Recent Comments

Prev  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  Next

Comments 71051 to 71100:

71051. Bob Lacatena at 09:01 AM on 3 November 2011
       Climate's changed before
       256, lancelot, No worries! I appreciate the interest in the science! The main point is that the science now is all about microbes and potential impacts on cloud formation, but there are no signs whatsoever that this translates into any effect on global climate, let alone a non-negligible warming effect related to current climate change. That's just a big leap, that isn't warranted by the state of the literature. From the article you linked to (emphasis mine):

       These data add to a growing body of evidence that biological organisms are affecting clouds, notes Anthony Prenni of Colorado State University in Fort Collins, an atmospheric scientist who did not participate in the new studies. Right now, he cautions, “We still don’t know on a global scale how important these processes are.” But research into microbial impacts on weather and climate is really heating up, he adds, so “within a few years, I think we’re going to have a much better handle on it.”

       So it's very interesting, yes. So are any number of avenues and subjects on which the media has yet to report. But it's of no interest in climate science (to me, at least) at this time. It's about weather, not climate.
71052. lancelot at 08:51 AM on 3 November 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Ah, page 6 now.. apologies for missing the latest posts when I wrote 255. Sphaerica, I am not trying to put down scientists, and I am sure you have even thought about fairies! But I have not been able to find any consideration of micro-organisms/clouds in the IPCC reports, and there are some interesting papers on the subject, such as http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/microbes-make-rain/ Hence my question. I note the difficulties with making ground level (or sea level) measurements. Thanks again.
71053. lancelot at 08:36 AM on 3 November 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Tom Curtis 243; Could I add: You wrote: "More importantly, it is far from clear that this is a global phenomenon. Certainly in China the trend has been in the opposite direction towards less sunlight hours. A similar reduction of sunshine has been found in Switzerland, so the observed increase in the UK is not even a Europe wide phenomenon, let alone a world wide phenomenon." The Swiss study abstract quotes "general decrease of sunshine duration through to the mid 1980's". That doesn't seem so far off from the general decrease to around 1979-83 on the Met Office chart. (Just eyeballing here). Some data divergence perhaps due to varying definition of 'sunshine' measurement? So perhaps some common ground UK-Swiss? In China one would expect a decrease in net irradiance received due to aerosols. I will have to take your word that the paper describes a decrease in actual sunlight hours since 1974, as I don't have access to it. DB: Wow!- thanks for the Wild 2009 copy, really kind of you.
71054. Rob Painting at 08:30 AM on 3 November 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Lancelot -" Is that because readers are much too kind to lambast me for my stupidity in thinking that the airborne biosphere might(repeat might!) have a part to play in climate?" There is a considerable literature on the biogenic aerosol effect (naturally-occurring particles such as pollen, sea salt, leaf fragments etc seeding cloud formation). I've read a lot of papers on aerosol formation in the Amazon rainforest region, for starters. What is it you think they (biogenic aerosols) are doing? And how do you come to the conclusion the IPCC doesn't know about the published scientific literature?
71055. Bob Lacatena at 08:28 AM on 3 November 2011
       Climate's changed before
       250, lancelot, I mentioned aerosols because your point is not about cloud forcing (whether you realize it or not), but about total solar radiation received at the surface. You are presuming that cloud cover changes are a possible and likely cause (less clouds = more sunlight = more warming). You are then taking it a step further and saying that well, okay, it may not be GCRs, but maybe it's something else. That's magical thinking. That's hoping to find a cause, and then after the fact looking for a cause of the cause. More to the point, I included aerosols because they can have the same effect as clouds, by reflecting incoming sunlight. Indeed, Hansen proposes this for a reason that warming is not as great as it should be. It's also a reason that the loss of the Glory satellite was a big blow to advancing climate science. But a decrease in such reflective aerosols (due, for instance, to improved pollution controls) could in the same way raise temperatures. Aerosols (depending on the type) can also have the opposite effect, by absorbing more sunlight and increasing warming, so an increase in such aerosols could warm the earth. The point is that scientists are not stupid. They are looking at all of these things and giving them their due. On micro-organisms, stony silence and kindness concerning stupidity... ummm, sorry, sort of. When you mentioned it I did look into it, and there do seem to be some very, very interesting papers on the subject of micro-organisms and their impact on cloud formation. But I honestly didn't think for a moment you were serious about it. But... while this is an area of interest to the scientists working on it, as of now: a) There is no strong, well-defined or reasonably serious mechanism that turns micro-organisms into a major player in changes in cloud formation in the last 30 years. b) More importantly, no change in micro-organisms has been identified or even proposed that would suggest that something has happened in the last 30 years to trigger warming. Again, it's a case of hunting for an alternate cause when there is no reason to do so, and then in turn still needing to find a cause of the cause. Could it be clouds? We have no reason whatsoever to think so (and don't think scientists have not been measuring cloud cover, they have). Could it be clouds caused by micro organisms? We have no reason whatsoever to think so. Could it be clouds caused by falling fairy wings, as a result of an unexpected increase in the desiduous-winged fairy population? We have no reason whatsoever to think so. [Sorry if that last sounded snarky. It wasn't meant to be. It was meant instead to show that science must work by going from observation to hypothesis to experiment to confirmation/refutation. And can not work simply through "but what if..." followed by any and every idea that anyone could consider, simply because they don't like the ideas that we do have, for which we have evidence, and which logically and consistently explain the entire picture without the addition of fairy wings.]
71056. Albatross at 08:14 AM on 3 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Ian @57, Guess who is McKitrick's BFF? Yes, Steven McIntyre.
71057. Bob Lacatena at 08:10 AM on 3 November 2011
       Climate's changed before
       250, lancelot, Measuring energy received at the surface may seem straightforward, but as I said before, it is most certainly not. You must account for: 1) Local, low lying and potentially transient effects (smog, fog) 2) Coverage... how do you do it on the oceans, which cover 70% of the earth? Deserts? Inhospitable countries? 3) Altitude... radiation will be higher for measurements taken at higher altitudes 4) The past? How do you know what happened before you get your network set up? To what do you compare your new values? All of the problems that plague the observational surface temperature record apply as well to measuring sunlight. It's just not as easy as it sounds, especially when a satellite can do that and more for less money with less effort and more consistency.
71058. Bob Lacatena at 08:06 AM on 3 November 2011
       Climate's changed before
       250, lancelot, To clarify, however, the references to clouds in the AR4 do not give any credence whatsoever to the idea that changes in cloud cover are responsible for the modern warming trend. This is in no way believed or expressed. The references to clouds in AR4 pertain explicitly to positive feedbacks and climate sensitivity, i.e. given warming X from CO₂, how much additional warming Y will be added to that from clouds. AR4 (and scientists) are very upfront about admitting to this area of doubt in predictions, and adjusting error bars appropriately. But the admission is one of mere prudence and honesty, and part of the reason that the currently accepted range of climate sensitivity is between 2˚C and 4.5˚C per doubling of CO₂. Part of the reason for that wide range (2.5˚C total) is due to uncertainties about the effects of warming on clouds, and the corresponding effects of changed clouds on warming (although there are other factors, too).
71059. Rob Painting at 08:05 AM on 3 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Shibui - watch Richard Milne's lecture - you're a textbook case of denial.
71060. milka at 08:04 AM on 3 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       For the past forty years, Singer, Seitz and the rest of their small cabal of scientists - all deeply influenced by the Cold War - have waged war against any environmental problem that necessitated government action. Whether it was DDT, the harmful effects of smoking, anthropogenic acid rain, ozone depletion or global warming. Both Singer and Seitz pulled off their first major (-snip-) on the public by denying the link between cigarettes and lung cancer. From 1979 to 85 Seitz distributed $45million to scientists around the country on behalf of F. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The brief was to find other links to lung cancer other than cigarettes to get tobacco off the hook. Fred Singer co-authored a major report attacking the US Environmental Protection Agency over the health risks of second-hand smoke. Singer’s anti-EPA report was funded by an indirect grant by the Tobacco Institute. Using a tried and tested tactic successfully adopted by Big Carbon in the later global warming “debate”, the grant was channeled through an industry funded right-wing think tank, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. So successful was the (-snip-) played out on the public, so complicit was the mainstream media, so willing were the conservative politicians to forfeit policy decisions for hard cash that someone eventually came up with the bright idea of publishing the ultimate science bashing bible: ‘Bad Science: A Resource Book’ - a how to handbook with successful strategies to undermine science with a list of “so called” experts for hire whenever a negative sound bite was called for. No-one denies the link between tobacco and lung cancer anymore. Surely, Singer's credentials as a "go to" expert have been seriously undermined?
       Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory term snipped.

71061. Bob Lacatena at 07:59 AM on 3 November 2011
       Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
       29, lancelot, 1) Smoothing over 60 years is inappropriate for this purpose, because the time span is too long. It's like putting on foggy sunglasses to fix a watch. You use smoothing to eliminate noise. In this case you would be using smoothing to eliminate the signal, too. 2) Solar activity does not equal sunspots. This needs clarification in three ways. First, no one denies that the sun is involved in climate (it is the continuous source of virtually all energy on earth, for crying out loud!). But the fact is that the variations in total solar irradiance (TSI) are very, very small, but obviously over long time spans it can be a factor. Other factors (such as GCRs) are being researched, but there are currently more reasons to doubt their involvement in current warming than to give it any weight. Second, sunspots are a proxy for total solar irradiance and other relevant factors (such as magnetic field strength). There is some correlation between sunspots and these values, and there are sunspot counts going back 400 years, so they serve as a proxy for those important values, while direct measurements only exist since the modern instrument era and space age. But sunspots themselves are nothing more than visible blemishes on the sun which signal changes in solar activity. Sunspots themselves are nothing from that point of view. They are the greening leaves that tell you the warmth of spring has arrived, but they are not the warmth of spring themselves. Third, climate models have been successful at identifying the causes of short-term climate change (volcanic activity, solar variations, etc.) throughout the recent climate record. Basically, we can account for the forcings (including the sun) for the length of that graph, and within that the forcing which is causing the warming in the past 30 years is CO₂. So to say that there has been constant warming since 1800 is misleading, because it implies that such warming is the result of one source, or some ongoing, mystical trend, when in fact there are periods of warming and cooling within that period, and more importantly the factors involved in each period of warming or cooling are known and quantified. There's no reason to think that they are all caused by something else, so CO₂ is therefore off the hook.
71062. lancelot at 07:58 AM on 3 November 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Scaddemp: IPCC reports do mention cloud cover: AR4: "Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. " "Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates." Not very definitive! Bob Lodlaw 129: That BSRN is really interesting work. Sadly I am not equipped to analyse the BSRN data, and I dont have access to the Wild 2009 paper right now. But I will keep looking into it and would like to come back to you on that subject. However my point was not really about 'bright sunshine' but about the net energy received at earth surface. Scaddenp 248: If it useful to know the energy actually received at earth surface, as a possible contribution to forcing, I cannot see point of measuring incoming solar irradiance by satellites at the exosphere, then making more satellite observations of 'cloudiness' to make an estimate how much actually gets through to earth surface,instead of simply measuring the actual energy received at the surface in the first place. That is in essence, and crudely, what sunshine hour records tend to do. It is not hard to measure the surface energy received per day - a PowerMonkey and a calorimeter I would imagine. I have not found data on surface energy receipts in the IPPC reports, other than the simplistic 'energy balance' diagrams. How do climatologists know the trends or variations of net energy received globally at the earth surface? How can you account for that or eliminate it as a possible forcing in models if you don't have the data? Tom Curtis, I take your point that England is not the world. Surely all the more reason to have a global measuring system such as BSNR. Sphaerica, you mention aerosols etc, but my point was about cloud forcing. Are you certain that there are no possible mechanisms driving cloud formation, other than those considered in AR4? GCR's may be out of the picture; I have mentioned micro-organisms a number of times in this forum, but the response has been a stony silence. Is that because readers are much too kind to lambast me for my stupidity in thinking that the airborne biosphere might(repeat might!) have a part to play in climate?
       Response:

       [DB] An open copy of Wild 2009 can be found here.

71063. Mercury Scientist at 07:43 AM on 3 November 2011
       Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
       I recall a buzz about a questionable journal some years ago -- I think it was Energy and Environment, but cannot recall for sure. At the time, they claimed to have a process known as "super review" or "superreview" or something like that. I peeled back a layer, and I learned that "superreview" meant that if the author of the paper had ever published anything in the peer reviewed literature, then that was good enough, and the current manuscript under consideration did not need to be subject to the normal peer review process. So, "superreview" would better be called "no review," because that's what it was. With a few minutes on google today, I could not find anything about superreview and Energy & Environment. But, they have been taken to task a number of times for shoddy papers and questionable review practices. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/ee-threatens-a-libel-suit/ http://www.realclimate.org/docs/thacker/skeptics.pdf
71064. PhilMorris at 07:34 AM on 3 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       Fred Singer - one of the hero's in the book 'Merchants of Doubt'. Frankly I don't think anyone should take notice of anything he says, he as absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
71065. Albatross at 07:28 AM on 3 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Hi Ian @57, SkS has dealt with Ridley's musings before. See here. In fact, AndyS did a whole series, that is how much misinformation there was to counter.
71066. muoncounter at 07:26 AM on 3 November 2011
       Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
       lancelot#29: "total is a long term rise of about 0.9 deg C over 140 years." Or you could say a rise of 1 deg C in the 40 years since 1970. Surely you don't believe that a single straight line will fit the entire dataset from 1800 on? Now that's a significant change in trend!
71067. scaddenp at 07:21 AM on 3 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       "I get the feeling some of you didn't like it ..." Some of us have a great respect for the truth.
71068. lancelot at 07:04 AM on 3 November 2011
       Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
       27, 28: Nice to see the full graph at last! Well... I did say 'if smoothed'. Over 60 year periods, if smoothed on that basis the line is gradual (repeat gradual) and fairly (repeat fairly) uniform. I have done that on paper, that is how it looks. The total is a long term rise of about 0.9 deg C over 140 years. Tom Curtis - I totally agree however with your more detailed analysis. A rise 1800-50. A flat period 1850-1910. Then a sharp rise 1910-40. That actually illustrates my point. If you start the chart at 1850, you see a flat period until the start of the 20th century, then a prominent rise. So it looks as if warming started in 1910. It didn't. It started at least before 1800. Sphaerica: It is clear (even to a non-climatologist) that volcanic eruptions and solar irradiance variation will cause the visible intermediate ups and downs within the longer time scales. In that context you also referred to the Dalton minimum and 'solar activity', i.e. sunspots. Does that mean that you consider sunspots to be associated with forcing or with climate changes in general?
71069. Ian Forrester at 05:39 AM on 3 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Matt Ridley is on the Academic Advisory Council of The Global Warming Policy Foundation alongside such well known AGW deniers as Ian Plimer, Richard Lindzen, Robert Carter, Ross McKitrick, William Harper and many others. As such, anything he says is not based on science but on his libertarian ideology. As an aside he was Chairman of Northern Rock the first Bank to face problems in the UK, problems which appear to be blamed on Matt Ridley.
71070. muoncounter at 05:10 AM on 3 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       CBD#31: "the claim that it is minor compared to internal variability." It would be interesting to see the evidence for this cart-before-horse argument, if any exists. Here, on the other hand, is a demonstration that there is an ongoing warming trend with short-term variability written on top of that trend. - source The red is BEST with a 12 month mean; green is the linear trend. Then use the detrend operator to remove that, yielding the blue curve. That can be described as short period, with a constrained amplitude and oscillation around 0; if this was an electronic signal, it sure looks like noise short-term internal variability to me. Of course, tamino did this with greater sophistication last year. Has anyone in deniersville produced a graph like this showing that internal variability swamps the trend or are we supposed to just take their word for it?
71071. MewCat100 at 04:58 AM on 3 November 2011
       CO2 measurements are suspect
       Probably no one is reading this blog any longer, but the answer should be as follows. 1. The atmosphere thins as we move upward due to gravity. 2. The partial pressure of oxygen is always about 0.21 3. Because there is less gas at high altitudes than low altitudes, there is less TOTAL oxygen at those levels, but it is still 21 percent of total. So if there are 1000 gas molecules at surface, 210 are oxygen. At high altitudes, say the total is 100, then oxygen is 21. 4. From this it follows that CO2 is not evenly distributed on vertical basis in the atmosphere. Consequently, this also applies to temperature given that there are thremoclines in the vertical expanse of the atmosphere. 5. CO2 total is different from one altitude to the next, but CO2 percentage (of total atmospheric gas) should be consistent.
71072. wingding at 03:12 AM on 3 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       Re 18,19 I concur. Muller's results vindicated Hansen and Jones from years of denier accusations of cooking the books, deleting stations, rewriting history, exaggerating warming, etc. All of which DO constitute denying global warming. The deniers have played a sleight of hand by claiming they always accepted the world warmed. That's not the point. The point was that they were denying global warming had played out as shown in HadCRUT and GISTEMP. The deniers are mad because Muller went public about them being wrong. Effectively they've been held accountable for their false claims and they don't like it one bit.
71073. pbjamm at 02:35 AM on 3 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       Shoyemore@18 Muller's statements undermined a key myth of denialism - that "the books are cooked" ^^^^^ THIS is the reason that the 'skeptics' can not accept the BEST data. If Muller/BEST agree with the crooks then he too must be a crook. Reference Steve L's point one.
71074. dana1981 at 02:28 AM on 3 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       daisym, aside from echoing the previous suggestions that you use our site's search tool to find the answers to your questions, I would also like to point you to some text in the post above which you seem to have missed:

       "The short-term effects can only temporarily dampen (or amplify) that long-term man-made global warming trend."

71075. DSL at 02:11 AM on 3 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       What did you take from Ridley, Shibui? Did he convince you of anything?
71076. Shibui at 02:08 AM on 3 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       I get the feeling some of you didn't like it ...
71077. Bob Lacatena at 02:03 AM on 3 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       21, daisym, I thought I should address your misunderstanding of the abstract in Oceanic Sources and Sinks for Atmospheric CO₂ (Gruber et al), as evidenced by your question:

       Do the oceans outgas only manmade CO2?

       From the abstract:

       ...we can constrain the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 to within an unprecedented narrow range of 2.20±0.25 Pg C yr-1 for a nominal year of 1995. The inversely estimated pre-industrial air-sea fluxes reveal the expected pattern with CO2 outgassing in the tropics and CO2 uptake at mid to high latitudes. The subpolar regions of the Southern Hemisphere defy this trend, exhibiting strong outgassing of natural CO2. This outgassing nearly cancels the large uptake of anthropogenic CO2 in this region, leading to a near zero net contemporary flux.

       First, note that they have constrained the anthropogenic CO₂ uptake to a specific value. "Uptake" means that overall the oceans have absorbed, not released, CO₂. Please note the unit of measure. Pg means "peta grams". "Peta" is the prefix for one quadrillion. Pg refers to 10¹⁵ grams of carbon. The paper notes that generally the tropics outgas while the other areas are net sinks. This is expected, and frightening. Warmer waters hold less CO₂. This means that the oceans at the equator, where temperatures are warmest, are not able to absorb more CO₂ and are instead releasing it as they warm. Yes! That is yet another sign that the planet is warming. Cooler waters further from the equator are more than compensating, however, by absorbing both anthropogenic CO₂ and the CO₂ being released in the tropics. For now. That's the frightening part. It is well known that warmer waters hold less CO₂, and so it is well known that as the planet warms the oceans will be less and less capable of absorbing anthropogenic CO₂. The day will arrive, in fact, when the oceans begin spitting it out and adding it to the atmosphere, even after we've halted our own emissions. [The paper does note an unexpected behavior in the southern subpolar regions which has a net zero impact in this region -- unexpected outgassing combined with uptake.] Do you understand now why your reference does not support your position, and in fact perfectly contradicts it? Do you also understand that the system is far more complex than a hand wave can cover, and that scientists in fact have a very, very good handle on both how things should work and how things are working?
71078. JMurphy at 01:29 AM on 3 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       daisym, with regard to the consensus, you should read the information at one (or, even better, all) of the following links, and comment further on this matter on one of those : There is no Consensus Less than half of published scientists endorse Global Warming 500 Scientists refute the Consensus Naomi Oreskes study The Science isn't settled Over 31,000 Scientists signed the OISM Petition Project You should utilise the opportunity to explain why you believe that the tiny minority of scientists not involved in Climate science (especially those who are dead and emeritus, or who may be doctors or economists, etc.) you have pointed towards, should be given more notice than all those Climate scientists currently working in the field - of whom 97% agree with the consensus.
71079. CBDunkerson at 01:27 AM on 3 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       Sphaerica, I think this is similar to something Roy Spencer has been floating for a while. Essentially, Spencer has argued; 1: Yes, CO2 forcing exists. 2: However, net feedbacks are negative or only slightly positive and therefor warming from human CO2 emissions will be mild. 3: The reason we have already seen atmospheric warming in excess of what these negative/slightly positive feedbacks would generate is due to short term natural fluctuations overlaying the signal. Basically, the apparent pronounced anthropogenic warming since the 1970s is 'actually' very mild anthropogenic warming accompanied by a temporary spike from non-anthropogenic sources. A variation on the classic 'it is natural cycle XYZ'... just with acknowledgment that some CO2 warming exists, but the claim that it is minor compared to internal variability. There are, of course, a host of problems (e.g. past sensitivity, measured positive feedbacks, major natural factors were cooling during the warming phase, no return to the 'baseline' cool temps, et cetera) with this position, but I think that is the underlying idea. The 'benefit' of this argument is that it 'accepts' incontrovertible results, but then assumes that the 'correct' values in all the uncertainty ranges (or perhaps a bit outside the range of uncertainty) all line up to produce the 'best case' result... rather like Spencer's original satellite temperature series (prior to corrections).
71080. shoyemore at 01:27 AM on 3 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       JMurphy, Like yourself, I find Singer's comments are cause for head-scratching. Like Curry, his basic annoyance seems to stem from the fact that Muller praised organisations like CRU and GISS. In other words, Muller's statements undermined a key myth of denialism - that "the books are cooked". He seems to be telling his "team" to get with the programme - there will be no let up for Phil Jones, Michael Mann or Jim Hansen. Curry also seems to be telling Muller publicly to get on side. I do not think Muller has the fibre to stand up to them. Hopefully Rohde and Perlmutter (who do not need anyone's approval) might.
71081. John Russell at 01:24 AM on 3 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       @Sphaerica For some month's now I've had an on-line 'discussion' with a person in denial (favourite site: WUWT) who maintains exactly that. He appears to accept all the main arguments -- effect of CO2; rising atmospheric concentration; Arctic ice melting; temperatures rising (slowly); etc -- but he just won't accept that the outcome could be bad. He particularly objects to any suggestion that it could be 'catastrophic', or that we should spend any more than a token amount of money to halt emissions. It makes it much more difficult to persuade people that we need to act when they take that stance. I suspect that in a few years time the argument will move completely in the direction of risk management.
71082. KR at 01:17 AM on 3 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       daisym - I suspect (it's certainly true in my case) that the reason nobody discussed your "natural forces" question is that it was just part of a longer post littered with other errors. I would suggest you use the "Search" box for "natural". Alternatively, you might want to start with It's a natural cycle or It's internal variability. You've been making some serious Gish Gallop posts here - you're certainly not actually discussing the science. Until you do, I for one will not take your posts seriously - Sorry.
71083. Rob Painting at 01:15 AM on 3 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Victull - "but heat gets into the oceans by I guess the normal means of heat transfer - radiation, conduction and convection." Nope. A common enough misconception. See SkS post: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean". I'm working on an animation with our SkS graphics guru, and will re-write to make it easier to follow, but you should get the general picture.
71084. victull at 01:06 AM on 3 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Bob Loblaw@57 This might be getting off topic but heat gets into the oceans by I guess the normal means of heat transfer - radiation, conduction and convection. The normal 'equilibrium' state of the biosphere bounded by the ocean bottom and land surface and top of the atmosphere would be a heat flux of 0.1W/M2 geothermal heat flowing from the ocean bottom up though the ocean and out at TOA - effectively giving a -0.1W/M2 (cooling) flux at TOA. Otherwise the biosphere would continually heat up over eons and boil the oceans. For the oceans to gain heat, it can only flow globally from the top or sides downward on a global scale even though in some places it might flow upward and others downward to give a net downward. Is there any other explanation?
71085. Mercury Scientist at 01:05 AM on 3 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       The only people that heed Singer are those who subscribe to the typical denialist train of thought. He lost credibility with everyone else a long time ago.
71086. Daniel J. Andrews at 01:03 AM on 3 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       I thought Singer believed it was warming? His book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, certainly seems to claim that, at least from the title. You'd think he'd be happy to see the warming in the BEST data (and all the other data) because he could then point to his book and say, "See, I was right".
71087. Bob Lacatena at 00:46 AM on 3 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       I'd like to point out something new and unusual about daisym's attack. He doesn't say CO₂ isn't the culprit. He instead implies that the effects of CO₂ are minor and that natural causes, while not the cause of recent warming, are an amplifier, as if without them the effects of CO₂ wouldn't be that bad at all and wouldn't be worth the effort to address. Is this the beginning a new tactic in denial? Accept the science to a large degree, but declare it exaggerated and minor compared the the vast, unknowable, unpredictable, unconquerable natural forces that we cannot hope to understand, control or in any way compete against. Of course, in a way he's right. Except there's a specific name for those natural forces. They're called "feedbacks," in this case "positive feedbacks." The only problem is that we do understand them, and yes, they do explain why the effects of CO₂ are amplified.
71088. Bob Lacatena at 00:43 AM on 3 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       20, daisym,

       If natural forces are powerful enough to cool and offset warming attributed to manmade CO2, might they also be powerful enough to cause the warming attributed to man to seem greater than it really is?

       Just for the record I'll answer this. No. Scientists have estimated, entirely separate from the observational record, the effects and degree of anthropogenic CO₂. The observational record now supports those estimates, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Given this, why would you go looking for another, unknown and inexplicable cause or amplifier? It seems to me rather like someone who finds a note saying Mr. X is planning to shoot Mr. Y, watches Mr. X shoot Mr. Y., recovers the gun and the bullet and matches all of the forensic and ballistic evidence of Mr. Y's murder to Mr. X -- and then declares that we can't rule out other suspects, or even death by natural causes. Your next argument, no doubt, will be to declare that we do not have such evidence or supporting knowledge of the predicted effects of CO₂. Before you make that argument, you need to read, absorb and understand all of the science on this site. Your problem right now, I believe, is that you are speaking and thinking from a position of extreme ignorance, reflected no doubt by ideas planted there by others (WUWT, Nova, etc.) who do not want you to understand and simply want you to be angry about what they tell you that you should believe.
71089. JMurphy at 00:42 AM on 3 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       I'm not too sure about that, Shoyemore, as evidenced by these quotes from him :

       I applaud and support what is being done by the Project — a very difficult but important undertaking. I personally have little faith in the quality of the surface data, having been exposed to the revealing work by Anthony Watts and others. However, I have an open mind on the issue and look forward to seeing the results of the Project in their forthcoming publications. ClimateRealists(sic)

       But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. Nature comment

       Having read both of those, though, I'm not sure whether he believes the world is warming or not ! He seems to almost be trying to accept warming but also raising doubt as to the actuality of that warming - just like a true so-called skeptic like Watts.
71090. Bob Lacatena at 00:31 AM on 3 November 2011
       Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
       26, lancelot, I think part of your misunderstanding resulted from treating the noise we see in shorter periods (the ups and downs in, say, the 1980-2000 period) the same as valid ups and downs in longer periods. The physical reasons for the ups and downs in the shorter periods are (a) not entirely predictable and (b) not entirely worth predicting, because they refer to very short term events with no lasting effect on climate beyond the affected year or years (ENSO events, volcanic eruptions, minor changes in solar activity, etc.). Put another way, there are so many factors that overwhelm the signal that in shorter periods you have to average things out and look at longer time periods to detect a trend. But when looking at a graph such as this one, there really are tangible reasons for the various, intermediate ups and downs (the Dalton Minimum, a long term increase in solar activity, a large series of major volcanic eruptions, anthropogenic aerosols, anthropogenic CO₂). The point is, the rules you apply to interpreting the data (which is being done by most people -- not scientists -- simply by eyeballing graphs) must change depending on the time scale. The fact that two graphs look the same does not mean that you apply the same rules to their interpretation. The bottom line is that you need 17 to 30 years to determine a climate trend. That rule applies whether the hashmarks on the graph represent 1 year or 20 years. You don't need a number of hashmarks or a percent of a graph to identify a trend in climate... you need whatever span represents 17 to 30 years. As such, you can't look at a graph of temperatures from 1990 to the present and properly divide it into distinct, separate trends, but you do need to look at a graph such as this one and do so.
71091. Tom Curtis at 22:56 PM on 2 November 2011
       Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
       lancelot @26, your description of the graph is false: Where you say the graph rises smoothly, it clearly falls for the first 15 years, probably due to the Dalton Minimum. It rises sharply, then falls sharply before leveling of around 1850. From 1850 to 1910 it oscillates around a mean before rising sharply to 1940. Not much weight can be given to the early years (pre-1880) of the BEST temperature index. During that period, due to a low number of stations, and poor geographic coverage the calculated error margin is as high as +/- 0.6 degrees, or approximately 30% of the calculated fluctuations. Tamino believes this error is significantly underestimated because BEST ignored auto-correlation. The poor certainty, and in particular the limited geographical coverage is probably responsible for most of the large scale fluctuations relative to latter in the graph. Despite these flaws, however, it is still necessary to describe the graph as it is, not as we might desire it to be.
71092. lancelot at 20:26 PM on 2 November 2011
       Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
       Re 23, 24, 25: CBDunkerson: Yes, the 1850+ image used in the SkS intro is taken from the Influence in Urban Heating study, and is appropriate in that context. The full chart 1800 - 2010 is viewable in the Berkley Earth Data Set section at http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis.php. Perhaps getting off topic, but the 1800+ chart correctly shows a gradual and fairly uniform (if smoothed) global rise from at least 1800* to 1939, a total of 0.9 deg C over 140 years. That would not be evident from the 1850+ chart. *Central England instrumental measurements (HadCET http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/) also show a long term warming trend in CE from around 1780.
71093. John Russell at 20:17 PM on 2 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       @daisym You are simply regurgitating old climate myths that we've heard a thousand times before. Everyone here is very familiar with the 'Oregon Petition', for instance, which was published in the last century -- which, at the very least, means that it's long past its sell-by date. I implore you to open your mind to the scientific evidence which is provided on this site, starting by clicking on the 'Most Used Climate Myths', top left. You'll find all the answers you seek, there. Choose one and read it first before posting your question below it. If you dive in and start showing that you've not looked at the science first, you just make yourself look foolish.
71094. shoyemore at 19:50 PM on 2 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       At least Singer is dissenting from the happy-clappy Marc Morano-Anthony Watts "skeptic" consensus: "Of course, we always knew the globe was warming". As far as I remember, Singer was teh designer of the "Doubt is Our Product" campaign for the tobacco lobby. His disagreement may rock some hardened deniers.
71095. Rob Painting at 19:30 PM on 2 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       daisym @ 21 - Your list is full of the usual suspects. This is old hat for SkS, but not apparently to you. Most of the questions can be answered by clicking on the 'arguments' button at the top of the page. In as far as CO2 outgassing from the ocean. This is well known, but what matters is the total or net exchange. Far more CO2 goes into the ocean than leaves it. This process is causing ocean acidification. Click on the OA is not OK button at the top left hand corner of the page, to learn about this. As far as global warming is concerned, considering natural factors only, the Earth should be gradually cooling due to orbital factors. If you're interested in learning we can help, but if this is simply dogmatic repetition, there are other blogs for that.
71096. adelady at 19:13 PM on 2 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       daisym "It makes no sense to think that natural variation only cools." So it's just as well that no-one's ever said it, isn't it. What do you think all those graphics comparing TSI, temperature and GHGs are for? They're used to show that it's not the sun this time. It's been the sun plenty of times before and it will be again. But not for the last 40 years.
71097. Tom Curtis at 18:16 PM on 2 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       daisym, I noticed your question when I got online (5:12 pm my time) and was going to respond. Then I noticed that you berated us for not answering the question just 11 minutes after you posed it. And then again, 31 minutes later in a near identical cut and paste of your second post. Clearly you are not interested in answers, just in spamming this thread. As you are not interested in learning, I find that I have no time for you.
71098. cliffeking at 17:46 PM on 2 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       John Hartz@10 If you had carefully read my initial comment and the moderator's response, and taken note of Scaddenp's post @9, you would have realised that yes, SKS, does send out e-mails linking to online and peer-reviewed articles, that I was not mistaken in thinking the mail I get was from SKS, and you would not have needed Dana1981 to 'clarify' things for you. It's a bit irritating to be told I'm wrong when the commenter writes from a position of ignorance.
71099. daisym at 17:35 PM on 2 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       Thanks for your feedback. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming This link will provide names of scientists who disagree that the science is settled. There's no point to include the Oregon Petition or Sen. Inhofe's list of 700. Others have already managed to discredit ALL 30,000 names on the Oregon Petition, and Inhofe's 700, as well. Make sure any such list includes the names of Professors William Happer, Harold Lewis, Ivar Giaever, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Bjorn Lomborg, Ian Plimer, John Christy, and Roger Pielke, Sr. Also see: www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/icdc7/proceedings/abstracts/gruberFF335Oral.pdf (Oceanic Sources and Sinks for Atmospheric CO2 -- Gruber et al). Apparently, outgassing of CO2 is occurring in some areas, with uptake occurring in other areas. Do the oceans outgas only manmade CO2? I find it curious that no one commented on a question I raised: If natural forces are powerful enough to cool and offset warming attributed to manmade CO2, why aren’t they also powerful enough to cause the warming attributed to manmade CO2 to seem greater than it really is? It’s the $64,000 question.
       Response:

       [DB] Quite frankly, everything you've written is known to be incorrect (it's a style called Gish Gallop). You could find it all out for yourself, if you wanted to, simply by using the Search function in the upper left of every page here.  Ranging from the Oregon Petition, Inhofe's list, just about all of the individuals you name, to CO2 oceaninc fluxes, natural vs manmade warmings, attribution forcings (to name but a few stream-of-conscious denialist memes), all have been looked into here at Skeptical Science.

       I, for one, find it curious that some continually aver things to be "natural" in origin without having taken the time to actually get a handle on the science for themselves.  And this especially applies to those who have been commenting here for as long (over a year and-a-half) as you have.  That's the $64,000 question.

       No one says understanding a multi-disciplinary field like climate science would be easy.  It's not, if you want to get a good grip on the details.  But the details are all readily available, for those interested in learning.

71100. daisym at 17:24 PM on 2 November 2011
       Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
       If natural forces are powerful enough to cool and offset warming attributed to manmade CO2, might they also be powerful enough to cause the warming attributed to man to seem greater than it really is?

Prev  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  Next