Recent Comments

Prev  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  Next

Comments 75501 to 75550:

75501. Riccardo at 02:31 AM on 8 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Dan69 my impression is that there's some misunderstanding. For example, who is claiming that CO2 is not a trace gas? The point of this post is that the concentration of a trace element matters. Another example, who is assuming no convection and a grey atmosphere? One may sometime use highly simplified models to easily show some foundamental behaviour, but radiative-convective models has been developed in the '60s, almost fifty years ago. Your claim is simply untrue, due to a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge of the matter. If any weakness will be found in our current understanding of the climate system, be sure it won't be on the radiative properties of CO2 or any other foundamental aspect of this well know atmospheric physics.
75502. Rob Honeycutt at 01:57 AM on 8 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Dan69... Reading through your comments it looks to me you're basing your thinking on a lot of assumptions. I would highly suggest you watch an online AGU lecture by Dr Richard Alley called "The Biggest Control Knob." If you google his name and that title it should pop up. CO2's role in moderating the climate system over time is really pretty well understood, so laying MOST (not ALL) at the doorstep of CO2 is not unreasonable. Note though, that no climate scientist says that it's all about CO2. As the Alley lecture title suggests, CO2 is merely the biggest control knob on climate. This is well accepted and backed up by many thousands of research papers. The point to this article is to say to people, yes, trace amounts of things can and do obviously have profound effects. CO2's affect on climate is merely one of the many. If you get through Alley's lecture I would also suggest you spend some time reading the many articles here at SkS. Everything is backed up with published literature so you don't even have to take any given authors word on faith. You are welcome to look at the actual research and make up your own mind if the scientific community is getting it right.
       Response:

       [DB] Alley's talk can be found here.

75503. John Hartz at 01:31 AM on 8 September 2011
       Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
       The study cited in my previous post (#93) is also the topic of "Survey: Tea Party Isolated on Climate, But Wide Accord on Most Energy Policies," a post by Andrew Revkin on DOT Earth, NY Times, Sep 7, 2011. Revkin concludes his post with this ominous warning: "In reviewing the study, I found myself mulling the Tea Party views above in the context of recent research at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute concluding that when 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, that belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. "Add in a big dose of talk radio and attack blogs, our habit of conducting politics from the fringes, and the Republican nomination process, then have a look around."
75504. Dana69 at 01:28 AM on 8 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Let me state up front I am not a scientist, so my comments are based on a layman's view of the issue. CO2 IS a trace gas with regards to overall content of the atmosphere. The rebuttal used, is to compare aspects of trace elements that have an impact on a closed system, i.e. a persons body. Comparing a closed system to an open system to make your point only allows that much skepticism to rests its head on. Whilst they seem to make good rhetoric, they do NOTHING to support your contention that CO2 is in by itself NOT a trace gas. Conflating false examples does not make for an effective argument. Furthermore, please keep in mind that a skeptic on this issue is not debating the physics of the greenhouse-gas theory, or that a slowing in cooling attributed to the 2nd law isn't happening with more CO2 in the atmosphere, we are simply scratching our heads and wondering why such a dynamic, non-linear chaotic system rises and falls on one minor gas? Negative feedback anyone? This doesn't mean that the climate isn't in a warming phase, or disparate behaviors aren't affecting the climate as a whole, but to place it ALL at the doorstep of CO2 seems a leap. Ask yourself why we don't seem to have a runaway thermal affect due to this increase of CO2 alone? IMHO.... Also, it seems that the CO2 being a trace gas is never affected by convection. How can a theory which assumes no convection and a "grey atmosphere" (=no change in absorption properties with wavelength) can be used to explain something significant about the real atmosphere?
75505. Dave123 at 01:13 AM on 8 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       57, Sphaerica- Absolutely correct! Dave
75506. Bob Lacatena at 00:59 AM on 8 September 2011
       Was there a Medieval Warm Period?
       67, JimCA, I did quickly use Photoshop to overlay the MCA temps onto the current temps using the NOAA data. In this image, purple areas will have been cold in one period and hot in the other (red + blue = purple). Greenish areas (cyan + yellow) will have been cool in one and warm in the other. Yellow, orange and red areas are in agreement between the two. As you can see, the main areas of "warming" overlap here are Greenland, the North Atlantic, and the North Sea, the USA contiguous-48, parts of the Amazon and the Congo and Southeast Asia, the Mediterranean Sea, northernmost Asia, and the western Pacific ocean. Canada, Eurasia, Europe (away from England), the Sahara, South Africa, the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, Australia and the equatorial Pacific were all cooler in the MCA and warmer today. Interestingly, in both cases the north central Pacific ocean and western South America are cool.
75507. John Hartz at 00:58 AM on 8 September 2011
       Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
       Suggested reading: “Politics & Global Warming: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and the Tea Party,” Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason Center on Climate Change Communciation, Sep 7, 2011 To access a PDF of the report, click here.
75508. Bob Lacatena at 00:39 AM on 8 September 2011
       Was there a Medieval Warm Period?
       67, JimCA, Part of the problem is that the MCA spans a good 400 years. Some areas are warmer in 950, some in 1150, and so on. So what you really need is an animation demonstrating the anomalies over time. Someone could do so, but it would be a lot of work. I actually did start such a project, but it quickly stalled when life caught up with me. It is a lot of work, and it's really not worth that much. In the long run, temps are going to keep climbing and leave the MCA so far behind in the dust that it becomes a complete non-issue to anyone but the most hardcore deniers. Honestly, temps now are already well above any MCA peaks. You'll note that most graphs of the MCA with current temps end in 2000.
75509. JimCA at 00:18 AM on 8 September 2011
       Was there a Medieval Warm Period?
       Would it be possible to display a graph of the direct difference between MWP and modern temperatures, as opposed to two graphs, each relative to some other base period? For example, that would make it much easier to spot locations that were warmer/cooler during the MWP than during the past decade, thus making it easier to point out the extent to which focusing on southern Greenland is cherry-picking. I think showing the MWP relative to the past decade would be the most useful, since it would address the oft-repeated claim that the MWP was warmer than today, by directly showing the extent to which that was true (or not) in each location.
75510. Bob Lacatena at 00:18 AM on 8 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       53, Dave123, If you don't mind my putting words (back) into your mouth (meaning you did say this in your comment #50), what you mean to say is that "the central tendency of the data points to a small short term effect." This work says nothing whatsoever about the long term changes in clouds, and their ultimate feedback resulting from increased temperatures resulting from increased CO₂ levels. Camburn's attempt seems clearly aimed at somehow twisting these studies to imply that we know nothing at all about clouds and so can't fairly estimate climate sensitivity, when the only commonality in the two ideas is that the word "clouds" appears in both.
75511. Bob Lacatena at 00:12 AM on 8 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       51, Philip Amit, Dr. Shulmeister's quote doesn't at all mean what it implies when considered out of context. It is very clear from the article (here) that what they are discussing is only a new method of measuring, by proxy, precipitation levels in Australia. He is talking about an opportunity to better evaluate the actual versus modeled precipitation levels specifically predicted for Australia. This is very, very different from the implied idea that all climate models are way off base in every way. Also note that a better place for your comment would have been Models are Unreliable. In the future, if you have a question that seems off-topic, please use the search button in the upper left corner to find an appropriate thread and post your comment or question there.
75512. grypo at 00:06 AM on 8 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       The funny part about McIntyre "auditing" Dessler 10 is that, Dessler's is the conservative look at the subject and draws wide conclusions based on the error bars. The ones making the outlandish claims about cloud effect on the climate are Spencer and Lindzen! He says he has all the data. He has all the papers. This should surely put the idea that McIntyre is an independent "auditor" into serious dispute.
75513. Bob Lacatena at 00:02 AM on 8 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       136, Norman, Just to explain one more thing in this line of thought, consider the fact that the increase in DLR during the day is not a direct, immediate response to increased daytime surface temperatures, due to intense daytime solar radiation. Ultimately, DLR is a result of atmospheric temperature. If the atmosphere is cooler, it emits less, warmer it emits more. So the relevant question becomes "how quickly does the atmosphere warm as a result of the day's solar radiation?" Your imagined effect of immediate increased back radiation during the day is, I think, exaggerated. Much of the outbound OLR that is intercepted by greenhouse gases is passed to the surrounding atmosphere (O₂/N₂) immediately through collisions. It heats the surrounding atmosphere, rather than coming "right back down." It is this increase in temperature of the atmosphere (which is obviously also affected somewhat by convection and latent heat) which actually increases DLR (which follows, as is already understood, the Stefan-Boltzman relationship). Based on this, one might even expect to find the highest DLR values in the evening, when the sun has moved on but the atmosphere has warmed in response to a variety of mechanisms, not all of which act quickly (and since the atmosphere is, for the most part, transparent to inbound sunlight). Lastly, remember that a major factor in DLR is clouds. Clouds tend to build during the day, then dissipate (mostly) at night. That means that their effects are minimal until after the sun has gotten lower in the sky, but can persist well into and even completely throughout the night and next day (when they would impeded inbound radiation). These are all sort of fudged concepts. Building a clear model of it would involve far more research than I have time. I'm simply trying to suggest to you other factors which greatly complicate the picture beyond your more simple mental model of "more inbound solar radiation in the day must mean more outbound long wave radiation, too." A last note: This page might be useful in playing with calculations, although I cannot vouch for its veracity. I just stumbled across it.
75514. Bud Ward at 23:44 PM on 7 September 2011
       On Mowing a Virginia Lawn … And Contemplating a Greenland Iceberg
       Posted on behalf of Penn State Professor Richard Alley (in rsponse to question posed by Bern, #3) at his request while his e-mail access is limited: The tunnel in the iceberg is beautiful! To be honest, I don’t know why they form, although someone may. But, I have seen a lot of them. A few thoughts: In glaciers from regions with abundant surface melt, there are lots of healed crevasses and moulins (meltwater channels), sometimes including meltwater channels that melted their way down into the glacier and then developed lids as snowdrifts bridged over or the ice squeezed closed. The most common are probably moulins that started as crevasses. Water flows faster where the cracks are wider, making “frictional” heat that melts ice, while refreezing happens where cracks are thin. Boreholes through “wet” glaciers have found all sorts of water channels and cavities, many quite interesting, big and little, long and short, interconnected and not (and, up shallow or in the winter when the water drains, some become air channels, including ones that really skillful or really crazy people go caving in). So, an iceberg from an appropriate glacier starts with a lot of holes. Next, my experience is that the big channels in icebergs often are close to the water level, either at the water level or slightly above on a berg that seems to have been rising as ice calves or melts away above the water line faster than below. So the suggestion is that something occurring at or near the ocean surface is important. Often, there is a relatively thin layer of sun-warmed water near the ocean surface, so maybe waves moving this water are focused into the preexisting channels and crevasses in some places, enlarging them to give the beautiful features seen. At least, this seems like a good working hypothesis, although I suspect we could cook up a few others as well.
75515. DSL at 23:06 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       Philip Armit, unless the research can change the absorption and emission spectra of CO2, CH4, and H20, change measurements of albedo, change cloud and aerosol feedbacks, and change other elements of "current climate models," I doubt if such a paleo study can do much with a "current climate model." Now, if you actually meant "change our understanding of past climate change," then, yes, that's more possible. Further discussion should move to one of the paleo posts/arguments. Don't worry about your comments getting lost on an old thread, as many regulars here watch the "recent comments" page.
75516. Dave123 at 23:03 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       You mistake my meaning Camburn. The central tendency of the data points to a small effect, not something that overturns the 2-4.5 sensitivity range of the IPPC that centers on 3. The denialist position magnifies this uncertainty to an unworldly extent.
75517. Bob Lacatena at 22:53 PM on 7 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       136, Norman, I don't have the time right now, but I suggest you play with the numbers. There's a Stefan-Boltzman calculator here. For the sake of this you can use an emissivity of 1, but if you wish to use other values (see the table on the page), that's fine. Try plugging in various temperatures from your own local weather at different times of the day and night. You can estimate inbound solar radiation for different times of the day, maxing out at 1368 W/m² on the clearest day possible, at noon at the equator. Add estimated DLR from the Philipona paper above, keeping in mind that the daytime/nighttime difference is not as great as you first thought, and that it is also affected by local conditions (e.g. a cloudy day reduces sunlight but might increase DLR). So try to figure out how much the earth is emitting around you, using local temperatures at different times of the day. Compare that to the radiation that is at the same time being replaced by different values of DLR (a lower value from before CO₂ levels increased, and a higher value later). You might even be able to take this a step further, and subtract what goes out and add what's coming in to compute a subsequent temperature, to see how comparatively quickly things warm and cool under different conditions, and so see the DTR effect directly, yourself, quantitatively.
75518. Camburn at 22:46 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       Dave123: You have hit it on the head. You can't make a case with present evidence for clouds doing much. Neither Dessler nor Spencer have shown with any certainty anything. It is good that they are looking at this issue, but as of today, nothing conclusive is derived from either authors papers.
       Response:

       [DB] Camburn, the inescapable conclusion one draws from Dessler's paper and your comments on it is that you simply do not understand what it is you are reading.

75519. Bob Lacatena at 22:45 PM on 7 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       134, Norman, To better quantify things, this paper (Philipona et al, 2001) measured between 260 and 420 W/m² DLR in the daytime over an 8 day period in Oklahoma. The paper also measures a range of 270 to 380 w/m² DLR at night, so the difference between night and day is minor. More importantly, the earth is heating up during the day. It will certainly heat more due to GHGs and increased DLR, but the primary factor is always going to be direct sunlight. Remember Stefan-Boltzman: E = σT⁴ Because of the T⁴ relationship to energy emitted, as something gets hot, it becomes harder and harder to make it even hotter. It sheds ever increasing amounts of energy as it heats above and beyond the increase in temperature. Thus, adding more energy during the day, when direct, unimpeded sunlight at noon can deliver 1368 W/m², is not going to raise temperatures as much. But at night, this DLR is going to prevent cooling. Here, when temperatures are lower, the effects of the same increase in DLR are much greater. Basically, it is easier to merely keep something warm than it is to make it hotter. It is easier to warm a cool object that one that is already hot. As a result, the temperature gain during the day is not increased as much by increases in DLR, while the temperature loss at night is greatly influenced by increase in DLR. Your reference to El Nino is not relevant in this case. El Nino is a condition that can last for months. It raises ocean temperatures and so emits more OLR, and so triggers more DLR, but it does so 24 hours a day. It applies at night as well as during the day, so if anything it decreases the DTR in the same way increases in DLR do as a result of the GHE.
75520. Riccardo at 22:44 PM on 7 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       Norman apparently you discovered that the atmosphere is heated from below by the land or ocean surface. You should have quoted Horace-Bénédict de Saussure who in the late 18th century demonstrated the effect.
75521. Jonathon at 22:21 PM on 7 September 2011
       NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
       Thank you Rob, I have read Willis' papers about closing the SLR budget, which is difficult over short periods given the large annual variability and measurement uncertainties. It may be noteworthy that they had trouble closing the budget over the 2003-2006 interval, but were successful from 2006-2010. I suspect this had to do with the extended El Nino during the first interval, and their determination that there was no steric SLR during this time. Enhanced precipitation would definitely influence global sea levels, and may be contributing to the recent change. This may be a result of the recent La Nina. However, one year does not compare to the multi-year changes we have observed during the ENSO cycle, especially since this past year has witnessed more rainfall in certain areas than a typical La Nina. This may fill lakes and reservoirs and lead to increases in the snowpack. A continuation of this pattern would lead to decreased sea levels. Over time, these are the two main components dictating global sea levels (GIA and plate tectonics playing a smaller, but not insignificant role in the short term). ENSO definitely plays a role in the steric component, and possibly in the mass portion also.
75522. Philip Armit at 22:16 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       Forgive me, if this comment is off track. Apropos of "accuracy of climate models", a letter in my local paper suggested that current research by Dr Craig Woodward at School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, Uni of Queensland "may have significant impacts on climate models used for predicting global warming". Head of school (I think) Prof James Shulmeister is purported to have said: "All our current climate models may be way off base." Research involved looking at fossilized chitinous head capsules of larvae in mud layers in lake beds for info about climate at the time they lived. Anyone know how that impacts on accuracy of models? Been following weekly blogs and commentary with fascination. But bit new to this form of communication. Hope I haven't broken the thread.
75523. Dave123 at 21:57 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       I followed Bickmore to MacIntyre and noted two things- MacIntyre ducked key parts of Dressler's analysis, which in one sense is a good thing to admit his lack of knowledge, but then goes on to miss the point entirely- the point being that you can't make a case with present evidence for clouds doing much (short term) to influence the feedback one way or the other. Of course, if you are professionally peddling uncertainty, this isn't a point you want to talk about.
75524. John Russell at 21:30 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       A useful summary of events with lots of links over at Carbon Brief.
75525. Norman at 21:01 PM on 7 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       Sphaerica @ 132 and muoncounter @133 Here is an article on ENSO that describes exactly what I am saying. There are many graphs. The ocean is warmer during an El Nino event and the downward longwave radiation is greatest during the El Nino cycle and lowest during the La Nina. During the day the ground is very warmer than at night so it will radiate more long wave radiation. More upwelling longwave radiation will mean more downwelling longwave radiation. So the GHE should be greater during the day. The radiation is additive. You get a 20 F increase in temp from shortwave solar insolation but the downwelling longwave radiation of day should be greater than at night so if night time adds 2 F to the temp, daytime downwelling longwave radiation should be higher and the addition of this energy should not make a smaller DTR but actually a slightly bigger one. That is why I think clouds are the major ingredient of the DTR decrease and it has a logical mechanism. Clouds at day keep things cooler but at night have a warming effect which would decrease the DTR. See my post at 101, based upon a peer=reviewed article. Article showing warmer water does produce more Downwelling longwave radiation.
75526. Rob Painting at 18:58 PM on 7 September 2011
       OA not OK: Booklet available
       Doug, Christina & Keith, awesome series of posts. Thanks a bunch!
75527. Tristan at 18:34 PM on 7 September 2011
       Models are unreliable
       Thanks a bunch Sky :)
75528. Steve Case at 18:32 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       Here's a nice YouTube on the subject.
75529. skywatcher at 16:24 PM on 7 September 2011
       Models are unreliable
       #391: watch out for cause-effect relationships between different factors, but you'll also want volcanic forcing in there, and perhaps aerosol forcing too. With a reasonably simple model you can reconstruct surface temperature changes using CO2, SOI, volcanic - see Tamino's Open mind for some examples, one here and a better (superb) one here. I'm not sure about sea level, though a recent post on this site speaks of the impact of ENSO on short-term variations. Simple models don't capture the complexities of the interactions in each system, but they have their value in identifying some of the key elements to a system.
75530. Tristan at 15:51 PM on 7 September 2011
       Models are unreliable
       Say I wanted to play around with the data, to look for relationships in a pretty amateur way. There's: Sea Level Surface/Air temp C02 ppm Sunspot number SOI What am I missing and where will such a simple model fail?
75531. Albatross at 14:49 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       Dana @47, "I think we all know the answer to that question." Indeed we do :) Sadly "skeptics" here and elsewhere knowingly (or not) forget that rather blatant double standard. Really, this is now like amateur hour at the circus. A 'skeptic' at RC is now questioning the validity of the data that they all used. Denial at its finest. It would be hilariously funny were it not for the fact that it is such a serious situation.
75532. dana1981 at 14:39 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       Here's a question - why is McIntyre "auditing" Dessler's work (and doing a piss-poor job of it), but not Spencer's or Lindzen's? I mean, Dessler's paper is basically an audit of Spencer and Lindzen. If McIntyre thinks Dessler's audit is flawed, why doesn't he do one of his own, as the self-proclaimed climate auditing expert? I think we all know the answer to that question.
75533. Albatross at 14:33 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       Camburn @42, Do you simply, uncritically just believe and parrot anyone says about climate science just b/c it rails against the actual science and data? ClimateAudit was a fad, amongst other things. McIntyre. especially after the Wegman plagiarism affair and his role in the plagiarized Wegman report has no credibility anymore. Dr. Bickmore has responded to Mr. McIntyre's red herrings and strawmen. Really, Mr. McIntyre's 'analysis' amounts to nothing more than saying "look, squirrel!" to distract people from the implosion of Spencer's and Lindzens' papers. Well, I suppose someone had to step forward and try and create some uncertainty and doubt concerning Dessler (2010) and Dessler (2011). Dr. Bickmore's comments: "Steve’s arguments are weak. 1. He reproduces Dessler’s stats, but complains the R^2 value is low. Well of course it is, because the slope is near zero. But Dessler did the right thing and calculated a 95% confidence interval. It is what it is. 2. He faults Dessler for complaining about Spencer and Braswell only using HadCRUT3, when Dessler had also used HadCRUT3. But what he doesn’t show is that it made any difference for Dessler’s analysis. In any case, I wouldn’t be so suspicious if this were the only problem with S&B, because they didn’t claim to analyze any other temperature series. They DID claim to analyze all 14 models, and **forgot** to report the results. 3. Finally, he shows that you can get a different slope by changing the lag time. But since Dessler and S&B had both said this in their papers, I’m not really impressed." Of course Dessler is using HadCRUT, that is what the authors of the paper he is refuting used...duh! Moreover, unlike Spencer, Dessler used multiple datasets, and those data in fact corroborate each other...the outlier is Spencer's. Why? Because he cherry picked those data that would make the models look bad. Pretty telling that you are OK with that. Of course, McIntyre seems to neglect Spencer's and Lindzen's egregious errors (biased much Mr. McINtyre?). Actually think Dr. Bickmore is being very generous in how he is describing Mr. McIntyre's "critique" of Dessler's work. The "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW are frantically trying to throw up smokescreens to save poor old Spencer, One has to wonder how long it will be before they "throw him under the bus" as Spencer is doing more harm than good for his cause right now and is rapidly becoming a liability. Camburn, how you arrive at "Dessler was not good", while McIntyre's blog analysis was "quite good", all the while missing the train wrecks that are Lindzen and Choi (09) and Lindzen and Choi (2011) and Spencer and Braswell (2008) and Spencer and Braswell (2011) is beyond belief. In fact, doing so it is perfectly consistent with someone who is in denial. Finally, can you even begin to explain to us what was "good" about McIntyre's "analysis"? We are waiting.
75534. scaddenp at 14:22 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       Camburn, sorry but it sounds rather like "I would rather believe Spenser than Dessler, so quick find something gives me hope". Now tell what you think the substance of McI criticism is (where the science is flawed because obviously Spenser's is) and let's resolve the matter.
75535. dhogaza at 13:41 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       

       This analysis by Steve McIntyre is quit good

       McI has pretty much lost all credibility in the scientific community ... And it's not because he's a penny-stock mining wonk who's smarter than einstein despite the scientific community's unwillingness to acknowledge his genius. Really, at this point, McI is nothing more than a more literate version of Watts.
75536. Camburn at 13:37 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       Dana1981: I believe your headline is a bit misleading. Dessler paper of 2011 is no better than his paper of 2010 which was not a good paper. This analysis by Steve McIntyre is quit good: Read the comments section. There are some very good comments on the stats of both Dessler and Spencer
       Response:

       [dana1981] if you're just going to engage in empty insults with zero intelligent analysis, and reference somebody else's comments, then I'll just refer you to Barry Bickmore's comments about McIntyre's (exceptionally weak) comments.

       In the future, if you're going to disparage a scientific paper, please at least make more of an effort than "it's not a good paper."  You've added nothing to the discussion here.

75537. dana1981 at 12:37 PM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       Albatross @18 - yes, I'm talking about changes over a decade or so caused by ENSO.
75538. skywatcher at 11:43 AM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       "[Spencer] mind trick: You don't need to see any error bars. Move along." I like it Barry! It would seem that Spencer has, academically, fallen very far now. reading Dessler's paper, it sounds like a teacher trying to explain something to a persistently errant pupil, which would be entertaining if the fallout were not so serious.
75539. whatdoctor at 11:42 AM on 7 September 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       As the Earth heats up - it would lose more energy through radiation - except for the insulation provided by the CO2. This blanket of CO2 will result in a rise in temperature - until the energy being radiated away reaches equilibrium with the energy being received. Then our temperature will stabilize. The thicker the blanked of CO2, the warmer it gets before this equilibrium is reached. I wonder what the lag is between CO2 levels stabilizing and temperature increase ceasing.
       Response:

       [DB] Try this post Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect

75540. Rob Painting at 11:35 AM on 7 September 2011
       NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
       Jonathan @ 29 - See the sister SkS post: Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level, there are freely available peer-reviewed papers cited in the post.
75541. Tom Curtis at 11:13 AM on 7 September 2011
       Climate's changed before
       whatdocter @207: 1) Your claim about oxygen is simply absurd. Humans do not begin to suffer from oxygen deprivation due to altitude until 2000 meters, with most unaffected to 2400 meters. That represents a 22% reduction in available oxygen, or about 4.5% of the total atmosphere. Consequently, for the reduction in oxygen due to combustion to effect human health, CO2 levels would have to increase from their current 0.04% to 4.5% of the atmosphere. 2) An international agreement based on restricting per capita CO2 production would need to set limits based on a a benchmark year, with national targets based on the population during that benchmark year. Failure to do so would either penalize countries with a low population growth with respect to those with a large population growth, or result in population growth forcing total emissions above the absolute limit required to mitigate climate change. Such a benchmark approach would encourage limiting population growth.
75542. DSL at 09:32 AM on 7 September 2011
       Climate's changed before
       And, whatdoctor, whatever the merits or problems with a per capita approach, it cannot encourage population growth. People don't think about having children in that way. I can't provide a citation, but I suspect you can't either, and I've never heard anyone cite lowering a tax as a reason for having children. Now, true, it might encourage some people to have children because they understand mitigation as foundational to a brighter future.
75543. whatdoctor at 08:34 AM on 7 September 2011
       Climate's changed before
       So we accept that global warming has happened before. We accept that it is happening again now - and that man is contributing to it. In the past, global warming may have been the cause (or a major contributing factor to) mass extinction events. If previous global warming events have shown a positive feedback - more water vapour causing more warming - what eventually turned things around? Is it already too late to take action? I think the focus on "per capita" CO2 production is counter-productive. It encourages countries like Australia to increase their population in order to reduce their per capita pollution. This actually results in more pollution in total. I believe the focus should be on "per area" pollution. This would encourage reductions in population and a reduction in total CO2 production. Of course it helps if we individually reduce our production of CO2 but the big problem is overpopulation. Our planet does not have enough free oxygen (O2 as opposed to CO2) for its current population.
       Response:

       [DB] "Our planet does not have enough free oxygen (O2 as opposed to CO2) for its current population."

       Umm, nope.  Of all the resources consumed by mankind, O2 is the most ample and in no danger of running out.

       Scarce items:

       • Food
       • Water
       • Housing
       • Open land
       • On-topic comments
75544. bbickmore at 08:05 AM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       I just weighed in on Dessler's paper here: http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/roy-spencer-persecuted-by-own-data/
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Link activated
75545. BBD at 07:08 AM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       Sphaerica; jmsully That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure that I hadn't missed something. It's been puzzling me. Thanks.
75546. Bob Lacatena at 07:00 AM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       32, BBD, 35, jmsully, I see no relevant difference between the three equations (Dessler's notation, LC11 Eq. 8 and SB Eq 1). Am I missing something in how I am interpreting the notation and the clarifying text? FYI, the original comment in question was posted at Bishop Hill here.
75547. Shoe at 06:51 AM on 7 September 2011
       There is no consensus
       DSL, I particularly like your post at #411. I think that anyone reading through the last fifty posts, who is still arguing against Global Climate Change is just holding a debating position. All necessary points have already been made. And anyone who doesn't want to read through everything, can find plenty in post #411. And no, I have no idea who DSL is.
75548. dansat at 06:50 AM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       The first comment on this post hits the nail on the head. The only people who do not see the obvious "grasping at straws" here are those the paper was written for, and those people never read it. They just used it to promote a political agenda. The science has reached the point that the few remaining skeptics in the academic world seem to be submitting papers for their political followers and not for their peers. This could be dangerous if the journals start to dismiss anything that seems the same, so each paper must be evaluated with due care to ensure that truly valid questions get the full light of day.
75549. jmsully at 06:22 AM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       

       Radiative forcings (N) of temperature change could arise, for example, from natural fluctuations in cloud cover which are not the direct or indirect result of a temperature change (that is, not due to feedback) [6]. Examples of non-radiative forcing (S) would be fluctuations in the heat exchange between the mixed layer and deep ocean, or between the mixed layer and the overlying atmosphere. Importantly, satellite radiative budget instruments measure the combined influence of radiative forcing (N) and radiative feedback (- λ∆T) in unknown proportions.

       This above is from SB2011 and seem congruent with Dessler's eqn.
       Moderator Response: [Sph] Corrected delta character
75550. Albatross at 06:18 AM on 7 September 2011
       Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
       Cornelius @33, That 3rd oder polynomial fit to the tropospheric temperature data is meaningless. But I am confident that Roy knows that and the intent of the graph, despite the caveat, is to mislead and/or allow people to make their own misguided interpretations. Spencer doing that is known as feeding fodder to the "skeptics" and those in denial abut AGW-- in fact, that seems to be one of the main goals of his blog nowadays. Anyways, we'd better leave it at that for now, there are more important developments afoot such as Dessler (2011).

Prev  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  Next