Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 Next
Comments 71901 to 71950:
-
WheelsOC at 04:13 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Yesterday, in an update to the post, Watts was trying to head people off at the pass from declaring his reaction inconsistent by highlighting the clause where he said his acceptance depended on BEST following the proper scientific method. He's using the pre-publication media announcements as an excuse to back out on that, and unfortunately nobody who takes Watts seriously as a source of climate insight is going to look any further than that. Apparently it never occurred to Watts to take BEST's freely available data and apply the methods of his choosing to second-guess their results, instead focusing on how the research is being shown off. He's literally using style as an excuse to ignore substance. This is totally consistent with his reaction to Muller's testimony before Congress about the preliminary findings, but still inconsistent with his earlier declaration that hinged on methodology rather than publicity. While Watts continues to live down to my expectations, I'm a little surprised and disappointed at RPSr.'s response. Surely he can do better than that. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:12 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
I'm really glad the BEST team has turned out to be good scientists. It was conceivable (though unlikely) that their results could have shown something different than the other data sets. It would have been pretty earth-shaking if the data had turned out higher OR lower. That would have cemented their team in the annals of science. That's a pretty strong incentive to do the work and get it right. It's fascinating, though not unexpected, that they got nearly identical results. And not just identical results with the temperature series but identical results with regards to the UHI effect. Is this going to quell the debate at WUWT? Unlikely. But now they clearly are placing themselves in the arena of what can properly be termed "denial." -
pbjamm at 04:11 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Well, saying you will accept the results of a scientific study is only an issue if you are unwilling to follow where the science leads. With Watts now fishing for any excuse to dismiss the results it is pretty clear he is not willing to do so. His sudden insistence that peer review is vitally important (though crooked!) is a fine example of this. I also find the skeptic reliance on HadCRU to prove the earth is not warming while simultaneously insisting that Climategate proved Hadley cooked the books to be delicious irony. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:10 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
7, Paul D, Yes! What is most important about this is not actually the confirmation of temperature rises (that was a shocker... hmph). What is most important is that skeptics now look foolish, and their reactions to events are making them look even more foolish. Their faux-credibility crumbles with every whine and sneer. -
CBDunkerson at 04:08 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Indeed, it is interesting that Bugai bails at step 4... as acceptance of that "elementary math" combined with his own previous statements the natural sources and sinks are not in balance and that the increase in concentration can be no more than the human emissions would perforce lead to the conclusion that human emissions are entirely responsible for the increase in concentration. -
Paul D at 04:04 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Looking around the comments in the media outlets, a lot of skeptics are just ignoring Mullers output and continue with their own 'theories'. The more this goes on, the more that the loyal skeptics appear to be conspiracy nutters in really deep denial about the world around them. -
NewYorkJ at 03:57 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Isn't this the height of irony? "They have all contacted me regarding the release of papers from BEST today. There’s only one problem: Not one of the BEST papers have completed peer review. Nor has one has been published in a journal to my knowledge, nor is the one paper I’ve been asked to comment on in press at JGR, (where I was told it was submitted) yet BEST is making a “pre-peer review” media blitz." "Apparently, PR trumps the scientific process now, no need to do that pesky peer review, no need to address the errors with those you ask for comments prior to publication, just get it to press." Surely Watts adheres to the strict standard of waiting until his work is complete, peer-reviewed, and published before talking to the media... http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/ http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/ http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/archaic-weather-network-run-with-volunteers/ I do agree that focusing on accurately covering published peer-reviewed work is a good idea. Where would that leave Watts? -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:49 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
I should just add, nobody would be more pleased that I if bugai were able to identify a flaw in the argument. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:42 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai, Your withdrawal at this point will be viewed as a tacit admission that you have realized that your position is untenable, and that a very simple and painless, step by step walk through the mathematics that demonstrates this will force you to admit your error. Rather than do so, you bristle, obfuscate, and then retreat in a huff. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:42 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai, I presented the fourth step, had you behaved better it would have taken us a total of seven posts to get to that point, four from me, three from you. Now if you have found the discussion tiring, perhaps you should ask youself why there were more than seven posts and why you didn't simply write "I agree" each time if each step were merely "elementary maths". The fact that you have left the discussion at this point, when you were very nearly at the conclusion, speaks volumes. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:39 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Daniel, I suspect it may be a second language issue, it is possible that bugai's comment was not quite what was intended. bugai, the difference is that I disagreed after you had stated your argument, where as you have stated that you will disagree before I have stated my argument. This is possibly not what you meant. However, I would suggest that you drop the abrasive tone, it doesn't tend to go down to well here, calm rational discussion is better appreciated. -
bugai at 03:37 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Sorry, Dikran. Somehow I understand why other "skeptics" did not withstand you. Apparently, I went three steps further then they did, and I have enough. I have no time to discuss the elementary math with you. You have to put all the chain of your arguments at once if you wish any further discussion. Sorry for that! -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 03:37 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai, "terrestrial productivity is not really relevant, because it is CO2 neutral." Again do you have a reference for this? From my understanding terrestrial productivity can also act as a carbon sink. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:35 AM on 22 October 2011How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
34, guinganbresil, See Trends in Observation and Research of Deep Ocean Circulation and Heat Transport for more details on currents. They act as an additional mechanism for transporting heat downward into the depths. -
bugai at 03:33 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Gosh Daniel. Dikran disagreed with me in posting #130. You've missed that? Now we are just figuring out what is the reason for the disagreement. You want to participate [it] contructively [/it], or just snorking around? -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:33 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai sorry, experience tells me that step-by-step, with agreement at each point is the only way to differentiate between truth-seekers and trolls. As Sphaerica points out, if you want the discussion to proceed quickly and smoothly, then co-operate by simply replying "I agree" where you agree, rather than waste time obfuscating. I'm glad you agree with step #3 ΔC - E_a = E_n - U_n Step #4 is as follows, if the left hand side is negative, then we know the right hand side must also be negative, i.e. if E_a > ΔC then U_n > E_n Do you agree (if you state that you agree explicitly and unambiguously, and make no attempt to obfuscate or irritate, then I will have the confidence to proceed in larger steps). -
dana1981 at 03:33 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
pbjamm - I noticed many WUWT commenters telling Watts "I told you not to say you'd accept the BEST results." Since he appears unwilling to accept results that contradict his pre-determined conclusions, saying he would accept their results regardless was indeed a mistake. -
pbjamm at 03:30 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
The comments section of WUWT is a wonderful example of cognitive dissonance and denialism. Muller didn't come to the predetermined conclusion so he has sold out. 'They' got to him. He changed the rules. Blah blah blah. -
michael sweet at 03:29 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Perhaps Muller should replicate Manns hockey stick, which he continues to say was poorly done. When Muller actually produces some new data it will be more interesting. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:29 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
@ bugai @ 161 "Then I will point, at which step I start to disagree with you." So you have already decided to disagree with Dikran without actually evaluating the full argument, but are merely looking for the proper point in the discussion to insert it? How "skeptical" of you. -
bugai at 03:25 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To Dirkan: to shorten the discussion, just put all your steps in a row. Then I will point, at which step I start to disagree with you. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:21 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
I liked Tamino's words to Muller (here): "Welcome to my world." -
guinganbresil at 03:20 AM on 22 October 2011How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Rob, Sphaerica - I think I understand now... Lets start with a picture:
There are several gradients:
1 - Air to Surface = very small
2 - Surface to bottom of 'skin layer' = ~0.5 mm
3 - Bottom of 'skin layer' to the peak of the diurnal warm layer (when warmed by sunlight)
4 - The thermocline
5 - Deep ocean gradient below the thermocline
I imagine that there is a depth where the diurnal swing in temperature is not observable due to a combination of mixing and the fact that you are too deep to get any direct sunlight warming. I think this depth is still in the well mixed layer in the top...
The heat transfer between the air and the ocean is related to the air-surface gradient. A warming of the skin layer just increases this gradient, increasing the heat transfer - it is essentially a wash.
The heat transfer to the deep oceans (by deep I mean 100's of meters not 100's of microns...) is determined by the gradient of the thermocline.
Now, you can clearly see the gradients shown in the top figure would show a constant buildup of energy in the ocean... As I understand it, the deep, cold water (in the tropics) turns out to be the warm upwelling water in polar regions - rejecting the energy it picked up in the form of latent heat, so you don't see much of a temperature change...
Remember the currents:
-
bugai at 03:14 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To Dirkan: I agreed long with your Step 3. Are you going any further? -
bugai at 03:13 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To Hyperactive Hydrologist: terrestrial productivity is not really relevant, because it is CO2 neutral. CO2 binding in oceans is significant, because the phytoplankton is beeing eaten by zooplankton and carbon is bound in the shells. The shells sink to the ocean deep for good. -
WheelsOC at 03:10 AM on 22 October 2011Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
What's interesting to me is the finding of a slight cool bias in the not-very-rural station data. A similar kind of cool bias was found in the not-well-situated station data in Menne et al. 2010. As if everything else weren't enough, this should definitively rule out the idea that either microsite influences or UHI could have generated a significant part of the warming trend in the data, giving a false signal of warming. But as we're already seeing, it won't do that for the people committed to the fantasy that the temperature record is fraudulent or agenda-driven. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 03:05 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai @148, For this to be true globally you would require a similar reduction in terrestrial primary productivity. However this doesn't appear to be the case. According to this paper Net Primary Productivity (NPP) has been increasing by 0.52%/yr between 1980 and 2000. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:03 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
156, bugai, [I won't interfere, but you accused me of being argumentative. You are demonstrating the same behavior with Dikran. With small, axiomatic steps this discussion with him will proceed very smoothly and quickly if you are less argumentative. All you need to do at each point is to respond "Yes, I agree" -- unless you truly don't at some point, but as you've pointed out, these steps are fairly trivial and should not involve any side discussion. If you let the steps flow, the answer will arise incontrovertibly.] -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:00 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai wrote "1st class school math. Could you increase your steps?" I would happily do so if you were more cooperative, while you are obfuscating at each step it make sense to go in as small steps as possible to give you as little room to obfuscate as possible. So, do you agree, if so, say so explicitly. -
bugai at 02:57 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To Dikran: 1st class school math. Could you increase your steps? -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:54 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai O.K., step #3 we can rearrange the equation to get ΔC - E_a = E_n - U_n Do you agree? Note I have change dC to ΔC to make it clear we are talking about the change in C, which is completely conventional notation used in physics. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:52 AM on 22 October 2011Climate sensitivity is low
240, Tristan, 1) No one knows for sure, because it's never been doubled this quickly before. The models give some insights, but this is hard to pin down. We're also pretty early in the process, so it's hard to even estimate it at the current rate of warming. We haven't hit any step-changes yet, and the system is sluggish. What we do know is that no matter how slowly it seems to happen, it is happening, and it is going to continue well beyond the point where we stop raising CO2 levels. 2) To my knowledge, this is the "Charney sensitivity" or "equilibrium sensitivity", meaning the final, end result sensitivity after everything has stabilized. Also note that while 3C is an easy working number, the assumed range is 2C to 4.5C, and it may even be lower (unlikely) or higher (also unlikely, but more possible than lower than 2). This is in contrast to the "transient sensitivity" we would see within 20 years of doubling CO2 levels, which would see all fast feedbacks come into play, but not some slower ones. An excellent paper to consider in studying this is Hansen and Sato (2011). They talk exactly about these issues in a fairly clear fashion, and compare current positions to what can be inferred from previous similar changes in climate. There are, really, I think (in my mind, not officially) three levels of feedbacks... very fast, slow, and very slow. Very fast includes humidity and cloud changes that happen quickly. Slow feedbacks involve things like albedo and CO2 feedbacks that require major ice melt and fast ecosystem changes. Then very slow feedbacks require even longer term things (the point where oceans warm enough to release rather than absorb atmospheric CO2, and major, large-scale ecosystem changes occur that in turn change albedo and release or absorb more CO2). But I think the hoped for answer is that 3C is all of these effects combined. [I will confess that someone else may be able to give you a more direct and perhaps different answer than this one... this is what I understand, but I could be wrong here. Hansen and Sato 2011 in particular talk about fast and slow feedbacks on other time scales.] The sad reality, though, is that we won't know if 3C is the accurate estimate of the final feedback result until 1,000 years pass. 3) That's why it's expressed in terms of a doubling of current concentrations, and not based on the incremental amount added. 4) Yes and no. There are logically slight differences in feedbacks depending on the source of a temperature increase, but overall feedbacks are driven by temperature change, regardless of the cause in temperature change. Refer to this chapter on efficacy (i.e. how one forcing differs from another) in the IPCC AR4 report. There would be more "room" for CO2 feedbacks, because the same amount of CO2 released would be proportionally larger to a lower starting level. But at the same time we'd have pumped less CO2 into the oceans to release there. More importantly, the CO2 feedback is only one of many. Other feedbacks (water vapor, albedo changes, etc.) are in aggregate probably more important. So that difference wouldn't amount to that much. -
bugai at 02:49 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To Dikran:you guy have a problem.I write you: I agreed with your Step 2 long ago.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please avoid any form of ad hominem. Refer to the Comments Policy; such statements as these are usually cause for comment deletion. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:45 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai agree to step #2 (or demonstrate that it is incorrect) and you will find out. The ball is in your court. -
John Hartz at 02:44 AM on 22 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Jim Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue, describing him as "a top-notch physicist". "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming. "Of course, presuming that he basically confirms what we have been reporting, the deniers will then decide that he is a crook or has some ulterior motive. "As I have discussed in the past, the deniers, or contrarians, if you will, do not act as scientists, but rather as lawyers." “As soon as they see evidence against their client (the fossil fuel industry and those people making money off business-as-usual), they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and jury." Source: “Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns,” The Guardian (UK), Oct 20, 2011 To access the article, click here. -
John Hartz at 02:43 AM on 22 October 2011Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
Jim Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue, describing him as "a top-notch physicist". "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming. "Of course, presuming that he basically confirms what we have been reporting, the deniers will then decide that he is a crook or has some ulterior motive. "As I have discussed in the past, the deniers, or contrarians, if you will, do not act as scientists, but rather as lawyers." “As soon as they see evidence against their client (the fossil fuel industry and those people making money off business-as-usual), they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and jury." Source: “Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns,” The Guardian (UK), Oct 20, 2011 To access the article, click here. -
bugai at 02:41 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To Dikran: So what? It was your idea with steps. Will you do the step #3 finally? I agreed long with your Step 2, just written it in an accurate form (your is too sloppy). -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:36 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai wrote : "To Dikran: will go any step further? I get tired with you." I have noticed over the years that the difference between those who are genuinely interested in the science and those who are deniers or trolls is that those who are interested in the science will follow a step by step explanation, and those that are not either obfuscate or abandon the discussion when it becomes apparent that they have backed themselves into a corner where they will soon be forced to admit that they were wrong. They normally get further than step #1 though. The ball is in your court, if you want to show that you are interested in the science, then either agree with step #2 or show why it is incorrect. -
dana1981 at 02:34 AM on 22 October 2011Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
For commentary on the various reactions to the BEST results, see the follow-up post to this one, The BEST Kind of Skepticism -
bugai at 02:31 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To Dikran: will go any step further? I get tired with you. -
bugai at 02:29 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To Hyperactive Hydrologist: Well, to account for the observed CO2 raise from 280 ppm around 1750 to 380 ppm now, we need 100*(1 - 280/(380-280)) = 26% in productivity change. The observed 6.5% over 20 years can be easily extrapolated to 26% over the laser 250 years. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:27 AM on 22 October 2011How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
32, Rob, Maybe jg can help, if you could just give him a napkin version of what you envision? -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:24 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai Sorry, you are just obfuscating. How about this, I will carry on with the dC and you can read it as dC/dt with t=one year if you really want to (although that would be an abuse of notation it would be your error not mine). Do you agree with step #2? -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 02:20 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai @ 141, I had a quick search of the literature and found this paper. They do in fact show a -6.3% change in ocean primary productivity between the 79-86 and 97-02 periods. I'm not sure this is sufficient to account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over that period. -
bugai at 02:17 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To Dirkan: I'd like to stick to the ODE. You may think of dt=1 year, if you wish. 1 year is "instantaneous". -
John Hartz at 02:11 AM on 22 October 2011Sea levels will continue to rise for 500 years
@Agnostic #53: "The journey of 1,000 miles begins with the first step." -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:10 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai You may prefer a differential equation, however as I will shortly be introducing annual observations into the discussion it makes far more sense to look at annual changes rather than instantaneous rates. So, do you agree with step 2 or not? I have solved the differential equations as well, so I am happy to discuss those later once we have agreed on the basics. -
bugai at 01:56 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To Dirkan: I prefer the full differential equation: dC/dt = E_a + E_n - U_n Do you agree with that? It is better to have a true differential equation, because we have then something to solve. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:52 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
bugai good, so step #2, do you agree that we can write this more formally as dC = E_a + E_n - U_n where: dC is the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 in GtC/year E_a is annual emissions from anthropogenic sources in GtC/year E_n is annual emissions from natural sources in GtC/year U_n is annual uptake by natural sinks in GtC/year Technically there ought to be U_a, which is annual uptake by anthropogenic sinks, but this is effectively zero as we are not yet achieving any significant carbon sequestration. Again, this should be fairly obviously true as it is just a restatement of step 1 with total emissions divided into anthropogenic and natural. Do you agree with this? -
bugai at 01:51 AM on 22 October 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
To Hyperactive Hydrologist: I am not an expert, but here is what Wiki writes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) "Use of chemical fertilizers is considered the major human-related cause of dead zones around the world."
Prev 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 Next
