Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 Next
Comments 72751 to 72800:
-
pielkesr at 05:06 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
All - please see the top and bottom figures in figure 7 in http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html. Let me know the trends you see starting in different years since 1998. My view, is that focusing on a linear trend with respect to a actual nonlinear signal is a substantial oversimplication of how we should expect the climate sytstem to behave both naturally, and in response to the diversity of human climate forcings. -
pielkesr at 04:59 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
Albatross - Regarding "...one does not need to invoke the alteration of major atmospheric/ocean circulations by anthro land use change to explain the observed warming" please see Figure 11 in Pielke Sr., R.A., A. Pitman, D. Niyogi, R. Mahmood, C. McAlpine, F. Hossain, K. Goldewijk, U. Nair, R. Betts, S. Fall, M. Reichstein, P. Kabat, and N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2011: Land use/land cover changes and climate: Modeling analysis and observational evidence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Invited paper, in press. The land surface part of the surface temperature record cannot be explained without considering land use/land cover change. Even then there is the complication from aerosols and natutal long term variability (which does involve atmospheric and ocean circulation pattern variations). -
muoncounter at 04:54 AM on 13 October 2011It's land use
Continuing from here
--source
This document (written in 2002) suggests that forested area in the US is recovering slightly:
Forest land area increased from 747 to 749 million acres (0.3 percent) between 1997 and 2002, continuing a slight upward trend in area beginning in the late 1980s.
Since the bulk of the deforestation occurred in the 19th century, this cannot be a significant contributor to recent warming.
-
muoncounter at 04:53 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
Dr. Pielke#68 and #69: There is an older SkS thread regarding land use changes. A USFS graphic posted there shows forested area in the US declined rapidly over the course of the 19th century. Since the early 20th century, there has not been much change. Changing land use in the US, as measured by forested area, cannot therefore be a significant contributor to recent warming. I wonder if similar statistics exist to show the timing of land use change in other countries. -
dana1981 at 04:44 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
Dr. Pielke, for the record, some of us have attempted to present our view on Watts' blog. Let's just say we have not been received kindly. This blog post is a good example of Watts' attitude towards Skeptical Science, and in particular, this comment from Watts towards me (and the one following it). Watts is not very tolerant of opposing viewpoints on his blog, and the causticity of comments on his blog is on a completely different level than on SkS. Let's just say we also disagree about the quality of the scientific content on WUWT and leave it at that, since it's off-topic, and since I don't have anything nice to say about it, I probably shouldn't say anything at all. -
pielkesr at 04:17 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
Rob Honeycutt - I am glad my viewpoint is being more generally appreciated. Just a few comments: 1. Some of the reader's comments on Anthony's weblog may be caustic at times (as they are at SkS; and at Real Climate, where I have also been commenting), but Anthony has the highest level of professional integrity. His posts are very informative, and even if you do not agree with him, you will broaden your prespective. He is as sincere in his views as you are on yours. I recommend an open-mind in reading his posts. If one avoids bitter (snarky) comments, you and your colleagues would find that website of considerable value in presenting your views and discussing with those who disagree. I am hoping that more courtesy will catch on, on all of the weblogs. 2. In terms your statement "Climate change has a good likelihood of being the most important issue for humanity for the next century and beyond." I would alter this to "Climate is a major issue for humanity for the next century and beyond, as it has been in the past. The role of humans in altering the climate is incompletely understood, but is also very important. In terms of whether the part of climate that is changing, relative to climate as it has occurred, is the "most important issue", needs, in my view, to be examined using the bottom-up, resource-based persepctive that we present in our paper Pielke Sr., R.A., R. Wilby, D. Niyogi, F. Hossain, K. Dairuku, J. Adegoke, G. Kallos, T. Seastedt, and K. Suding, 2011: Dealing with complexity and extreme events using a bottom-up, resource-based vulnerability perspective. AGU Monograph on Complexity and Extreme Events in Geosciences, in press. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/r-365.pdf The abstract reads We discuss the adoption of a bottom-up, resource–based vulnerability approach in evaluating the effect of climate and other environmental and societal threats to societally critical resources. This vulnerability concept requires the determination of the major threats to local and regional water, food, energy, human health, and ecosystem function resources from extreme events including climate, but also from other social and environmental issues. After these threats are identified for each resource, then the relative risks can be compared with other risks in order to adopt optimal preferred mitigation/adaptation strategies. This is a more inclusive way of assessing risks, including from climate variability and climate change than using the outcome vulnerability approach adopted by the IPCC. A contextual vulnerability assessment, using the bottom-up, resource-based framework is a more inclusive approach for policymakers to adopt effective mitigation and adaptation methodologies to deal with the complexity of the spectrum of social and environmental extreme events that will occur in the coming decades, as the range of threats are assessed, beyond just the focus on CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases as emphasized in the IPCC assessments." In terms of "climate", as contrasted with "climate change", we need to assess what would occur now with the current and projected societal conditions but with the reoccurrence of historical, recent paleo-record, and worse case sequence of weather days. For the global climate models to add value to this they must be able to skillfully predict the changes in the regional weather statistics. Your statement that "Climate change has a good likelihood of being the most important issue for humanity for the next century and beyond." need to be evaluated in this bottom-up framework. 3. Finally, while we agree that the radiative forcing of added CO2 is "A" first order climate forcing, it is not "THE" only first order climate forcing. I define importance in terms of, for example, how large scale atmospheric and ocean circulations are affected. I have reported on numerous research papers on my weblog that document this issue. I will have two questions on my weblog early next week, to continue our constructive discussion. -
JosHagelaars at 04:11 AM on 13 October 2011The Earth continues to build up heat
@From Peru I think it is taken from this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/comment-page-3/#comment-216562 You can build the graph yourself using the link I gave in comment #5, see file "ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv". The data per year are also available on the same ftp server. -
Albatross at 04:03 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
Hello Dr. Pielke, Thank you for the information. I do not think we are in disagreement on this one, and the IPCC AR4 agree too: "Understanding land-use and land-cover changes is crucial to understanding climate change. Even if land activities are not considered as subject to mitigation policy, the impact of land-use change on emissions, sequestration, and albedo plays an important role in radiative forcing and the carbon cycle." Interestingly the contribution to CO2 levels from land use change that you provide above (~20 ppmv) seems to be lower than the value cited in AR4: "Cumulative emissions from historical land-cover conversion for the period 1920–1992 have been estimated to be between 206 and 333 Pg CO2 (McGuire et al., 2001), and as much as 572 Pg CO2 for the entire industrial period 1850–2000, roughly one-third of total anthropogenic carbon emissions over this period (Houghton, 2003)." So about a third of a total increase of ~100 ppmv between 1850 and 2005, or ~30 ppmv. The take home message is that even when these huge changes to the land scape were taking place since the Industrial Revolution, as you note above, the net contribution to the global temperature may have been about 0.1 C. In contrast, as we showed above, the expected warming from the observed net anthropogenic forcing is ~0.65 C (of the observed 0.8 C). Not to belittle the importance of land use change, but one does not need to invoke the alteration of major atmospheric/ocean circulations by anthro land use change to explain the observed warming. Occam's razor applies here. With that said, we cannot continue to lose our forests, and that is one of the many reasons why programs like REDD are so important, and on that I think we all agree. Given that we are more or less in agreement on this issue and agree to disagree on the magnitude of the forcings in the above Table (as did RealClimate back in 2006), can I suggest that we please the discussion forward and now discuss the next point outlined on the other thread by Dana. Thank you. -
From Peru at 03:56 AM on 13 October 2011The Earth continues to build up heat
Albatross: From what paper you found that beautiful graph showing the ocean heat content down to 2000 m timeseries? -
JosHagelaars at 03:19 AM on 13 October 2011The Earth continues to build up heat
The NODC data for the ocean heat content 0 - 2000 m, where the graph in comment #3 is based upon, are publicly available from: ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ I calculated a linear trend from 1995 to now: 0 - 2000 m = 0.76 x 10^22 J/yr 0 - 700 m = 0.55 x 10^22 J/yr -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:11 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
Dr Pielke said... "I do not know how many times I can state it, but I certainly agree that added CO2 is a first order climate forcing..." If I go and make this exact statement on any number of "skeptic" blogs (including Anthony's) I get skinned alive by a large hoard of commenters. This is the "context" from which most of us are posting. I think most people here would also agree that there is still a lot that needs to be better understood in order to form better public policy. And no one harbors any notion that the IPCC is a perfect report on the science. The challenge is, as you say, if CO2 is a first order forcing and there are also many other human forcings that need to be addressed... that message is clearly being undermined, or avoided, or even ignored. From what I know of the people on this site, everyone is concerned about exactly this. Climate change has a good likelihood of being the most important issue for humanity for the next century and beyond. This is a critical decade to begin taking action to make changes in order to avoid what could be the worst consequences. That message needs to be conveyed with all its caveats and uncertainties. Meanwhile there are a large number of very vocal people out there who are trying to tell the world there is nothing to worry about (which is understandably what people prefer to hear). There are people trying to say the science is unsure or can't be trusted. Worse yet, there are a select number of people, like Chris Monckton, who are trying to tell the world that the scientists who are telling us the bad news are socialists/communists/nazis who are using AGW as a ruse to take over the governments of the world. These messages are literally drowning out the actual science. This is exactly what SkS is about. If your message is that the science of climate change needs to be well communicated, we're on the same side. If your message is that human activities are contributing to climate change and need to be addressed (and we believe that is what the science tells us), we are on the same side. -
dana1981 at 03:03 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
Dr. Pielke, we are certainly in agreement about the need to use more than one metric - as we have noted, we think it's important to look at all metrics (surface temp, TLT, OHC, ice masses, sea level rise, ocean acidification, etc.). John Cook has a very interesting post/graphic on that subject today. Note by the way that we moved onto point #2 in the other discussion thread, if you have any input on the subject. -
pielkesr at 02:50 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
dana1981 - The IPCC, however, does not adequately discuss the possible role (and relative contributions) of land use change and other non-GH forcings in allering major atmospheric/ocean circulations. This is why we need more than one metric, as we recommended the 2005 NRC report [which was only superficially referenced by the 2007 IPCC report]. -
pielkesr at 02:47 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
Hi Albatross - Sorry - I sent the wrong url. I cannot find the actual url of the 2nd press release(perhaps someone else can), but I have reproduced the e-mail below where I read it from the e-mail below From: Tanja Suni -
Albatross at 02:31 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
Hello Dr. Pielke @65, Just though that you should know, the press release that you linked to does not contain the quoted text. -
dana1981 at 02:31 AM on 13 October 2011The Earth continues to build up heat
It's interesting that not only does the Earth continue to build up heat, but the rate of build-up over those 5 years appears to hardly even have slowed. The "skeptics" won't be happy. -
dana1981 at 02:28 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
critical mass #64 - yes, a challenge in this sort of calculation is the overlapping of various effects. We've discussed the warming effects of aerosols and black carbon quite a bit, but the actions which result in their emissions actually have a net cooling effect through the negative aerosol forcing. Personally I prefer to parse it by net forcing by effect (i.e. net warming from GHGs, net cooling from aerosols and black carbon)as opposed to trying to break out net positive and negative forcings. Dr. Pielke #65 - yes, we've previously touched on the possibility that human land use change may have impacted the climate during pre-industrial times. I think it's a very interesting theory. However, the IPCC does discuss CO2 changes associated with land use changes. -
Alteredstory at 02:11 AM on 13 October 2011Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
@fydijkstra #17 Another thing to look at when it comes to sea levels: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/02/332364/nasa-rained-so-hard-oceans-fell/ http://www.skepticalscience.com/Extreme-Flooding-In-2010-2011-Lowers-Global-Sea-Level.html -
DSL at 01:43 AM on 13 October 2011Understanding climate denial
Elsa, if you have any integrity toward the science, please watch the first minute of this video and then post your response on this thread. We have to start with the basics, unless you are uninterested in understanding the theory that you are attempting to argue against. If you do have a good understanding of the physical model, then you will be able to engage in a useful discussion of the basics. If you don't have a good understanding, then start asking questions. Otherwise, you're simply a mindless troll (and this doesn't seem to be the case). -
Albatross at 01:34 AM on 13 October 2011The Earth continues to build up heat
Arkadiusz @2, You will be interested to know that the NODC is now showing oceanic heat content data data for 0-2000 m [H/T to Dr. Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate]. The oceans are not 700 m deep, and the Argo data do not extend down to only 700 m either. I think that you know that. Here is what it looks like when one looks at all the data available:
[Source]
The climate system is continuing to accumulate heat as shown by Church et al. (2011) and von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011)
-
Tristan at 01:31 AM on 13 October 2011Understanding climate denial
I believe the "95% confidence" thing came from a throwaway remark that Fisher made. I fought against it throughout my stats courses, to little avail. My lecturers were sympathetic but that's the way they taught stats. The best use of a predictive model with substantial error bars is to hit it with an actuarial analysis and determine what level of expended utility gives the best payout. -
pielkesr at 00:56 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
This press release on a research paper regarding the land use effect on the global average radiative flux might be of interest. ”World-leading scientists will shed new light on climate-change mitigation in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, 18-23 September” http://www.ileaps.org/phocadownload/SC2011/SC2011%20press%20release%20080911_NB.pdf "Deforestation has resulted in emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere, but clearing the forests may also have cooled the climate because forest is darker and heats up more than agricultural and pasture land.” The increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human land-cover change became significant long before the Industrial Revolution and by present day its overall effect amounts to about 20 ppm: human changes to land cover appears to explain about one eighth of the observed 1 K global warming." This is still a CO2 effect but the basic forcing is land use change. It is, regardless, a separate issue from the role of industrial and vehicular emissions. It does show how complex and interrelated the climate forcings are. -
critical mass at 00:50 AM on 13 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
Dr Pielke #32 Correct me if I have misundertood but the calculation of current radiative forcings is not derived from changes in OHC. The AR4 forcings are largely derived from models and theory. Historical forcings and the historical planetary imbalance are important in determining the heat energy accumulated in the oceans since the base date of 1750. As you have correctly argued elsewhere, the key metric is changes in heat energy in the oceans (Joules) in measuring the magnitude of the global energy imbalance. The point no-one seems to be discussing here is that the sum of all forcings (both positive radiative and climate response negative) is what counts in determining the imbalance. For example if Asian aerosols are increasing the negative forcing (which might be linear - who knows?) at the same time as fossil fuel burning is adding to CO2 positive forcing (which is logarithmic), then the net result could be Dr Jim Hansen's net reduction in the forcing imbalance. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:43 AM on 13 October 2011Understanding climate denial
238, elsa,I think I have studied this subject in some detail and I note that you have not commented on my, admittedly short, critique of models as a "proof" of your own particular point of view and the lack of science in it.
And I note that you have not followed or read the links that I already provided in response to this (-snip-) wrong position, at comment 206 02:17 AM on 12 October, 2011. Just to save you the trouble of going back, so this time you can follow it and learn exactly how your statement is grossly flawed: RealClimate FAQ on climate models RealClimate FAQ on climate models Part IINor do you seek to refute my comment on the lack of data sharing by some of the warmist community, which is the only method by which their views could be properly peer reviewed and a real consensus arrived at.
Do you even read the responses to your propositions? He did in fact respond to your false assertion in comment 232 21:35 PM on 12 October, 2011. He said:Perhaps you are unaware that all of the data is available for download. Given that the data is freely available, perhaps you'll then consider it outrageous that those proclaiming to be skeptics have done little with it other than to confirm the "hockey stick" is replicable using as little as 10% of the data because that is what the data show: a hockey-stick-like rise in global temps. Yet the anti-science drum beat continues.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
Links to raw data, processed data, model outputs, and model code are handily collected on RealClimate's Data Sources page.
-
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:27 AM on 13 October 2011The Earth continues to build up heat
“The Earth continues to build up heat [?]” Well, it is difficult not be skeptical (in this question) if you look for example at the figure and reads the comments: “The linear trend of the observations is approximately 7% of the trend projected by the model mean of the GISS Model-E.” In work Church et al., 2011. this sentence: “Ocean warming (90% of the total of the Earth's energy increase) continues through to the end of the record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing.” if we compare “it” whit a first sentence - comments above, it “receives” a slightly different meaning ...Response:[DB] Per your link, 0-700 meters is not the whole ocean, and is thus not considered global.
Per the third sentence of the OP above:
This new research combines measurements of ocean heat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heat through to 2008.
Emphasis added for clarity.
-
Bob Lacatena at 23:51 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
For the casual reader... Please, by all means, read through elsa's posts, and the responses. If you want a textbook case of denial, as evidenced by... 1) An absurd level of confidence and arrogance in a complete misunderstanding of the science. 2) An unwillingness to listen. 3) An unwillingness to follow informative links to learn. 4) The constant repetition of falsehoods, in the face of all evidence. 5) An almost fanatical faith in her position. 6) A complete lack of links and citations : everything is categorically and definitively stated, yet this truth is expected to be taken at face value simply because she says so. 7) The aggressive and rather comically repeated use (in pretty much every single post) of a term ("warmist") that she hopes will push people's buttons, even though no one actually cares. ... and so much more. Elsa provides you with an insight into exactly how emotionally wedded and intellectually detached a denier can become. From the original post:The most common response was attitude bolstering. This involves bringing to mind arguments that support pre-existing views while denying any counter evidence. The process is reflexive and almost sub-conscious.
-
Bernard J. at 23:48 PM on 12 October 2011The Earth continues to build up heat
Church's et al paper is a nice summary of a number of hydrological/oceanographic parameters, and ones that toll a grim knell. Now that attention has been drawn to it on Skeptical Science, I expect that there will soon be a glut of denialist 'rebuttals' attempting to discredit the numbers... -
muoncounter at 23:46 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
elsa#238: "I think I have studied this subject in some detail" You have yet to provide a single bit of evidence for any of your 'positions.' If you have studied, show what you have studied. If you have some expertise, show it. Until such time as you can prove that you know what you're talking about, your comments here are of neither substance nor interest. Of opinions, we have plenty. Of noise, there is no shortage. -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:41 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
elsa wrote: "I think the more normal confidence limit is 95% which I guess the warmist view has been unable to meet." The comment to which you were referring described a likelihood, not a hypothesis test, they are not the same thing. The initial comment was analogeous to the statement "it is highly likely that if I roll a ten sided die I will get a score less than two". Obviously there is no hypothesis test implied in that statement either. BTW, the 95% significance level has no statistical basis whatsoever, and is merely a (rather lazy) tradition in the sciences. Fisher, one of the fathers of statistical hypothesis testing said that the significance level should depend on the nature of the problem. BTW2, most people don't understand hypothesis testing anyway, failing to reach the significance level does not mean that the alternative hypothesis is false, it just means that the available evidence does not allow us to rule out the possibility that the null hypothesis is true. The idea that you shouldn't claim a hypothesis is likely to be true unless you are able to reject the null hypothesis is a safety measure to help prevent people overclaiming on their results, but it has no real rational basis. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:40 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
elsa,There is no equation linking CO2 and temperature given to us from physics that we can test. That is why we have to do it the other way round. We assume that there is a link (and incidentally I would not question that there is, it's just that we do not know what it is; there is no "hard physics" contrary to what someone put to me earlier) and then build models that fit the data to the theory.
Please listen carefully. The above statement of yours is 100% wrong. It is full of false statements. You need to study and learn that your entire position is founded upon a lie. Since you clearly haven't studied the actual science I can only assume that you "learned" this tripe from disinformation sites like appinsys, WUWT and other places. Whatever the source, your information is wrong. You have an abysmal understanding of the science. Physics predicts that CO2 will cause temperatures to rise. This was established more than 100 years ago. That temperatures really are rising is not a mere coincidence. Models do not fit the data to the theory. They emulate the physics, and the end result is a system that looks and acts just like the earth's climate, and who's results parallel what we observe in real life. Stop spreading falsehoods. And stop believing them yourself. The topic of this post is understanding climate denial. Have you read it? Do you read anything? You need to stop ranting, open your eyes and learn... not from disinformation sites that tell you what you want to hear, but rather from actual scientific sites where you learn actual science. Everything you think you know is wrong. You need to stop ranting and lecturing and start learning. -
JMurphy at 23:24 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
elsa wrote : "JMurphy I guess we can take it that you accept the 95% has not been met so a lower standard needed to be adopted; I will leave it to you to determine the definition of warmist, a term which is at least more attractive than "denier" even if it is one that you dislike or cannot understand." I don't know what more anyone can do to show you where you are going wrong with the first part of your statement, so I will just refer you back to my original response to you, where anyone who is actually interested can see the difference between the use of 'very likely' and 'statistically significant', and when such terms can be used. You also don't seem to realise that not using the 95% confidence level doesn't mean that it could be used. Please look at the links I provided, to find out more. As for the definition of "warmist" - you are the one using it, so I presumed that you would have some idea as to what it means : at least to you. If you don't, fair enough : at least I know. And how can I dislike it if I don't know what it means ?! -
Lloyd Flack at 23:19 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
Elsa, There has been an increase in Greenhouse gases which is quit capable of explaining the warming over the past fifty years. There has not been the sort of solar variation or change in volcanism or orbital and rotational parameters that could give rise to that variation in that time. Greenhouse gases are the only thing known to have changed in a way that could have caused the observed effects. Further the pattern in space and time of temperature changes it that expected from greenhouse gas increases not that from solar variation. These are the reasons why we know it was us. If you claim it was not then you have to come up with an alternative explanation and explain why it is mimicking the behaviour of a greenhouse gas increase. -
mspelto at 23:12 PM on 12 October 2011Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
Tom Curtis: Have you seen this new exposed land, it is not arable and will not be for centuries. #28 Good questions and I only have to time to briefly address #3. The key glaciers with large floating tongues, not really considered ice shelves, are Petermann, Zacharaiae and Nioghalvfjerdsbræ (79) and Storstrommen. As Petermann the thinnest has shown these large floating sections are not that stable. All of these are still outlet glaciers feeding into a fjord and the loss of the floating ice results from thinning and will in turn lead to some acceleration. Ryder Glacier is another example but this glacier is small with respect to the others. Zacharaieis the most important because it taps into the heart of the ice sheet. Note figure 7 in that link. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 22:56 PM on 12 October 2011Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
I have few questions: 1) What is the error associated with the GRACE measurements of Greenland? 2) How much will the central region of the ice cap be affected by accelerating glaciers around the fringes of Greenland? 3) How stable are the ice shelves in northern and eastern Greenland and how soon can we expect to see acceleration of glaciers in these regions? 4) What will happen once the glaciers retreat from the coast and the process of ocean carving ceases? Apologies for all the questions. -
elsa at 22:45 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
DB] "It's just that their proposition is untestable and their claims are in some cases outrageous and not backed by anything much at all." If you have an actual example to cite, please do so. In the absence of concrete examples, please refrain from such blandishments. "But I prefer a modest acceptance of our lack of knowledge to a pretence to extensive knowledge that we cannot possibly have." The modest acknowledgement of a lack of understanding on your part does not preclude the existence of greater knowledge on the part of science. I recommend studying more and commenting less. I think I have studied this subject in some detail and I note that you have not commented on my, admittedly short, critique of models as a "proof" of your own particular point of view and the lack of science in it. Nor do you seek to refute my comment on the lack of data sharing by some of the warmist community, which is the only method by which their views could be properly peer reviewed and a real consensus arrived at. JMurphy I guess we can take it that you accept the 95% has not been met so a lower standard needed to be adopted; I will leave it to you to determine the definition of warmist, a term which is at least more attractive than "denier" even if it is one that you dislike or cannot understand.Response:[DB] "I note that you have not commented on my, admittedly short, critique of models as a "proof" of your own particular point of view and the lack of science in it."
That would be because models have far more appropriate threads than this one, so are OT here. And your "critique" lacks bones as well as meat. If you wish to focus on models, take that portion of your commentary to one of those threads (Search function).
"Nor do you seek to refute my comment on the lack of data sharing by some of the warmist community, which is the only method by which their views could be properly peer reviewed and a real consensus arrived at."
Again, OT here because there are many threads dealing with this, old, issue. Again, take it there.
And please note that block quoting, which you do, is considered poor form. Reserve quoting for a point-by-point dealing with things; otherwise, just referring to the particular comment with a link will do.
-
pdt at 22:37 PM on 12 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
Perhaps this came up before, but I think something useful for this type of analysis would be to estimate uncertainties in each term. Also, more useful from a policy perspective would be to estimate forcing from categories of human activity, such as fossil fuel production/use, forest clearing, etc. -
muoncounter at 22:32 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
elsa#234: "My position is that we do not really know whether or not CO2/humanity is responsible for such warming as has taken place." Perhaps it is time you substantiated your position, for such is the expected behavior at SkS. Rather than declare, support. On what evidence have you formed these positions? References to literature? Peer-reviewed research? Analytic work? Because the critical question really is not over your opinion, but over what facts you have chosen to form your opinion. -
Jonathon at 22:26 PM on 12 October 2011Sea level fell in 2010
This also comes from the same source. Putting the recent drop in the longer term context makes the "pothole" look relatively smaller, and well within the longer trend. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/revisiting-earths-sea-level-and-energy-budgets-1961-2008 -
CBDunkerson at 22:25 PM on 12 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
Jonathon: "What I found surprising was the exclusion of albedo and aerosol contributions." I think you may have misunderstood the discussion. Aerosols (e.g. black carbon) are included. What is in dispute are additional 'knock on' "indirect" and "semi-direct" effects (basically hypotheses that aerosols impact clouds and precipitation) from aerosols. Dr. Pielke apparently believes these are significant while other research suggests they are negligible. Similarly for albedo. No one has suggested that it isn't a significant factor. Only that albedo changes due to ice loss are a feedback and thus not relevant to this discussion of human forcing effects. I believe Dr. Pielke's position is that human land use changes have resulted in a significant albedo shift, but again that is a dispute over a particular subset rather than the entire topic of 'albedo'. -
Jonathon at 22:12 PM on 12 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
It appears that too many people are getting hung up on the exact figure that CO2 is contributing to the warming. Whether CO2 has contributed 30% or 50% to the observed warming is helpful in making future projections, but is not critical. Considering the uncertainties involved in all the measurements, determining the contribution to within 20% would be amazing. What I found surprising was the exclusion of albedo and aerosol contributions. Do people here really believe that they are irrelevant? -
MA Rodger at 22:12 PM on 12 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
I have read the 2009 EOS article. Given what it contains, the question which should be asked of Pielke Sr's is not what % of human-caused forcing from CO2 but what % of human-caused forcing from all greenhouse gases. EOS 2009 presents three “mutually exclusive” hypotheses (1) Human influence on climate is minimal, (2a) Alongside important natural variation, human influence on climate is significant due to a diverse range of first order climate forcings which includes CO2, (2b) Alongside important natural variation, human influence on climate is significant dominantly due to GHGs, the most important being CO2. Two of these hypotheses are then dismissed. “We suggest that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature (e.g., as summarised by National Research Council (NRC) [2005]) is predominantly in support of hypothesis 2a, in that a diverse range of first-order human climate forcings have been identified.” These non-GHG forcings are “...spacially hetrogeneous and include...” aerosols on clouds, aerosol deposition, reactive nitrogen & changing land use. Their effects are estimated to be multi-decadal and longer. If this diverse range of non-GHG forcings are a significant influence on climate, how big is that significance in comparison with human GHG forcing? Pielke Sr appears to be presenting mankind with an additional crisis caused by non-GHG forcings on top of that caused predominantly by GHG emissions stating “global climate models do not accurately simulate (or even include) several of these first-order human climate forcings.” If EOS 2009 is to be taken seriously, the first step must be to quantify the “significance” of these non-GHG forcings. -
JMurphy at 22:07 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
elsa, it is unfortunately obvious (but, perhaps, not to you yourself) that you are posting about things about which you appear to have very little detailed knowledge. A previous response of yours (I think the more normal confidence limit is 95% which I guess the warmist view has been unable to meet) highlights that very well, and shows that you need to read more on this site : "Very Likely" - See Box TS1 in the last IPCC Report - "> 90% probability" (Working Group 1 of which you would be well-advised to actually read). Confidence Intervals - In common usage, a claim to 95% confidence in something is normally taken as indicating virtual certainty. You are not doing yourself any favours by constantly misrepresenting/misusing scientific terms or ideas, and I would still advise you to also read Spencer Weart's History of Global Warming, as has been suggested to you many times already. Is there any reason why you are ignoring what others are suggesting you look at ? And do you have a definition for "warmist" (even if it's just one you have made up for your own benefit), so we can see who or what it is you are actually arguing against. -
Jonathon at 21:55 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
Skywatcher, Diversion, a great tactic. Especially when you attempt to transpose onto someone else what you in fact are doing yourself. Focusing on something new to avoid the original discussion, then claim that it was your opponent, not you, who changed the subject. Very nice, but flawed. I guess we will just have to disagree on the definition of consensus. If you think that consensus applies to a wide range, so be it. I prefer to think of consensus as being a general belief in a narrow outcome. Who is the one actually playing word games with Webster here? Your attention to catastrophic is, in your own words, a strawman. -
elsa at 21:51 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
While that may be true in many cases it is clearly not the situation in all cases and it is really a very arrogant position to take." For someone so unacquainted with the field, you continually make similar statements. I don't think I have ever pronounced as to why warmists hold the views that they do. If I were to hazard some guesses I would say (1) that people can get carried away with maths. As Lovelock has put it "We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models. They're based more or less entirely on geophysics. They don't take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. So I don't see how they can accurately predict the climate." and (2) that humans seems to have a tendency to prefer an invalid or untestable explanation to no explanation at all (think of the 14th century doctors). However I would also say that for the most part they are concerned people of good intent and actually I can see that there could well be truth in what they say. It's just that their proposition is untestable and their claims are in some cases outrageous and not backed by anything much at all. My position is that we do not really know whether or not CO2/humanity is responsible for such warming as has taken place. I fully admit that I do not have a better explanation and I am prepared to face the fact that mankind does not have a detailed knowledge of what drives the climate. But I prefer a modest acceptance of our lack of knowledge to a pretence to extensive knowledge that we cannot possibly have.Response:[DB] "It's just that their proposition is untestable and their claims are in some cases outrageous and not backed by anything much at all."
If you have an actual example to cite, please do so. In the absence of concrete examples, please refrain from such blandishments.
"But I prefer a modest acceptance of our lack of knowledge to a pretence to extensive knowledge that we cannot possibly have."
The modest acknowledgement of a lack of understanding on your part does not preclude the existence of greater knowledge on the part of science.
I recommend studying more and commenting less.
-
pielkesr at 21:47 PM on 12 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
MMM - Society and the environment are influenced by regional and local issues, including climate. The use of a global average is of much less value to determine risks. In terms of how long each forcing affects these spatial scales land use/land cover change, nitrogen deposition, black carbon deposition, and mineral dust deposition are examples of four other human climate forcings with long residence times in the climate system. -
elsa at 21:37 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
"This is in the scienctific sense. In this case, it means a greater than 90% likelihood." I think the more normal confidence limit is 95% which I guess the warmist view has been unable to meet. -
elsa at 21:35 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
I would like to add a short comment on the subject of consensus and peer review. I think a meaningful consensus can only be arrived at after debate and discussion and peer review, not by those that agree with you but rather those that do not. A review of the reasons for the existence of god by ten thousand clergymen is hardly likely to lead to pick up a fault in the logic. Here there has been a remarkable unwillingness on the part of warmist scientists such as Phil Jones to subject their work to review by anyone who disagrees with them, while those that do agree are shown the numbers. It is outrageous that he only releases data to his opponents when forced to do so by FOI Act requests. This sort of attitude is another reason why denialism will continue for if the warmists are so sure of their position it is impossible to understand their need for secrecy.Response:[DB] "It is outrageous that he only releases data to his opponents when forced to do so by FOI Act requests."
Perhaps you are unaware that all of the data is available for download.
Given that the data is freely available, perhaps you'll then consider it outrageous that those proclaiming to be skeptics have done little with it other than to confirm the "hockey stick" is replicable using as little as 10% of the data because that is what the data show: a hockey-stick-like rise in global temps. Yet the anti-science drum beat continues.
-
elsa at 21:12 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities." This is a quite carefully worded statement. I don't think I have questioned that the world is a bit warmer today than say 100 years ago. That is a measurable proposition and while I have seen questioning of the extent of the warming I don't really think anyone denies it. What is interesting is the second part because the certainty is removed from it; it says only that the warming is likely due to human activities. That is rather in contrast to this article and much of the thrust of those who have disagreed with me here. Both seem to take it as proven that human activity has brought about the warming and that anyone who disagrees is either ill informed, stupid or deluded. While that may be true in many cases it is clearly not the situation in all cases and it is really a very arrogant position to take.Response:[DB] "What is interesting is the second part because the certainty is removed from it; it says only that the warming is likely due to human activities."
This is in the scienctific sense. In this case, it means a greater than 90% likelihood.
"While that may be true in many cases it is clearly not the situation in all cases and it is really a very arrogant position to take."
For someone so unacquainted with the field, you continually make similar statements.
-
elsa at 20:59 PM on 12 October 2011Understanding climate denial
Sphaerica You say I am wrong so tell us what the information is that we have been given by physics. We have no starting point. There is no equation linking CO2 and temperature given to us from physics that we can test. That is why we have to do it the other way round. We assume that there is a link (and incidentally I would not question that there is, it's just that we do not know what it is; there is no "hard physics" contrary to what someone put to me earlier) and then build models that fit the data to the theory. But this is just a circular argument. Of course the data will fit because we made it do so, it does not test the theory at all. Then we come across awkward patches of time when the temperature falls in the face of rising CO2 concentrations. The models get round this by adding in other variables. But in doing this the models are not testing the CO2 theory they are assuming it is correct and giving it a let out. Here any pretence to science really disappears. If we have a theory that fits the facts whatever happens (if temperature goes down it is true just as it must be when the temperature goes up) then we have a theory that is completely beyond testing. That is one of the reasons why denialism will continue and be able to fight back. -
Dikran Marsupial at 18:01 PM on 12 October 2011It's cooling
NETDR writes: "I contend that we are at the start of a 20 to 30 year cooling cycle" I very much hope you are right; sadly your reasoning is very shaky. Looking at time series data and detecting a pattern does not mean that the pattern inquestion has any physical basis, but without a physical basis there is no good reason to think that the pattern will continue intop the future. In the case of the cycles linked to PDO, the problem is that there have been changes in other forcings, so how can you tell that the cycle is real rather than being the result of changes in other forcings that have coincided to form what appears to be a cycle and a bit of an oscillation? You can't tell by statistical means which is which (as correllation does not imply cuasation), you can only tell the difference via physics. So, has anyone produced a physical model that reproduces the observed cycle as a result of PDO, rather than as a result of known changes in the other forcings, such as solr forcing? I think you will find the answer to that question is "no", simply becuase once you include physics into the argument it quickly becomes apparent that PDO can have caused little of the observed variation.
Prev 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 Next
