Recent Comments

Prev  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  Next

Comments 71301 to 71350:

71301. 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?
71302. 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 ...
71303. 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?
71304. 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.
71305. 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).
71306. 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.
71307. 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.
71308. 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.
71309. 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.
71310. 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?
71311. 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.
71312. 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".
71313. 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.
71314. 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.
71315. 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.
71316. 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.
71317. 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.
71318. 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.
71319. 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.
71320. 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.
71321. 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.
71322. 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.
71323. 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.
71324. 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.
71325. 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.

71326. 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?
71327. Rob Painting at 16:27 PM on 2 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Shibui @ 44 - Aha, the false equivalence gambit.
71328. Bert from Eltham at 16:26 PM on 2 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       My mother who was a devout Christian always said that one day I would really understand when I got older and wiser that being an atheist scientist was wrong. She is dead now and I am much older and wiser and have not changed at all. The evidence still stands. We are dealing with people who are deluded. Nothing will change their mindset. It all reminds me of a case a neurophysiologist called Ramachandran had, whose patient had a delusion that he was dead. No logical argument could convince him that he was deluded. Yet he could see delusions in others! Sound familiar? Bert
71329. dhogaza at 15:50 PM on 2 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       rpauli: "Is Climate Change Real? Take a Look at the Science Before you Decide" The very notion that a headline like this is published is depressing. "Science says 'X" . Take a look at the science before you decide". Where else would you look? Genesis? (yes) Republican politicos who wave their hands and don't know their d**k from their rear end? (yes). etc. depressing ...
71330. oneiota at 15:07 PM on 2 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Albatross@50 Indeed the scent of BS increased the closer I got to the source. Sphaerica: The ".html" dropped off the link all by itself... must be magic ;-)
71331. muoncounter at 15:02 PM on 2 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Anyone looking for 'balance' will find more satisfaction in Scott Denning's video. "Its pointless to worry about decimal places. Its a big problem, and needs solutions. " Tell that to the crowd that thinks warming stopped for the last 20 minutes.
71332. Stevo at 14:56 PM on 2 November 2011
       Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
       Tom, Daniel, muon, Many thanks. Looks like you've given me plenty of reading for tonight.
71333. Tom Curtis at 14:47 PM on 2 November 2011
       Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
       Thankyou DB. The relevant papers are The Annual Cycle of the Energy Budget Part 1 and Part 2. Fasullo was the lead author of both, and both were published in 2008.
71334. Bob Lacatena at 14:34 PM on 2 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       44, Shibui, Okay. I looked at Ridley. It's mostly a lot of vacuous fluff, but I'm a little surprised that you didn't take the key points to heart, in trying to recognize pseudoscience (i.e. Watts, Nova, any number of cranks on the 2nd Law thread here, etc.) rather than presuming that his proclamations apply to the real science and scientists. I'm sure you clung to this statement, but in an upside-down, inside-out, black-is-white fashion:

       Lesson number 4: the heretic is sometimes right.

       but failed to take heed of this one

       Lesson no 5: keep a sharp eye out for confirmation bias in yourself and others.

       But when I got to lesson 6 I got angry, because I've seen that Feynman quote misapplied frequently since last year. In fact, I got so tired of seeing it misunderstood and misapplied that I wrote a post on it on my own too infrequently updated blog. The Feynman quote that he got wrong is here:

       "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts"

       His woefully incorrect interpretation of that quote is here:

       Lesson 6. Never rely on the consensus of experts about the future. Experts are worth listening to about the past, but not the future. Futurology is pseudoscience.

       This is wrong. It is an entirely inaccurate interpretation of what Feynman meant. Please take the time to read my commentary on The Ignorance of the Experts. And please... to compare this drivel to Milne's talk is a huge insult to Milne.
71335. muoncounter at 14:32 PM on 2 November 2011
       Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
       Stevo: One way to look at atmospheric CO2 distribution is with Carbontracker. The CO2 'weather' maps and movies are entertaining, if not informative.
71336. Tom Curtis at 14:30 PM on 2 November 2011
       Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
       Stevo @62, CO2 is a well mixed gas, so its concentrations are nearly identical in the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. Here for example are the CO2 concentrations at the South Pole and at Barrow Island in Alaska: In contrast to CO2 (and Methane), aerosols are not long lived in the atmosphere so are largely concentrated in the in the hemisphere of their origin, ie, primarily the NH. That is one of the major reasons for the difference in behaviour between NH and SH in response to global warming. The other major difference is that nearly all the worlds major land surfaces are concentrated in the NH. Because land warms much faster than the ocean, and because there is more land in the NH than the SH, the NH warms much faster on average than the SH. That pattern has been partly ameliorated by the high aerosol burden in the NH. As a result, during periods of rapid increase in aerosol load in the NH (most notably during the rapid industrialization that followed WW2 up until the clean air acts of the 1970's, warming in the NH was stopped or even slightly reversed. During periods of significant reduction in aerosol loads (the great depression) or stasis (1970's to 1990's due to clean air acts) the NH shows exceptionally rapid warming. This aerosol related pattern is not found in the SH: As for major methods of moving heat around, they are, as you conjecture, the the ocean currents, but also the major atmospheric circulations, particularly the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar Cells. I believe Fasullo and Trenberth have a paper discussing this issue, though I am uncertain who was the lead author and do not have a link to hand.
       Response:

       [DB] Trenberth's publication record is here.  Many PDF's available for download.

71337. Albatross at 14:19 PM on 2 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Oneiota @49, Thank you for your thoughts on this. Wish I could give you your hour back. Seriously though, I try to consider such goings on a learning experience. I have learned an awful lot from considering the musings of self professed "skeptics" and chasing down what later turns out to be no more than spin, misinformation and opinion. These folks prey on those with preconceived notions (i.e., confirmation bias) and the gullible.
71338. Stevo at 13:57 PM on 2 November 2011
       Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
       I'm hoping this is an appropriate thread upon which to post this question. Could somebody please inform me or point me in the direction of which mechanisms spread warming around the planet, and how quickly this is likely to happen? e.g.How much warming is conveyed around the planet by ocean currents? Or how freely does CO2 spread around the entire planet? Since most fossil carbon is released in the northern hemisphere I can understand the north warming faster than the south, but how much lag should we expect before temperature rise rates in the south catch up with the north?
71339. oneiota at 13:45 PM on 2 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Shibui @44 I too found Milne's talk interesting. On your recommendation and being a believer in finding balance and without a link to the Ridley talk in your post I searched and found via WWUT (as I'm becoming familiar with some of the landscape the acronyms are convenient) a transcript on Bishop-Hill I read and re-read and feel robbed of an hour of my life. I failed to find the balance and felt the need to visit Milne's talk once more for reassurance that I hadn't missed something. Frankly I resent it when a preacher has the arrogance to assume that I swallow an opinion without evidence for the argument....if Ridley gave permission to have the transcript published on Bishop-Hill and the asterix against the several claims made in his talk are meant to refer to footnotes and sources that aren't available to the reader then both Ridley and Bishop-Hill are merely preaching to the converted or to the gullible. Balance? Weigh this: How many lemons make an apple?
       Moderator Response: [Sph] Your link didn't work for me. Try this one for the Ridley transcript.
71340. Albatross at 13:22 PM on 2 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Muoncounter, I actually did peruse Ridley's talk. Hence my reasoning that Ridley's talk does not represent "balance". But I sense that you are being sarcastic ;) It has gotten those in denial at WUWT (including Anthony of course) excited though, as expected. Fodder for the "skeptics" is what Ridley's talk is.
71341. muoncounter at 12:59 PM on 2 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Albatross#45: "I am not sure how Ridley's talk is relevant here." Don't be so hasty. This Ridley talk starts off with a vital question: How do you know whether you are taking the rational or the irrational side of an argument, the scientific or the pseudoscientific position? Intrigued yet? Read on: There is a consensus that the earth is round and natural selection explains evolution, but there is also a consensus that ghosts and gods exist. Now anyone who can put the shape of the earth, natural selection, ghosts and gods into one sentence is clearly a savant. But then again, I didn't have a lot of trouble answering the original question, so maybe I'm not ready for this level of discourse. I'll stick with Milne.
71342. scaddenp at 12:51 PM on 2 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       This raises a problem commonly posed. Shibui is looking for balance - its a legal/political mode of truth determination. "Prosecution and defense" present their case and it is left to individual to determine what is true. Add into this is common relativist idea that both can be forms of truth. Not so with science. Nature is judge. Debate is settled by collection of data. However, for Shibui, it seems there is the problem of who to believe, who to trust? If you cant do the science yourself, (most of us, even scientists when outside field), then how to judge? For those of us working in science, it seems obvious to go with consensus in published, peer-reviewed research by the experts in the appropriate field. Do you prefer to go with the journalist just because you prefer that opinion?
71343. Albatross at 12:31 PM on 2 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Shibui @44, The implication being that the "truth" is in the middle somewhere. So what you are asking for is "false balance". I see that you follow Bishop Hill or WUWT or both. I sense your bias already. Dr. Milne has done some research in the field of climate science and the impacts of climate change on plants, quite unlike Dr. Riley who is foremost a journalist. Milne RI (2006). Northern hemisphere plant disjunctions: a window on Tertiary land bridges and climate change? Annals of Botany 98: 465-472 Also, I am not sure how Ridley's talk is relevant here. In addition to calling for false balance, you seem to be floating a red herring, as well as ignoring Ian's comments @ 43. You do not just ignore inconvenient facts and then move on Shibui. You can try, but I won't let you :)
71344. muoncounter at 12:18 PM on 2 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       Steve L#10: "I think it 'works' like this:" It's important to lay this 'logical' chain out in the order you did. Item 1 is among the foundational principles of the denialists. Normal logic would say that if a foundational principle (a given, if you will) is wrong, the whole structure crumbles like a house of cards. Switching to rhetorical mode: Has anyone asked what evidence there is for item 1? Can anyone in denial do anything else than pre-suppose that item 1 is true? I think not. End rhetorical. The comments on JCurry's blog after tamino's questions popped up are a case in point. He asked a scientist, who had taken a position without having to show any evidence in support, to show that evidence. The 'denizens' thought that was ill-mannered, rude and a personal attack. You dare you ask our favorite scientist a straightforward question? Not on our watch! And we're supposed to be looking for common ground with these folks?
71345. Shibui at 12:07 PM on 2 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Dr. Milne was very interesting. For balance, can I recommend Matt Ridley's recent Angus Millar lecture at the RSA in Edinburgh.
71346. Steve L at 11:12 AM on 2 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       Riccardo, you don't see their logic. I think it 'works' like this: 1. Scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming (or whatever) are greedy liars or are incompetent. 2. When they find warming, they either fudged the data or performed the analysis wrongly or ignored important contradictory stuff. 3. If someone who doesn't believe in AGW finds cooling or no warming, he or she has done it right, with all the proper data. 4. If someone who doesn't believe in AGW finds warming, he or she has probably done it right (because people who don't believe in AGW are more competent and trustworthy), but warming doesn't mean it's anthropogenic. 5. If someone who doesn't believe in AGW finds the same amount of warming as someone who does believe in AGW, however, there's trouble -- this would likely mean that the scheming or incompetent true believer didn't do anything wrong, or the non-believer made the same errors. Therefore, #5 can't be correct, because the only thing that makes sense in this worldview is that those who disbelieve in AGW are better than those who think it's a real problem. Any common ground is an affront to the natural order.
71347. Tom Curtis at 10:33 AM on 2 November 2011
       Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
       Two additional points that are worth noting: 1) The BEST data clearly shows a continuing global warming trend since 1998. In fact, Judith Curry, as co-author has commented on just that fact, saying:

       "Though it is sometimes argued that global warming has abated since the 1998 El Nino event (e.g. Easterling and Wehner 2009, Meehl et al. 2011), we find no evidence of this in the GHCN land data. Applying our analysis over the interval 1998 to 2010, we find the land temperature trend to be 2.84 ± 0.73 C / century, consistent with prior decades."

       (Rhode et al, 2011, h/t to Tim Lambert) As the confidence interval on the trend indicates, they even find the trend to be statistically significant, with a minimum value for the confidence range of 2.11 degrees C per century. Based on Tamino's analysis, and critique of the use of white noise models for temperature, that confidence is overstated. Tamino shows a minimum trend inside the confidence interval of around -0.4 degrees C per Century (on the full BEST data) for the trend since 1998. Never-the-less, Judith Curry's official position is that the trend since 1998 is large, and statistically significant. If she now disagrees with that, as she apparently does, she has no honourable course but to either persuade her fellow authors to ammend that claim, or to withdraw as an author of the paper. Observant readers will note that the quoted trend is for GHCN stations only. However, the paper in question shows the difference between NOAA (GHCN) and BEST values in graph 8b. In 1998 NOAA shows a higher value than does BEST, but by 2010 it shows a lower value. That (consistenly) declining trend over the interval shows that the full BEST trend will be larger than that quoted above, not smaller. As the full BEST temperature series uses more data, it will also have a more tightly constrained confidence interval. Given that Muller is also a co-author of this paper, his claimed vacillation on statistical significance on just that interval is even more bizzare. It means he is either unaware of the contents of the paper of which he is co-author, or he has (quite reasonable) doubts about the statistical model used in calculating the confidence interval. If the later, however, it is incumbent on him to ensure those doubts are expressed in the paper. 2) Although I criticized BEST for including the two Antarctica only values for April and May of 2010 in their analysis, on reflection it is not clear that they have done so. Certainly none of their graphs show the precipitous decline in the final values (though none of their graphs are unsmoothed monthly graphs). They may have, in fact, done the correct thing in including the data in record (the data has been collected), but excluding it from their analysis. If that is what they have done, it raises two issues. A reason for excluding the data should have been given in their papers. Indeed, if they have not excluded the data an even better reason for not doing so should also appear in their papers. What should not occur is either inclusion of dodgy data, or exclusion of any data without comment. Again, if they have excluded the data, Judith Curry should have recognized the inclusion of dodgy data in the graph she was asked to comment on, and made a point about it. She certainly should have indicated the dodgy nature of the data when she made her clarifying blog post. Her failure to do so shows either that she is quite happy to use data she knows to be misleading, and which biases the data in favour of the case she is arguing; or that she was not aware of data issues in a paper of which she is co-author. Neither reflects well on her.
71348. Composer99 at 10:31 AM on 2 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       

       I'd expect a reputable scientist to think twice. [Emphasis mine.]

       Ah, see, there's your problem. :)
71349. adelady at 10:26 AM on 2 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       John, you and your mother should get every allowance that anyone could make. Not so Fred Singer. He's been making wildly unjustified claims about a whole variety of topics for decades now. If there's been any change in his behaviour or cognition, it's not apparent to me.
71350. DrYew at 10:16 AM on 2 November 2011
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       On the Global Warming Policy Foundation website, David Whitehouse headlined his initial blog on BEST thus: 'Sceptical Berkeley Scientists Say, “Human Component Of Global Warming May Be Somewhat Overestimated”', making the same mistake as the one Singer did in his Nature post. I wrote to Whitehouse pointing out that this was pure spin. His response was that the headline wasn't taken taken out of context because the section in which phrase occurs is "poorly argued": ie, he knew better than the authors what they meant. Is this type of self-contradictory, Janus behaviour common amongst the sceptic, sorry "skeptic" community? :-)

Prev  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  Next