Recent Comments

Prev  1451  1452  1453  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  Next

Comments 72901 to 72950:

72901. Stevo at 14:59 PM on 10 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Dave123 @36 Your first paragraph could apply just as accurately to Australia. The difference is in the second and third paragraphs. A British colony populated by british convicts (including many Irish catholics)and non-british (initially mainly German) settlers didn't end up showing a lot of respect of deference to political authority (or religious authority for that matter). Thus, a similar culture of self reliance to the USA but with a different origin. Add the political import of ideology, especially on the right, from the USA and you end up with considerable similarlties with regard to resistance to science.
72902. skywatcher at 14:30 PM on 10 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       And Guirguis et al 2011 [h/t Rob P] takes a Northern Hemisphere view to put the last few winters into context, using NCEP data, finding that the warm extremes of the last few winters were more extreme and of a longer duration than the much-pulicised cold extremes, and that this is part of a multi-decadal trend. Severe Heat Indexes are generally rising, while Severe Cold Indexes are generally falling.
72903. skywatcher at 14:10 PM on 10 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       And another paper on quantifying North American extremes - Peterson et al (2008). Norman, I think you'll find quite a lot of quantification of changes in North American extremes in there, and the relevant trends. Their well-supported conclusion:

       "Detailed homogeneity assessments of daily maximum and minimum weather observing station data from Canada, the United States and Mexico enabled analysis changes in North American extremes starting in 1950. The measures of extremes assessed were primarily indices developed by the joint CCl/CLIVAR/JCOMM Expert Team on Climate Change Detection and Indices. Similar decreases in cold extremes and increases in warm extremes were found when examining the 10th, 5th and 2.5th percentiles. Annual extreme cold temperatures are warming faster than annual extreme warm temperatures when the parameter measured is the actual temperature but cold and warm extremes are changing about the same when examined on a percentile or normalized basis. By any of several measures, heavy precipitation has been increasing in recent decades and the average amount of precipitation falling on days with precipitation has also been increasing. These changes in extremes are likely to impact natural ecosystems as well as agricultural and societal infrastructure."

       There you go, Norman, the task of compiling the North American data has been done for North America (including Canada and Mexico). Or is this not quantitative enough?
72904. DSL at 14:07 PM on 10 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Dhogaza, unionism is itself a complex historical development. But unions had their teeth pulled when globalization started in earnest. Manufacturing jobs in the US have dropped to around 12% of all jobs. Service, sales, and the middle class (managerial class) make up a large majority (65-70% as I recall) of jobs in the US. Productive labor has been moved overseas or replaced with machines. There has been a recent service union movement (SEIU), and the leftovers of the big unions of the past have been increasingly returning to their radical roots. Yet these unions no longer represent a major segment of the labor market, and they no longer carry the cultural power they did in their dying days of the 1970s. The OWS movement is less indicative of a return to strong unionism and a popular front than the audible gasp of a middle class that sees the writing on the Wall. I agree with Dave123 about Protestantism being one of the historical conditions that developed the current culture. Capitalism is another, because it atomizes society, encouraging competition between individuals for basic goods and services. Capitalism also encourages commodity relations, where things in the world are thought of more in terms of their exchange value than their use value. Under such a condition, the history of objects disappears. The narratives that tie us together under a common set of values are broken apart and re-presented to us as a series of products. Capital also isolates the culturally powerful minority that is the middle class from the ultimate origin of its power in the working classes. When the middle class represents the working class in novels, TV shows, movies, news programs, and other narratives, it must do so according to the central contradiction of its class (the middle class is privileged by property owners in exchange for maintaining the conditions that reproduce the existing structure of economic power). The cultural representation of the working class, then, inevitably sympathizes with workers but refuses to empower them. When the middle class became dominant in terms of cultural representation (perhaps the late 1930s but certainly by the 1950s and the young adulthood of mass media power), the working class in the US was set for the fall. Finally, the roots of US individualism shouldn't be considered without looking deep. The US pedigree, before the massive migrations of the late 19th century, can be traced back through some of the most aggressive, on the move, shoot first cultures of the last 2000 years. American exceptionalism is the result of dozens of generations of people fighting to create conditions that would render them exceptional or at the very least completely independent/self-reliant/kings of their domains. All of this is shorthand, though. History is far more overwhelming than science. One more note on athletics. Athletic power is largely apolitical (except in the way it is produced) and simple to understand. It also fits well with the Protestant work ethic and the needs of the current economic mode. Scientific power is altogether different. Every move of science re-shapes what we know, and knowing things forces the development of responsibility. Science places a heavy burden on the traditional narratives of the world, and the burden grows rapidly. Science is not simply threatening in the way it forces metaphysical change; it's threatening in the overwhelming rapidity of the change. No wonder people cheer simple games of violence and then go physically and mentally abuse critical thinkers. That was me, too, dhogaza. I dropped out of high school to avoid it. If it weren't for Biology Honors, I suspect high school would have been a total loss.
72905. Albatross at 13:52 PM on 10 October 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest #19
       Nice toon John. Thanks for this-- nice to have everything pulled together once a week.
72906. skywatcher at 13:32 PM on 10 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       A more general point to consider is that there are open question in relation to the science of climate change. This is one of them. Some have gone for one mechanism, others for an alternative mechanism. Either may be entirely right or wrong, perhaps more plausible in this case is that both mechanisms are operating, but we shall see. Some climate skeptics like to think that climate scientists consider the science a closed shop where there is but one single view and no discussion allowed. That leads to some of the more egregious accusations levelled. Of course this is not the case, and here we have a prime example of active disagreement on part of the science. It does not, of course, change the need for action, as whichever hypothesis is right has bad news following right along behind it. That Trenberth and Hansen have different views on one aspect of all this does not cause any significant issues, and is quite natural in science.
72907. skywatcher at 13:20 PM on 10 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       tblakeslee, to add to the collection of mistakes, perhaps you'd like to note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988. Perhaps you could tell us all why that highlights one particular fallacious claim of yours?
72908. snapple at 11:40 AM on 10 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Galileo's opponents included astronomers, too. His Dialogue on the Two World Systems included a character named Simplico who was a composite of two of his detractors. Some people told the Pope that he was the target of Galileo's ridicule. In those days, Galileo's theory was difficult to prove. He famously said: The Bible teaches man how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go. I think what happened to Galileo was very sad but also very complicated. Recently the Pope had a two-way dialogue with the astronauts. The whole idea of the need for dialogue with scientists was stressed. If you know the Vatican, they were alluding to Galileo's dialogue. The Jesuit who runs the Vatican's observatory is a very interesting guy. On May 14, 2008, Jesuit Father Jose Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory and a member of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences gave a really remarkable interview to the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano (LOR). You might want to translate it with Google. Funes said: “I believe that the [Vatican] Observatory has this mission: to be on the frontier between the world of science and the world of faith, to give testimony that it is possible to believe in God and be good scientists.” “[I]t is necessary [for the Church to dialogue with men of science.] Faith and science are not irreconcilable…Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI [have said]: faith and reason are the two wings which elevate the human spirit. There is no contradiction between what we know through faith and what we learn through science. There may be tensions or conflicts, but we should not be afraid. The Church must not fear science and its discoveries. As was the case with Galileo.” http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/interviste/2008/112q08a1.html The Church is telling people to listen to the scientists. That's the point of the conversation with the astronauts.
72909. dhogaza at 10:13 AM on 10 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Dave123 makes some excellent comments, Riccardo. "Smart kids are teased and bullied in schools while athletes are admired." Bullied endlessly, that was me. It's a good thing my family didn't own guns and that I largely bought into pacifism early in life. Dave123, good stuff regarding the influence of protestantism, and the rest. I'd add that the US has historically been anti-elitist ... the rise of the common man, the American Dream, etc. What's weird to me is the willingness of the working class in this country to cede wealth to the wealthy, in essence giving up much of what was won in the 1920s, 1930s, through world war II by the union movement.
72910. dhogaza at 10:07 AM on 10 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Riccardo: "I may easily accept that my superficial thoughts are wrong. It's a complex sociological issue that I do not easily grasp and I thank you for sharing your thoughts. I'll sure think more about it." It's complex, that's for sure. Have you heard of "American Exceptionalism"? This notion, particularly strong among US conservatives but really a part of the culture we grow up in, is another part of the puzzle (wikipedia has a piece on it). Again, people in my social circle, who have for the most part traveled extensively and in many cases have worked in countries other than the US, tend not to buy it. But it's a kind of default belief a great many Americans are raised with (hey, if we're not exceptional, then we can't be the world's policeman, eh? :) ) and carry to the grave.
72911. Dave123 at 08:33 AM on 10 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Because in the US we believe deeply that one person's opinion is as good as another's. And it's all opinion you know. The resentment of there being people who actually know more or are smarter runs deep and kicks up a contrarian stubborness. Smart kids are teased and bullied in schools while athletes are admired. It makes a great racket...if you can hide your smarts under a folksy "great guy to drink beer with" attitude, you can swindle people out of their skins. We have a cultural blindspot about interdepence and celebrate the illusion of the lone pioneer, the nuclear family. I think a lot of it goes back to the Protestant notion of everyone being able to read the Bible for themselves...which turned into "you can read each verse for it's own message without reference to the rest of the chapter, historical context", which is the antithesis of scholarship. These were not the views of the founding fathers, but rather the self-justifications of the South that lost the Civil War, and has been fighting back with this kind of ideology ever since. that's my rough edged take on it
72912. Glenn Tamblyn at 08:31 AM on 10 October 2011
       Changes in Arctic Sea Ice: Young and thin instead of old and bulky
       The comments about light penetration through the ice is an interesting extra 'wrinkle' in the Arctic story. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that it is about air temp's, or sea water temps. But this is an interesting synergy type interaction. And the extent of lots of thin ice isn't good. Melting shrinks it each year then it recovers in winter. But the more thin ice you have, the more of the ice is structurally weak - vulnerable to wind, waves, currents etc. Ice doesn't just 'melt' - that is only part of the story. Structural weakness leads to more open water, more ice able to move to lower latitudes etc. Using Ice Extent seriously underestimates the pressures on the ice. Ice Mass & Thickness is a far more important metric. The Arctic Ocean is in a Death Spiral. Personal estimate! Effectively Ice free in Summer by 2016
72913. Philippe Chantreau at 08:09 AM on 10 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       Tblakeslee, please provide clear concrete examples of real ad hominem arguments. If you can't, you should withdraw that accusation. R Pielke Sr. recently proved to be incapable of supporting the same argument and resorted to talking about other things. Not that talking about other things was a bad idea, but then he shouldn't have launched the accusation in the first place. Not to be off topic [DB] but Tblakeslee brought up contrails as an element that, as suggestedt, was related to GCRs. No substantiation. Is there any scientific information that would establish such a link? You provided a page talking about soot. The relatively abundant soot in aircraft exhaust makes any possible influence of GCRs deeply irrelevant. However, I stand by my assertion that the increased water vapor pressure is the most important factor in their formation. Proof of that is that they quickly dissipate or fail to form in dry air, despite the same concentration of soot particles. I am yet to see any study even atempting to link contrails and GCRs. Do you know of any? http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/cldtyp/oth/cntrl.rxml I note that you did a very selective quoting of the AGU abstract, here is more: Soot controls ice formation in contrails for high number emission indices including the range of current global fleet values. A fivefold reduction of soot emissions from average levels of 5 × 1014 − 1015 (kg-fuel)−1 approximately halves the initial contrail visible optical depth. Further soot reduction reverses this trend at temperatures well below the formation threshold temperature unless emissions of sulfur and organics are cut substantially. " Also, I noted that you said that Global Warming was Arctic warming, yet in your map in post 134, the entire globe is showing positive anomalies, except for a few patches in the Southern hemisphere. I don't see that as being limited to the Arctic, even if the Arctic is seeing more warming.
72914. Rob Painting at 07:54 AM on 10 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       David Lewis - I'm another SkS author who has the utmost respect for Dr Hansen and the work he has done to further scientific and public understanding of the climate, but that doesn't make him automatically right about all things climate. And just for your info, both Trenberth and Fasullo are co-authors of Meehl (2011) - hence the similarity. Who's right? Well, we'll have to wait and see, but there are a number of papers awaiting publication that look at this issue.
72915. Riccardo at 07:24 AM on 10 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       dhogaza I may easily accept that my superficial thoughts are wrong. It's a complex sociological issue that I do not easily grasp and I thank you for sharing your thoughts. I'll sure think more about it. Assuming you're right, we're left with nothing in our hands. If it's true that denialism grows thanks to the contrast between values and reality, we still have to find which values are at stake. The succesfull anti-science campaigns in the US must have touched a nerve of the americans. Similar campaigns in Europe are unthinkable, they would be laughable. Here you more likely see greenwashing campaign to fool consumers, steer politics to more profitable "green" or "health" choices, etc., because no one would accept that, say, CO2 or some other pollutant or tobacco smoke is not an issue. In a few words, if anti-science PR campaigns are successful in USA but not in Europe it's because (significant part of) the public is ready to accept them. Where's the difference between us? What different values brought us so far apart?
72916. pielkesr at 07:14 AM on 10 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
       dana1981- In response to #38, the geography at the time, due to vast areas of continental glaciation with substantial altitude, and of larger areas of sea ice, resulted in the polar jet (apparently) being depressed equatorward. This would make for a quite different climate regime that we currently have. I also question that robustness of calculating the land part of a global average surface temperature anomaly when the elevations in these large continental ice sheet regions was so different than today.
72917. scaddenp at 06:51 AM on 10 October 2011
       It's methane
       1/ I have heard this too. Kangaroos (and rabbits) are not ruminants so methane/kg-human-product is less than sheep/cattle. Kangaroos requires less processing than rabbit but are challenging to farm to say the least.
72918. David Lewis at 06:19 AM on 10 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Maybe after a while people might understand if I ask a question I'm not playing some game. I have been involved in debate as a climate activist and would be politician since 1988. I staked the success of my political career on whether voters would vote for stabilizing the composition of the atmosphere, starting in 1988 in Canada. Obviously, I was unsuccessful. I thought everyone in this civilization should be alarmed at what climate scientists were discovering, as of back then. I posted my question about whether Schmidt thinks Hansen is contradicting NCAR to Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate. I was unable to understand his brief response to a question I thought was similar to one I might ask. I don't understand the difference between Meehl and Trenberth - the Meehl paper abstract indicates they think the Earth's energy imbalance is around 1 W/m2 and they are looking for ways to explain why what they call the "observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series", "shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend". This appears identical to Trenberth's thought, i.e. where is the missing energy. So when Hansen says he thinks the Earth's energy imbalance if the solar cycle is removed is 0.75 W/m2, and he puts a paragraph into his paper saying "there is no missing energy", it seems to me he's staking out a somewhat contradictory position to Meehl. The NCAR group is looking for ways to explain where all this 1 W/m2 is and they are using models to do it. Hansen is saying there is only 0.75 W/m2 to explain, and models aren't going to be able to explain where even 0.75 W/m2 is as all current models happen to assume things that are incorrect about ocean heat storage and aerosols. I don't say Hansen is right. I happen to be studying his ideas right now and wondered why in a discussion of the NCAR work Hansen's name didn't come up. So I brought it up. I tend to think we're all just on the bridge of the Titanic after it has hit the iceberg exchanging views, although I believe there is a lot that could be done if civilization woke up to the situation. I study current climate science with a view to increasing my understanding so that as I discuss the topic anywhere I can be more clear. I'm sorry if I antagonize people with my questions.
       Response:

       [DB] "I don't understand the difference between Meehl and Trenberth"

       Remember, Trenberth is also an author of Meehl (2011).  Trenberth's famous "missing energy" statement is worded as follows:

       "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

       In regards to this statement, Dr. Trenberth is on record asstating:

       "It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability."

       Thus Dr. Trenberth laments the lack of measurement tools to close the accounting gap - nothing more.  How do I know this?  From the link...and he told me as such (personal correspondence).

       My takeaway from Meehl (2011) is that the team that Dr. Trenberth was a part of has identified a mechanism through which deep ocean energy sequestration occurs on decadal timescales.  And by adding that into the accounting mix we can better close the budgetary gap in the planetary energy flows (as measured and modeled).

       That being said, the new mechanisms identified by Meehl (2011) do not preclude Dr. Hansen's new aerosol forcings from also playing a significant role in also closing the planetary energy budget.  Time will tell as to how big a player each is in this drama unfolding as we watch.

       This is how science works.  The difference is that formerly this all happened in meeting rooms and was hashed out over months and years of research, but now (in the information age) we see this played out in real-time.

       Have patience.

72919. Eric (skeptic) at 05:17 AM on 10 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       Thomas R Blakeslee, I looked through your website (link above) and saw that you are very talented and successful. Despite your proven track record in many areas, it is quite possible (and seems likely) that you have made some mistakes or received incorrect information regarding the effect of solar magnetic modulation of cosmic rays and thus clouds. Like other solar effects on weather, the cloud modulation is complex and multifaceted causing both cooling and warming depending on factors like cloud altitude, diurnal cycle, latitude, etc. It seems to me (and hopefully to the rest of the SkS regulars) that the ideas of the Clearlight foundation (linked above) are very useful to the cause of fossil energy mitigation. It would be a shame to lose that focus in arguments over various details of the cosmic ray effects.
72920. dana1981 at 05:00 AM on 10 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
       Dr. Pielke - thank you for answering our questions. Our responses follow, here is the first point: 1) We will have to disagree on this subject. Dr. Hansen has looked at the most recent glacial cycles when the land configuration and oceans currents were very similar to those of today, and was able to estimate an equilibrium climate sensitivity of approximately 3°C for doubled CO2. We have yet to see an explanation for the large discrepancy from those arguing for low climate sensitivity (primarily Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen), and believe it represents a glaring flaw in their hypotheses. Ironically, while Christy and Lindzen have touted their low climate sensitivity estimates as being data- rather than model-based, they are ignoring the paleoclimate data which contradicts their conclusions, and dismissing a whole scientific discipline and volume of data that has been essential in understanding our climate system.
72921. Tom Curtis at 04:59 AM on 10 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       David Lewis @46: 1) Gavin Schmidt claimed that there was no contradiction between Meehl et al, 2011 and Hansen. He did not claim that there was no contradiction between Hansen and Trenberth. Essentially the difference is this: Meehl et al find a mechanism that can result in more rapid removal of heat to the deep ocean under some circumstances. Nothing Hansen says implies that such a mechanism cannot exist. However, Hansen does claim that even should such a mechanism exist, it is not responsible for the reduced growth of upper level OHC over the last few years. Trenberth, on the other hand, is committed to such a mechanism being responsible for that hiatus. 2) I suspect that most members of the skeptical science team, like myself, do not consider Hansen a guru whose every pronouncement must be believed. He, like Trenberth, is a working scientist of considerable accomplishment. Therefore, when he makes a scientific argument, it pays to listen. But he, like any other scientist, can be wrong and it is the evidence that decides whether he is or not. Consequently when, as in this case, he and Trenberth disagree we pay attention to both positions and the evidence in the expectation that that evidence will soon sort out who is wrong and who is right. As it happens I tend to think Trenberth is more likely to be right than Hansen on this issue. I think this primarily because models tend to over estimate the temperature effect of volcanoes, whereas if they had been overestimating heat transfer to the ocean (and hence thermal lag), they would be more likely to underestimate it. However, that is only a small piece of evidence in a complicated issue, so like everybody else, I'm going to have to wait and see. What I am not going to do is assume that, if Hansen is wrong, that makes all his other opinions wrong as well. Those other opinions where accepted based on evidence, and it is that evidence which supports them, not some false supposition of infallibility.
72922. Albatross at 04:54 AM on 10 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       David @46, "Or, is Gavin Schmidt correct that Hansen is not contradicting NCAR? Or, is it the case that Hansen is losing scientific credibility in the minds of the writers here at Skeptical Science?" Please, enough with the "gotchas" and strawmen and "wedge" politics already. Hansen is not losing scientific credibility here at SkS or anywhere else just because he has a different hypothesis than does Trenberth. The slowdown between 2003 and 2010 depends on the depth used in the OHC data and which data analysis one uses-- for example, the Palmer et al. analysis shows an accumulation of heat consistent with the trend for 1993-2008. But that rate is not supported by the isostatic contribution to sea level, so it appears that there has been a temporary slowdown. Hansen et al. (2011) find an energy imbalance of ~0.6 W m-2 for 2005-2010, compared to ~0.8 Wm-2 for 1993-2008. Regardless, the slowdown in the accumulation of heat in the 0-700 m layer is in all likelihood a combination of three factors: 1) Interdecadal variability in ocean heat content, 2) Increased aerosol loading, and 3) Prolonged solar minimum. I would not be optimistic as to what changes in such a short time window mean in terms of climate sensitivity or model skill if I were you.
72923. dhogaza at 04:48 AM on 10 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Riccardo: "There's one thing i don't understand. The direction the world is taking is pretty clear today and your best interest should be to get involved, help determine the best way to go and lead. But for some reason the door is still closed." I think our physical isolation from asia and europe plays a large role. We have an emerging economy to the south, and an english speaking nation to the north that's not nearly as different from the US as they'd like to believe. Where I live, in Portland Oregon, most of the people I know have traveled quite extensively (as have I) and have a much more global outlook than the average american. But the vast majority of americans haven't had that experience and tend to be very provincial. Heck, many people from the mid west have never visited the coasts (except perhaps to go to disneyland or yosemite or ...) and vice-versa. Also isolationism has a long history here, in part due to the fact that back in the days when we welcomed immigrants, large numbers of people came here and explicitly turned their backs on Europe (such as my German great grandparents who arrived here in the very late 1800s). Think about it ... our involvement in world affairs has grown through our participation in a couple of world wars, and the resulting notion of being the world's policeman. That's a pretty narrow vision of how to participate in the global community ...
72924. dhogaza at 04:39 AM on 10 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Riccardo ... "you're right but that's one side of the coin, you americans tend to unite and show a very strong will when you feel threatened. Environmental protection fits because it's a kind of threat to your country, not because it's a value by itself..." No, that's not at all true. The Wilderness Act of 1964, for instance, explicitly states that the reason for the existence of the Act is that Wilderness has intrinsic value of its own. The Endangered Species Act was similarly value-based ... the National Forest Management Act expresses similar values in requiring that the range of native species on National Forest lands be preserved despite the fact that it was known at the time that this would prevent the Forest Service from converting all of our national forests into heavily managed tree farms (a stated goal of the service).
72925. Riccardo at 04:17 AM on 10 October 2011
       It's methane
       abhi541 1) i didn't know about kangaroo meat. A quick search led me here. Apparently there's some merit in eating this meat. 2) Methane is some 25 times more potent on a molecule by molecule basis, though the effect, i.e. the forcing, is not proportional to concentration. 3) sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect. In a geo-engeneering framework, you want them in the stratosphere. Sorry for the short and schematic answer. Follow DSLs suggestion, maybe someone else will give you more details, assuming you want more :)
72926. DSL at 03:58 AM on 10 October 2011
       It's methane
       Hi, abhi541. 1. I have no idea, but someone here might. 2. See this thread and the comment stream that follows it. 3. See this thread. Post further questions on the relevant threads.
72927. David Lewis at 03:56 AM on 10 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       I would hope that everyone understands that scientists often find they disagree on how to interpret data and that their disagreements are often resolved over time. I described what I understood of Hansen's ideas in order to ask if it appears to others that Hansen's idea that most models respond to forcing too slowly because they send too much heat into the deep ocean contradicts this NCAR research. Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate (in his reply to comment #3 under his post Global Warming and Ocean Heat Content) appears to have answered a question similar to mine by saying there is no contradiction. Here is the question posed at RealClimate: "[regarding “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications”] In that paper, especially in sections 6 & 7, it appears – to me anyway – that James Hansen and his colleagues have given up on the search for the so-called “missing heat” in the deep ocean and have instead concluded it must have been radiated away as a result of the negative anthropogenic aerosol forcing. I take this as suggesting that Hansen has parted company with Kevin Trenberth and others and has conceded that the IPCC models are flawed – flawed in their “climate response functions”. Do you know if the model used by Meehl suffers the same problem with the “climate response function” that Hansen discusses? Do you have any other comments on the Hansen et al. paper?" [Response by Gavin Schmidt]: I don't see any contradiction. Meehl et al are looking at a generic behaviour which will exist in all models, while Hansen is thinking about the specific forcings and response for the last decade. Different issues. - gavin Yet in Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications Hansen republished Trenberth's "Global Net Energy Budget" diagram from Trenberth's "Perspectives" piece, which was originally published in Science, i.e. this one And Hansen says this about it: "the slowdown of ocean heat uptake, together with satellite radiation budget observations, led to a perception that Earth's energy budget is not closed (Trenberth 2009, Trenberth and Fasullo 2010), as summarized in Fig. 19A. However, our calculated energy imbalance is consistent with observations (Fig 19b), implying there is no missing energy in recent years." Which sounds like he is making sure everyone knows he is contradicting Trenberth and the NCAR research as described in this "The Deep Ocean Warms when Global Surface Temperatures Stall" Skeptical Science post. When describing the NCAR work it seems there must at least be a mention that a scientific group with the stature of Jim Hansen's appears to completely disagree. Or, is Gavin Schmidt correct that Hansen is not contradicting NCAR? Or, is it the case that Hansen is losing scientific credibility in the minds of the writers here at Skeptical Science?
72928. abhi541 at 03:45 AM on 10 October 2011
       It's methane
       1. Authors of super-freakonomics have said that eating kangaroo meat as opposed to a ham-burger is good for climate as methane is a greater threat! Is that scientifically correct? 2. Same book mentions that methane is 25 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gas. If CO2 level is 200 times CH4 how does it contribute 28% warming than CO2? (I am assuming law of proportions to hold. Correct if wrong) 3. Will emitting sulpher in atmosphere help cooling the planet? After what altitude exactly does sulpher cease being trouble (acid rain etc..) Thanks!
72929. John Hartz at 03:32 AM on 10 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       The American public in general, and conservatives in particular, are constantly bombarded by a stream of propaganda about both the validity of the science of climate change and the integrity of climate scientists A case in point is “The phony ‘consensus’ on climate change”, an editorial by the Daily Herald of Utah Valley posted on Oct 9, 2011. This editorial is a veritable Gish Gallop of climate denial memes. Because similar statements have recently been popping up all over the place on conservative media outlets, it is safe to conclude that one of the conservative think tanks generated and distributed a shell statement far and wide. As my fellow SkS author, Neal J King is wont to say, “We’re in a propaganda war!”
72930. Dikran Marsupial at 03:21 AM on 10 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       tblakesee The first post of yours I can find is this one, which shows you arrived here with an "attitude" and were not seeking try out your ideas. That post includes a dig at the IPCC (that they were "betting" on CO2, rather than having arived at ther position by rational science, a dig at the reviewers of Kikrby's paper suggesting that they had forced him to write stuff (unsubstantiated, and that is the reviewers job you know!). It also contains references to theories long debunked (Landscheidt - no statistical validity). I suggest that if you really want to test out some ideas, then you need to change the style of your posts, by (a) having some humility and (b) asking questions rather than making (largely unsupported) statements. I for one am happy to discuss Landscheidt and Svensmarks theories with you, but only as part of a calm rational dialogue. The ball is in your court.
72931. tblakeslee at 02:21 AM on 10 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       After years of writing editorials urging action to stop global warming (www.clrlight.org) I realized that it was possible that the IPCC had made a mistake. Before writing about my realization, I decided to discuss my ideas on this blog to hear the other side of the argument. The responses I received were mostly "straw man" arguments about mistatements of my position and ad homium attacks on my sources. It appears that this blog is not about discussion to discover the truth but rather about promoting a dogma. I was hoping you would change my mind but instead you have shown that this is a religion and you are defending the faith. Very disappointing!
       Response:

       [DB] "I realized that it was possible that the IPCC had made a mistake."

       Certainly "possible", but do not conflate "possible" with "probable".  In a many-thousands-of-pages document, errors can creep in.  Typo's and some minor errata in WG2 and WG3, yes.  But the core of the science of climate change found in WG1 is unchanged and really not scientifically contested.  A long, but good, read.  I recommend it.

       "The responses I received were mostly "straw man" arguments about mistatements of my position and ad homium attacks on my sources."

       Please give examples to them.  Failing that, this is an unsupported and unsubstantiated attack on the other participants here and you will need to withdraw that attack with the requisite words of apology.

       "It appears that this blog is not about discussion to discover the truth but rather about promoting a dogma."

       IBID.

       "I was hoping you would change my mind but instead you have shown that this is a religion and you are defending the faith."

       Since you have no scientific position and basis to rely upon you fall back upon the usual rhetoric of those with a paucity of factual substance for their platform and the prosecution of their agenda.  Very disappointing and unoriginal.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts (yes, you are still off-topic). We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

72932. Jonathon at 00:28 AM on 10 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Michael, Your last statement is obvious. Whether the "missing heat" has been radiated back to space or is being stored in the deep oceans has major implications. In the former, there is no buildup of heat, but in the latter, heat is being stored in the ocean which will eventually migrate to the surface. The difference is huge for future temperature changes. Of course, it could be a combination of the two, or other explanations could play a larger role.
72933. michael sweet at 23:38 PM on 9 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       David, Hansen and Trenberth have different explainations for the source of the "missing heat". Hansen posits that the heat has been reflected into space by aerosols and Trenberth that it is in the deep oceans. They will resolve this issue as scientists do: they are collecting data to see who is right. Several papers have come out supporting each side, so it is too early for the rest of us to tell who will be correct. In the end both may be right for part of the energy. It takes years (or decades) for scientists to collect data like this so do not expect the issue to be resolved tomorrow. Both agree that no matter which explaination is correct it means we need to do more to reduce AGW.
72934. nautilus_mr at 23:18 PM on 9 October 2011
       Clouds Over Peer Review
       Scrap that last -found it. On the site I see that Spencer co-authored this paper at the Cornwall Alliance. A quick skim suggests it is similar to his other offerings.
72935. nautilus_mr at 23:05 PM on 9 October 2011
       Clouds Over Peer Review
       re comment #4, Dave123 Your point about Spencer being a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance declaration is very interesting -and would explain a few things about powerful non-scientific motivations for the way he goes about science. But... I've just had a look at their site and can't find any reference to him. Can you please post how you made the connection between Spencer and the Cornwall Alliance?
72936. Lloyd Flack at 22:28 PM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Glenn Tamblyn, I agree with most of what you say. I would think of some of it in a slightly different way. I think the people who you described as values centered are making the mistake of dealing with the universe the same way that they deal with people. Or perhaps it might be better to say that they want to deal with the universe in a way that allows them them to interact with people in their preferred manner. Dealing with people is a matter of values after all. And it is just as much a mistake to bring the mindset of physics into personal interactions. What you describe as values centered people refuse to see that physics puts constraints on the degree to which thay can act on their values. And some people find the idea of the universe forcing them to only partially act on their values to be horrible. They rebel against the idea that compromise on moral issues is obligatory.
72937. Riccardo at 19:31 PM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       dhogaza you're right but that's one side of the coin, you americans tend to unite and show a very strong will when you feel threatened. Environmental protection fits because it's a kind of threat to your country, not because it's a value by itself, the right thing to do anyway. The New Deal was put in place because you needed to bring the country out of the worst recession ever; health care at the time was economically profitable, again not a value by itself. And that may be ok, that's what made your country great. In contrast, look at what i said in my previous comment about we europeans. While you feel personally involved and committed, we tend to delegate, one thing that greatly limits our actions. But the other side of the coin is that when it comes to global problems, when you have to share the responsibility and the burden of its solution, you seem to loose the directions. You try to find where your interest lies but the problem is so big and complicated that it's not at all easy to spot it. In this situation, instead of being open to the outside world, you close the door. This is your weakness, your Achilles' heel. There's one thing i don't understand. The direction the world is taking is pretty clear today and your best interest should be to get involved, help determine the best way to go and lead. But for some reason the door is still closed. These are my two cents, not the results of an accurate sociological analisys but the impressions of an informed european citizen who happened to live in the US for a short while.
72938. Glenn Tamblyn at 19:01 PM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       RPauli "As I read of anti-science tactics, I can't decide whether our species is mostly stupid or just immoral" My take is that most of it is a sort of 'stupid' rather than immoral. Not in the literal sense of unintelligent, but a multitude of psychological blindnesses. Whether your world-view, your sense of meaning and meaningfullness, your notions of whether cause-and-effect progresses from philosophical and value considerations first or considerations of the physics of the world around you first. Remember George the Younger and Faith Based Realities. To that psychology, the physical world is 'required' to fit into other 'value' based perspectives. In the simplest terms, the world MUST be a place where the physical conforms to my psychological imperatives. It must be because the alternative is psychologically appaling. These aren't immoral people (mostly). My sense of what immorality is requires an awareness of the immoral act/view but a willingness to engage in it anyway. They are our fellow human beings who are bringing a sense of decency and integrity to this question in accord with how their minds work. Its just that their pattern of psychological behaviour is out of synch with the reality of how the physical world works. Someone with this psychology could/would see a disagreement between them and your or my view as a disagreement on values or ideology, rather than a disagreement on physics. Fundamentally this is a psychological make-up that puts value systems ahead of physics. It is profoundly a values driven mode of thought. And with values so overwhelmingly important in their perception of reality, that reality IS values, they struggle to allow physical science type reasoning to have pre-eminence over this. If it was just my mindset vs theirs, it would be a moot point. Each to their own. But there is one person's viewpoint that trumps everyone elses. To anthropomorphise a bit, Mother Natures view over-rules everyone else. You might have a values based psychology. Fine, but if you fail to work within her physics based thinking, then She will do bad shit unto you. But this other psychological makeup doesn't get this, is hostile to that form of thinking because it is deeply antithetical to THEIR mode of perception, and will resist action based on this, right up to the point where Mother Nature kicks them in the 'family jewels' At which point they may not understand why this has happened to them and may even look for scapegoats to explain it. Because the alternative is the need to confront the basic fact that life cannot be judged as a values driven reality but rather a physics driven reality. And this is a profound psychological trauma. Few people can handle this. We who may have a more physics derived identity are the lucky ones. Unless of course those with a values derived identity hold sway, in which case our physics derived identity is deeply challenged. And unfortunately we know that Mother Nature is waiting in the wings to over-rule everyone else. We no the 'Umpire' is on our side. But we also know that if the other psychological mode holds sway, the Umpires Ruling wil hurt all of us. So the key challenge. To get the 'values derived' people to grasp the idea that their perception of the world is disconnected from reality. And we will pay a terrible price because of it. But from their psychological stand-point, abandoning their values based perspective looks like just as profound a price. They see an abandonment of their psychological reference point as a spiritual death. We see a failure to abandon it as a spiritual AND physical death. How to bridge the psychological divide is the key question. Getting both sides to recognise the divide is the key point.
72939. Lloyd Flack at 18:37 PM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       People without intellectual integrity themselves cannot understand intellectual integrity in others. If they let their judgment in a scientific matter be dictated by political or religious prefferences then they believe others must do the same. You see this in the accusations denialists and creationists make against scientists.
72940. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:43 PM on 9 October 2011
       Clouds Over Peer Review
       Lord S @14. Even allowing for the laughable standard of Carters 'paper' - and it really is good for a giggle - surely the economics journal in question would reject it just based on its tone & language!
72941. chriskoz at 14:17 PM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Good review John, and interesting comments from others. When we are talking about parallels to Inquisition vs Galileo, it's worth mentioning that some deniers are trying to portray it backwards, suggesting that "they are like Galileo persecuted by those 97% of consensus". I'm talking about Astralia's Galileo movement. IMO, it's one of the biggest misnomers attempted by deniers to confuse public opinion. It has been rebutted by sks here. Just look at the timeline in the middle of article to find out when the climate scientists started to formulate current consensus about AGW (1860-1960) and when the opposition to climate science started (late 1980s, and so called "Galileo movement" itself in 2000s) to figure out who is the inquisitor in case of climate change debate today. It's woth pointing out this "Galileo" misnomer widely so that public opinion is less confused.
72942. Rob Honeycutt at 13:42 PM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       critical mass @ 8... You know, about a year ago I went through and did a brain numbing search of how many times the words "uncertain," "uncertainty" and "uncertainties" occurred in the IPCC AR4. If memory serves me right it was about 3 times per page of the Working Group 1 report.
       Response:

       [DB] Try here:

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=441#31068

72943. David Lewis at 11:59 AM on 9 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Hansen, in Earth's Energy Imbalance, says he believes the GISS climate model ER, and "most climate models" "mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean". One piece of his evidence is that the GISS model indicates Earth should be out of energy balance right now by about 1 W/m2, whereas the observations of ocean heat content contradict this. Hansen cites Argo data analysed by von Schuckmann that indicates to him that the actual number for Earth's energy imbalance now is about 0.6 W/m2 which he believes will eventually prove to be 0.75 W/m2 if the solar minimum is averaged out. He argues that if he assumes a model that puts less heat into the ocean it will correspond with observed reality expressed in the global average surface temperature chart as well as current models do, if its climate response time is assumed to be quicker which implies that aerosol forcing is actually -1.6 W/m2 or so. He cites personal communication with Romanou and Marshall (paper in progress) who apparently have found that CFC molecules they were tracing did not move into the deep Southern ocean as quickly as models indicate they should. He's working with several other scientists on improving the way the GISS model handles the ocean although he says work along that line has been ongoing for a long time. That increased negative aerosol forcing he says "is inferred" alarms him enough to put "continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable" in his abstract. It means more than half of the power of the GHG in the atmosphere already has been masked by aerosols, a larger figure for the "Faustian bargain" he's been talking about for some time, than he's said he's got solid evidence for before. He points to a decline in total GHG growth rate since the peak rates of the 1980s which is due to the Montreal Protocol limits on CFCs, the solar minimum, and residual effects of Mt Pinatubo as explanations for why the warmest decade wasn't warmer. It appears to me Hansen is contradicting Trenberth et al with this. I.e. Meehl (2011) is a modelling study, whereas Hansen is asserting that taking a model result that says something like Trenberth's missing energy is being sent into the ocean is likely wrong, if he is right that the models send too much heat into the ocean in a systematic error. He says his assumed model that has the quicker climate response gives a calculated energy imbalance in line with observations hence there is likely no missing energy. Do you have any thoughts. I'm poring over Hansen's paper trying to understand what he's saying.
72944. dhogaza at 11:26 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Riccardo: "You americans have a different cultural and political background than us europeans. You tend to be kind of allergic to any Government intervention." Not true when our country's entire history is considered. Back in the 30s, when much of Europe was embracing fascism, the US was largely embracing a kind of socialism from above in the form of FDR's New Deal. Only about 1/3 of the program he and his allies in Congress passed into law survived the day's conservative Supreme Court, but that 1/3 transformed government's role in our society (to the better, IMO). Imagine if the other 2/3 of his program had become law ... the US would've had national health care in the 1930s. The Right has, ever since, been trying to roll back the clock to the days of Hoover, before FDR, and they've succeeded to a large degree. There have been many other instances of government intervention - the US was extremely aggressive 40 years ago in passing clear air and water legislation, an endangered species act, banned DDT, NEPA, the NFMA, and a bunch of other stuff you've never heard of that amounted to a vast intervention on how natural resource extraction is done in this country. Despite all our bitching, our environmental laws have historically bee nmuch stronger here than in most of, if not all of, Europe. The pendulum has swung against us in the national political arena, but poll after poll shows strong support for environmental protection and conservation. Here's a curve ball for you: consider that one of the reasons the disinformation campaign has been so highly funded and orchestrated in the US compared to Europe, with such aggressive efforts to smear and discourage scientists, is because public support for accepting science on environmental and conservation issues has always been quite strong here. And the laws that have been adopted as a result have historically been very strong (check out the Endangered Species Act, passed 40 years ago, which led to virtually the end of the harvesting of old growth forests in Oregon in the 1990s, a result supported by about 70% of oregonians today, up from about 50% during the midst of the legal battle). They've had to undermine the public's confidence in the science in order to get a large proportion of the public to ignore the science and its implications, and therefore provide political cover for the scuttling of any efforts to take action.
72945. DSL at 10:58 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       tblakeslee, who is in power? Clearly, in the U.S., climate scientists (for that matter, scientists in most disciplines) are not in a position of power, where "power" means the ongoing management of action and belief. Wide-reaching mass media entities enjoy relatively massive power. How many people in the world have the time, training, energy, resources, and/or motivation to undertake a robust understanding of climate science? And how many of those who do enjoy those conditions approach the science with an already-formed thesis (based on someone else's rhetoric)? You, tblakeslee, have demonstrated an unwillingness (not total, thank goodness) to tell anyone why you think CO2 is not a major contributor to warming. Why? What was it in the formation of your opinion that put you in the position you're in right now regarding climate science? What led you to reject the dominant theory? It couldn't have been your own analysis of the research, because you could then bring forth well-reasoned and well-supported arguments against the foundational research of the theory of AGW. Some portion of your opinion must have been provided for you. It's nothing to be ashamed of; that's the situation in which 99% of the population finds themselves. I should have said, though, that it's nothing to be ashamed of unless one has failed to look critically at the source of the opinion. That is another variable to consider, another reason to stay away from absolutes.
72946. Dave123 at 10:48 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Bravo Sphaerica!
72947. Daniel Bailey at 09:38 AM on 9 October 2011
       Changes in Arctic Sea Ice: Young and thin instead of old and bulky
       Thanks for posting this, John; I found this discussion of the marginal ice zones and algal blooms most interesting.
72948. scaddenp at 07:32 AM on 9 October 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       " If rhetoric like that were a problem, it would be trumpeted all the time at sites like what's up. " Try non-USA sites (like our very own Hot-topic) and you will find that rhetoric among commentators. I havent seen much overtly socialist advocacy on American media that I visit, but I think it hidden in veiled commentary.
72949. Bob Lacatena at 06:26 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       21, tblakeslee, Oh, you mean like... Cuccinelli on Mann? Or the Interior Department's Office of the Inspector General and Monnett? Or all of the various inquiries on Jones and the UEA CRU? You mean inquisitions like those, by the people in power (i.e. the wealthy, monied and connected interests) against scientists simply because they didn't like the conclusions the science reached? Yes, your point is well made. Thank you.
72950. tblakeslee at 06:16 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Inquisitions are done by the people in power, not by the underdogs. I think you have it backwards.

Prev  1451  1452  1453  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  Next