That was a pretty good article by Freeman, good for him for calling Spencer and Christy on their misinformation. But no worries, SkS is on the case and will have something posted soon :) -
skept.fr at 03:19 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
#53 KR : I agree with your presentation of FR2011, the near-linearity of the signal suggest residual noise (if any) is probably weak. But the fact that there is no acceleration in the trend could also suggest that there is a residual natural cooling noise in the past decade (and/or warming in the previous). If so, the AGW rate would accelerate in reality. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure FR2011 cannot be interpreted firmly in a "reassuring" way (you know, interpretation like "don't worry, warming rate is steady, it proves that we will get 1,7 K in 2100 in BAU scenario"). #dana1981 : the anthropogenic sources of aerosols is supposed to have decreased in the 1980-1990s (works of Martin Wild and co-authors on "global brightening"), then increased in 2000s due to global increase of coal plant emissions (Chinese and emerging countries). (So again, one should note this a cooling trend in the 2000s decade.) Is there a reference web source explaining how the AOD is calculated (methods, sites, etc.)? For example, I don't know how the indirect effect (in cloudy sky) can be measured. -
dana1981 at 03:13 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Really good post Rob, but rather disturbing that we keep finding new unintended consequences of anthropogenic climate change. A lot of people rely heavily on fish for food - decreasing stocks due to acidification would be really bad news. -
Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
dana1981 - I agree on the human aerosols. I suspect our data on the subject (given the regional nature and short lifespan of human aerosols) isn't terribly good, but I've suggested the same over at Tamino's blog. In the meantime, I don't think F&R have in any way claimed that these are the only exogenous influences on climate - simply that they are large ones, and that accounting for them improves our view of GHG influences. -
dana1981 at 02:57 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
Agreed with KR @53 - this paper certainly doesn't remove all exogeneous factors, just 3 big ones (3 of the biggest, in fact). The one criticism at WUWT that I'd like to see implemented is the influence of human aerosol emissions. That would make for an interesting addition to the analysis, if we could get good enough emissions data. -
muoncounter at 02:37 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
skept.fr#52: "The 2000s decade could well have been the definite proof that natural factors are henceforth unable to cool the Earth, even in the most favorable condtions for that." Fair point. I noted here that quiet solar conditions (a natural variation if ever there is one) were ideal for the onset of cooling; F&R's important result show no evidence of that happening. But surely the pseudo-skeptics will cry, 'wait 'til next year!'
Prev 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 Next
