Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 Next
Comments 75801 to 75850:
-
Rosco at 16:07 PM on 6 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
I always had a problem with the factor of 4 thingie being used to reduce insolation. I have actually learnt some things from this discussion. And, whilst I am a sceptic I wasn't always and I really do not have an agenda. The equation always caused me to question. Whilst I could appreciate that it seemed right by all the science I had ever read it still seemed at odds with calculating the effective temperature of earth - heck I know I never bought it. But if I look at as a radiative balance statement- that to maintain radiative balance for earth the OLR over the surface of a sphere only has to be one quarter of the insolation over the disk - well heck that makes some sense - although why we need to simplify insolation to a constant irradiated disk when we have computer programs which ought to deal with the complex equations seems unnecessary. So we have some common ground - there is an area where the insolation is balanced by the OLR and the temperature of this "interface" - for lack of a better word at the moment - is ~255 K or -18 C. I still think all of this discussion has been relevant and there is still some way to go. I still have doubts about the relevance to the surface temperature but that can wait till another day. -
Tom Curtis at 15:35 PM on 6 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Rosco @94, the level of the atmosphere with a temperature of 255 degrees K is on average approximately 5 km, and if the GHG in the atmosphere absorbed and emitted equally at all wavelengths, it would radiate approximately 240 W/m^2 at that level. But in fact the GHG's only radiate at a limited number of wavelengths, so much of the radiation comes from the much warmer surface. Consequently the it is only when you get to the TOA that the sum of energies across all wavelengths of outgoing radiation sums to ~240 W/m^2. -
Rosco at 15:25 PM on 6 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
But isn't the area of the atmosphere radiating ~240 W/sq m actually at ~5 km above the Earth's surface? -
Bob Lacatena at 14:11 PM on 6 September 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
131, Norman, If you look at any solar spectrum curve...
You see that the most energy comes in at short wave lengths (visible light). During the day this "dominates" because it so outweighs any down-welling IR in any calculations.
At night, there is no such incoming shortwave radiation. Infrared radiation dominates.
This isn't about "up-welling" at all. It's about what is coming back in to keep the surface warm... short wave sunlight during the day, long wave IR from greenhouse gases at night.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:02 PM on 6 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Rosco @91: The equation you misquote applies only for surfaces with no variation in temperature, and with an emissivity of 1. Neither is true of the Earth. In particular, the effective emissivity of the Surface of the Earth significantly less than 1 due to the effects of the Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In contrast, the effective brightness temperature of the Earth as observed from space has, by definition, an emissivity of 1. Therefore, for planets with greenhouse gases, this equation only applies at the Top of the Atmosphere. Further, the Earth does not have equal temperatures across the globe, but it has near equal temperatures - sufficiently close that this equation represents a fair approximation. So, let's check out the approximation at the TOA for the Earth. According to NASA, the Black Body temperature of the Earth as observed from space (aka, the brightness temperature) is 254.3, and the radius of the Earth is 6378100 meters. Therefore the total energy radiated to space by the Earth is approximately: 5.6704*10^-8 * 254.3^4 * 4 * pi * 6378100^2 = 1.2122 * 10^17 Watts The TSI equals 1366 Watts/m^2, and the Bond albedo equals 0.306 so the total energy absorbed by the Earth is approximately: 1366 * (1 - 0.0306) * pi * 6378100^2 = 1.2116 *10^17 Watts. That is just a 0.06% difference. Not bad for an approximation. Of course, I understand that you have been so blinded by your need for AGW to be wrong that you will not be able to acknowledge this clear result. Consequently, I suggest you do as climate scientists do and ignore the approximation. Instead, work out the total energy absorbed from the sun using in each cell of a 5 degree latitude by 5 degree longitude cell of the Earth's surface over a one year period. Remember to compensate for the different areas of each cell depending on their latitude. Sum the total energy absorbed. Then determine the total energy emitted from each cell over the year based on the variation of temperature and surface type (which effects emissivity), and sum the results. If you are correct, the sums should be approximately equal. But in fact they will not be, for as has been shown in the General Circulation Models the equality is at the top of the atmosphere, not the surface. IF you are going to dispute the climate scientists who have gone to the effort of just that sort of detailed calculation (and much more), you should yourself make that same level of detailed calculation instead of disputing an approximation used for teaching purposes (as you have been doing). -
Bob Lacatena at 13:57 PM on 6 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
91, Rosco, This goes back to the problem you were having with the geometry. The energy absorbed is proportional to S(1-r) over the area of a disk. The energy emitted is the same, but it is distributed over 4 times the area because the earth is a sphere and not a flat disk. Perhaps this discussion will make it more clear, but really it comes down to two simple statements: The earth absorbs energy as a disk (πr2). The earth emits energy as a sphere (4πr2). The temperature of the earth reflects this, which is why we divide 1368 by 4 to get 342, which in turn is cut to 240 by the earth's albedo (1-r). -
Norman at 12:51 PM on 6 September 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
muoncounter @ 130 I looked at the Malamud paper you linked to. I do not understand this statement from the article: "Our basic hypothesis is that a large part of the temperature and DTR trends at Mauna Loa can be attributed to changes in CO2. At night, longwave radiation and turbulent sensible heat fluxes dominate heat loss. Increasing presence of greenhouse gases will result in enhanced reradiation back towards the surface and hence warming nocturnal temperatures. During the day time, shortwave radiation dominates, particularly in tropical regions." This is my most basic question and the article does not really answer it. What is the meaning of "shortwave radiation dominates"? Shortwave solar energy will have a greater watts/meter flux than upwelling IR but the surface emitted IR will still be greater during the day than at night. Unless shortwave radiation pressure can limit the upwelling IR raditation from being emitted, how does the dominance of shortwave radiation affect the upwelling shortwave radiation (from my physics knowledge, the IR emission is determined by the temperature of the object and its emissivity). During the day you will have greater flux of upwelling IR from the surface than at night because of the greater temperature of the surface. You should have a stronger reradiation during the day than at night, hence more effective GHE (more IR going up during daytime, more coming back down from the omnidirectional energy distribution of greenhouse gasses). -
Camburn at 12:48 PM on 6 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Sphaerica: Sorry you couln't watch Dr. North's presentation. It was quit good. The question period was excellent, with both Dr. Lindzen and Dr. North commenting. I seldom do watch video's, as I agree with you. Reading is a lottttt faster, and you can easily go back to re-digest what you have read. I just re-read Dr. Trenbeth's and other two fellows op ed piece. The very tone raised red flags to me, so I feel I must go back and re-read S&B. There may be more value to S&B than my original readings brought to me. Now it will be to find the time. -
Rosco at 12:40 PM on 6 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~liougst/Lecture/Lecture_3.pdf Radiative Equilibrium Energy Conservation Principle at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) Incoming solar energy absorbed = Outgoing infrared energy emitted S (1 – r) x π ae2 = σTe4 x 4 π ae2 σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant S = Solar constant (total solar energy/time/area at TOA) r = Global albedo ≅ 0.3 ae = Radius of the Earth Te = Equilibrium temperature of the Earth-atmosphere-system Leading to Te = ∜(S(1-r)/4σ) But if we restate the “equality” Incoming solar energy absorbed = Outgoing infrared energy emitted S (1 – r) x π ae2 = Ro x 4 π ae2 (where Ro = σTe4 is the outgoing radiation) we see that this simply says that the outgoing radiation is a quarter of the incoming radiation. Alternatively, taking the original “equality” and dividing both sides by π ae2 you arrive at the interesting postulation that :- S (1 – r) = σTe4 x 4 and thus proving the Stefan-Boltzman equation is wrong. So what has gone wrong here? Clearly the original statement is not an equality ! -
Bob Lacatena at 12:34 PM on 6 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
45, Camburn, I did not watch Dr. North's presentation because the streaming method used did not make it easy to fast forward past Dr. Lindzen, and I really didn't have the time. Honestly, one can absorb 1000 times as much in 1/10th the time through reading. I see little point for such kindergarten level show-piece presentations. I'll take your word for it on what it contains. Suffice it to say that (a) it's a waste of my time in general and (b) if Dr. Lindzen was in any way involved then it's a waste of everyone's time, and a just a chance for people to get even more confused. As much as the denial crowd wants to frame it as such, this is not a "debate." It's not about opinions and beliefs, and Dr. Lindzen's position is laughable. If he or Spencer or anyone else really had a way to prove their case, they'd have done a substantially better job by now. They haven't. The fact that Lindzen takes so readily to the talk show circuit and high-visibility op-ed pieces instead of real science all by itself speaks volumes. -
Camburn at 12:21 PM on 6 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Sphaerica@43: Didn't you listen to Dr. North's presentation as well? actually thoughtful: I commend you if you were able to listen to Hannity, or Rush, or Levin. I have tried, but I find no entertainment value in those folks. I have made it through 10 mins, and just couldn't stand it any longer. They whine and whine, yet present no alternative solution. If I want to hear whining, I can listen to a two year old to get my fill of that. Dr. North is almost a polar opposite of Dr. Lindzen. Apparantly most folks didn't listen/observe his presentation, nor the discussion period at the end. As far as vacations....I don't care how many President Obama takes. In fact, his current economic policy is so flawed that I wish he would take a longer one. All I can say about President Bush, is that he didn't take enough of them either. Not good for the USA to have two somewhat dim presidents in a row who never saw someone elses dollar that they didn't want to spend.Response:[DB] American politics are now OT on this thread. Please, no more.
-
actually thoughtful at 11:13 AM on 6 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Indeed Camburn, just as you watch what you put in your body for your own health, it is important to watch what you put in your own mind for your mental health. I spend a fair portion of my day listening to right wing talk radio. As an educated and thoughtful person, I thought myself immune to their tactics. I can usually debunk a statement made by Hannity, El Rushbo or Mark Levin literally before they are done uttering it. However, I had no hard data on time spent on vacations, and the recent talk has been about Obama's excessive vacations, and time on the golf course, etc. So I assumed Obama must be roughly equal to Bush (who got an earful for not working enough). Well, I had an opportunity to check the facts and it turns out that Bush had taken THREE times as many vacation days in the same period of time! 3 TIMES! http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2011/08/18/cbs-comes-obama-s-defense-vacation-time-after-they-cue-him-prognosticat So when you choose to let people known to twist the facts (like Spencer at this point (see Sphaerica@43)) into your mental diet - it is incumbent upon you to be extra, excessively vigilant, or else end up spouting half truths (see Camburn@37). Now that those who actively reject science own the main stream media (Fox news is the most watched, therefore the most main stream media we have in the US (and Murdoch is big in at least Australia and Great Britain as well) - we all must be very, very careful, as the mental diet being forced down our "throat" is indeed not healthy. -
Bern at 11:03 AM on 6 September 2011On Mowing a Virginia Lawn … And Contemplating a Greenland Iceberg
An interesting little article. Illustrative of the scientific mindset, too! The first question that popped into my mind, though, was this: What caused that tunnel through the iceberg? I'm guessing one of two things - a vertical meltwater channel (is 'moulin' the right word?), or something carved by wind & wave action since the berg calved from the glacier. -
dansat at 10:58 AM on 6 September 2011On Mowing a Virginia Lawn … And Contemplating a Greenland Iceberg
My first up close experience with bergs brought a similar mystery. A berg with beautiful grooves in it. Almost like they were made with a giant rake with a thousand teeth. The local iceberg expert explained it to me at the time but darn if I have not forgotten the exact reasons. Something to do with currents. Here it is: http://mactardis.com/photos/main.php?g2_itemId=18708I may not know exactly the cause of this but my first thought is not to chalk it up to magic or a higher power but to ask how it happens. We live in a country where far too many find it much more comforting to invoke the magic.
Response:[DB] Embedded picture. You can even see the seabirds flying in the foreground.
-
actually thoughtful at 10:39 AM on 6 September 2011On Mowing a Virginia Lawn … And Contemplating a Greenland Iceberg
I can't help but wonder how efficient that lawn mower is. I am hazy on the reasons, but two stroke engines are less efficient. One presumes a riding mower would be 4 stroke, but it isn't clear. I think, too, the above comment shines a light on the fundamental difference between science oriented and denial oriented minds. The science oriented questions everything. I admit the first thing I thought of was the climate impact of the mower - not in a gotcha, but just where my mind goes. Everything is on the table, and grey exists. I think for many "skeptics", the same observation would be in gotcha mode, as in "why should we listen to you - you use a polluting, gas powered device to mow your lawn" - as is endlessly done to Al Gore and Dr. Mann, Dr. Jones, etc. Kind of hashing my point here - it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between skepticism (question everything, by nature) and the blind ideologue approach I see in US politics (on the right in particular (indeed it has become a distinguishing feature between the left and the right) that questions anything that doesn't support the current talking points, but gives the rest of reality a pass. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:03 AM on 6 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
41, Camburn, I do not consider Lindzen to be eminent in climate science. When you do so you are attempting an appeal to authority, but in this case competence does not equate to trustworthy. Actual eminence would require that he publish something that contributes in a notable way to the science. He has a long publication record, primarily focused on either minor details, or else magic bullet papers that attempt to overturn the field in one fell swoop, and then are roundly and embarrassingly refuted by his peers. That does not, to me, qualify as eminent. When he stands up and uses his "authority" to spout drivel, he does not actually talk in a balanced and informative way about the science but instead acts like a debater being very careful to offer only those details that would lead you to a particular desired and incorrect conclusion. He has shot himself in the foot with his credibility with his op-ed pieces and flat out lies. I've seen them for myself, to the point that I do not trust a word that the man says. That you find him credible speaks to your lack of skepticism.- Politically oriented commentaries that do nothing to advance science, and in many cases actively work to undermine it:
- Lindzen, R.S. (2008) An Exchange on Climate Science and Alarm. In Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto
- Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Climate of Fear, Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2006.
- Lindzen, R.S. (2006) There is no ‘consensus’ on global warming, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006
- Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Debunking the Myth. Business Today, 43, 66-67.
- Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland & Richard S. Lindzen (2006) The Stern Review: A Dual Critique, Part I: The Science, World Economics, 7, 167-198.
- Lindzen, R.S. (2007) Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously, Energy & Environment, 18, 937-950.
- Lindzen, R.S. (2008) Climate science: is it designed to answer questions. arXiv:0809.3762, available as pdf file on www.arxiv.org, Physics and Society.
- Politically oriented commentaries that do nothing to advance science, and in many cases actively work to undermine it:
-
muoncounter at 08:30 AM on 6 September 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Nice new piece of evidence showing nights warming faster than days and DTR decreasing. Thirty years of hourly temperature data at Mauna Loa makes this detailed analysis possible - and hard to question.
-- source (tamino analysis of new paper)
Link to paper: Malamud et al 2011
Small world: one of the co-authors (Turcotte) was a geophysics prof when I was in grad school.
-
Doug Mackie at 08:11 AM on 6 September 2011OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Thanks Mark. The impacts are still being researched but I think I can summarise the whole biological field as saying that: As with any rapid and large envionmental change there will be some winners and many losers. Yes, we have plans to return after a decent break with more. Yes, it is seldom talked about. It may not have been obvious but most of the posts were written to rebut the "science" behind a particular denialist meme without actually detailing that meme. (Something of a turnaround from usualy SkS approach). Denialist memes are like viruses (I know PZ Meyers will have at me for mixing evolutionary metaphors) and change their packaging slightly each time. Our science foundation approach should neutralise them all. Given this rationale, we will be focussing on observations more than projections. -
DSL at 07:00 AM on 6 September 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Then again, maybe Hearlek is right. Salby may publish something very different after having the science of the presentation demolished in an unusually public (for him) way. To add to what Dikran said, if Salby has discovered any of these conditions, he should only submit to Nature or Science, as those discoveries would take many disciplines by surprise. I doubt if he has, though, because if he had, he would already have shared the information with his fellow climate scientists. He wouldn't wait for final publication. One wonders where Salby turned for feedback before he went public with the presentation. -
Riccardo at 05:51 AM on 6 September 2011OA not OK: Booklet available
Great resource. Thank you. -
John Hartz at 04:27 AM on 6 September 2011OA not OK: Booklet available
Kudos on a job well done! -
muoncounter at 03:59 AM on 6 September 2011Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
Sphaerica#5: Extremes? Nah, its the new normal. From Jeff Masters, 5 Sept: "I do not believe I have ever seen a site with a long period of record, like Shreveport, where records go back to 1874, break its warmest single month on record by an astonishing 3°. This is unheard of. Usually when a site breaks its single month temperature record, we are talking about tenths of a degree, rarely a whole degree, let alone 3 degrees!" There seems to be a wall shutting moisture out:
And that is 'just' a tropical storm.
-
Camburn at 03:58 AM on 6 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
And remember, I am always harping about the error bars and that they must be taken into account when stateing anything relevent. When I read a paper, I want to see those error bars, digest the ramifications of those error bars and go from there in my decission as to the validty of the conclusion. -
Camburn at 03:56 AM on 6 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Sphaerica: From the awards, the tenure of both Dr. Lindzen and Dr. North, to say they are saying nonsense rather than being factual is quit a statement. Both are emminent if the climate science field. Dr. Lindzen thinks the senseativity is low, while Dr. North thinks it is higher. Think what you like, but these are two experts in the field, who present some of what is known and some of what is not known. -
John Hartz at 02:57 AM on 6 September 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
However, the fact is that Huntsman is barely registering in most polls, and the leading candidates in the Republican party are successful in part precisely because they are voicing an opinion that runs counter to expertise. For many in the US, expertise has taken on a negative cultural value; experts are part of an elite that thinks it knows better than the average citizen. (This is accurate, for what it's worth.) Very few object to that sort of expertise when it comes time to, say, put the space shuttle into orbit, but expertise can become a problem when the experts have reached a consensus that runs against cultural values. And, for many in our society, scientific expertise has done just that. Abstinence-only sex education has been largely ineffective. Carbon emissions are creating a risk of climate change. Humanity originated via an evolutionary process. All of these findings have threatened various aspects of people's cultural identity. By rejecting both the science and the expertise behind it, candidates can essentially send a signal that says, "I'm one of you, and I'm with you where it counts." Source: ” Political science: why rejecting expertise has become a campaign strategy (and why it scares me)" by John Timmer, ars technica, Sep 4, 2011 -
Bob Lacatena at 02:50 AM on 6 September 2011Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
And yet at the same time (note the area of extreme lack of precipitation in the southern USA in the map above) CNN has this to say about the fires in Texas:Texas is battling its worst fire season in state history. A record 3.5 million acres have burned since the start of the season in November.
More extreme whether. But I'm sure the two aren't related at all to climate change. No sir. That would be alarmist. -
muoncounter at 02:13 AM on 6 September 2011Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
Seems like some duplication from the prior 'pothole' thread. Any way to combine the two so as not to lose the existing comments there? But it looks like some folks were predicting heavier rain and more snow back in 2006. Some scientists predict severe weather events will be even more extreme over the next few decades -- more snow, harder rain, and hotter heat waves. ... Computer models based on nine different countries' climate data indicate every country will be hit with climate change throughout this century. Computer models got it right? Astounding. Oh bad news, the quote is 'every country;' the 'skeptics' will be sure to point to Lichtenstein or Brunei or some equally tiny spot as proof this prediction was 'wrong.' -
Pete Dunkelberg at 01:30 AM on 6 September 2011Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
How many places received excessive precipitation? Check Colorado Bob's list. Rain isn't everything. Snow is precipitation too. -
John Russell at 01:26 AM on 6 September 2011Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
@Badgersouth. Red=warmer, blue=colder; or am I being too logical? -
John Hartz at 00:54 AM on 6 September 2011NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
Color code needed for the twin globe insert of first graphic.Response:[DB] Color scale added from the JPL website.
-
John Hartz at 00:51 AM on 6 September 2011Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
Color code needed for the twin globe insert of first graphic.Response:[DB] Color scale added from the JPL website.
-
Bob Lacatena at 00:48 AM on 6 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
37, Camburn, I'm sorry, but I think the presentations are nonsense (although they were too long and boring to watch all the way through). As you say they are in a very calm and gentlemanly way distorting the facts and trying to focus entirely on every ounce of doubt they can generate. That is not presenting the science, as you imply, that is an unbalanced effort that ignores the vast majority information we have available to instead focus on every trivial complication they can think of to exaggerate the level of doubt. If you listen to such nonsense instead of reading everything you can then you are getting a fragment of the picture and you are going to make incorrect judgments. I could put together very similar and gentlemanly presentations arguing that man should never have developed airplanes or tried to cure diseases or improve agriculture. Such presentations would deserve the same amount of attention as the one to which you have linked. -
John Hartz at 23:42 PM on 5 September 2011SkS Weekly Digest #14
@Bern #1: Thanks for the positive feedback. Suggestions for improving the Weekly Digest are most welcome. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:56 PM on 5 September 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
103, hearlek,It might be worth waiting until you can see whats in the envelope before you comment.
It might be worth it if "skeptical" climate scientists like Salby and Spencer engaged in science instead of grandstanding and PR. If they are going to engage in the latter, however, they are going to be soundly debunked at every turn where their presentations are a flawed. Flawed presentations will yield corrections and derision. Flawed papers will yield (as in the case of Spencer and Lindzen) correcting papers. Each response will be fairly quick, as is appropriate to each transgression. To imply that Salby's foolish presentation should be allowed to stand uncontested because he did so before releasing his paper is absurd. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:51 PM on 5 September 2011NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
14, enSKog, The surface waters that you are talking about mixing (which doesn't really occur much, instead an area of warm/cold water displaces or overlays an area of cold/warm water, exposing more of one or the other -- look more into the mechanics behind ENSO events here and here and here, among other places) pertain to only the upper tens of meters of water, in an ocean that can be kilometers deep in some places, I think you can see that any such expansion is trivial. As little mixing is actually occurring and it is only in the uppermost fraction of the ocean any expansion/contraction that might occur is trivial. Over long time frames, thermal expansion and ice melt are raising ocean levels. As explained in the post, over shorter time frames the (very) temporary movement of water from the ocean to land can result in a marked drop in sea level. -
hearlek at 22:15 PM on 5 September 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
It might be worth waiting until you can see whats in the envelope before you comment.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Unless there is evidence that the carbon cycle is not essentially closed and large amounts of CO2 are dissapearing from the atmosphere without being taken up by the natural environment, Salby's conclusion in incorrect. Salby's paper is not the first along these lines, and sadly I suspect it won't be the last. The probability that Salby is as wrong as his predecessors is substantially greater than the probability that he has a proof that the carbon cycle is not a closed system. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 21:50 PM on 5 September 2011NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
How many places had excessive rain? Ask Colorado Bob. You do recall Benin and Togo being under water don't you? Recall too that excessive precipitation is not always rain. Hint: winter. -
Mark Harrigan at 21:24 PM on 5 September 2011OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Thanks Doug for a wonderful, comprehensive summary of the complex chemistry here (well complex to me at least - I'm just a poor physicist). Now, it may be beyond the scope of what you set out to do but are there any plans to explore further implications, particularly the biological and food chain impacts, of what the projected range of increased acidification might produce? I have heard it said many times that OA is the "sleeping gorilla" of fossil fuel based CO2 emissions and that, in some ways, it is more worrying than increased average temperatures and the associated weather pattern changes. It is certainly seldom taked about in the press. Would welcome any comments from you or the moderators. -
nautilus_mr at 20:58 PM on 5 September 2011CO2 is just a trace gas
Great post Sarah. I must admit this particular skeptical argument does my head in. The most extreme possible example must be that of atomic weapons. It is estimated that no more than 1000 milligrams of matter was converted to energy during the detonation of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. That is, even by my most conservative rough estimate, no more than 0.0000000004ppm of the combined weight of land and buildings destroyed by the blast.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] According to Wikipedia Little Boy (the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) weighed 4,400 kg, of which 64 kg was uranium, less than 1kg of which underwent nuclear fission, of which 600 mg was transformed into energy, which if I have calculated correctly is about 100 ppb of the mass of the bomb alone. -
enSKog at 19:46 PM on 5 September 2011NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
Given that mixing warm water (SST about 25C) with cold (deep ocean about 5C) leads to a decrease in volume, could anyone comment on the idea that La Nina events cause increased mixing? There would also, of course, be a link to energy budgets and OHC. -
Albatross at 15:05 PM on 5 September 2011NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
A sign of an accelerating hydrological cycle, but with a twist? -
Stephen Leahy at 14:37 PM on 5 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
North Dakota fracking blowout - Killdeer ND, sept 2010 http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/09/03/denbury-leak-idUKN0324715520100903 It's a desperate job rush in the Bakken where many of America's newly unemployed scrabble for any work at all. Not a pretty sight. From the AP with pix. -
Bern at 14:13 PM on 5 September 2011SkS Weekly Digest #14
"NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas" is listed both in the "Week in Review" and "Coming Soon" sections... Lots of good content, and I like the 'toon. :-DModerator Response: Correction made. Thank you. Badgersouth -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:59 PM on 5 September 2011An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
It's pretty clear from Figure 1A that there is an inferred linear feedback relationship from rising temperature to TOA radiation, or positive cloud feedback. That the support is weak is obvious from the diagram, but that weak support collapses into nothing as soon as one considers the internal forcing of ENSO on clouds. One mechanism, suggested by "Chief Hydrologist" at Judy Curry's site was sulfides. A quick look shows that to be a forcing but both anthropogenic and natural. The natural papers seem to be old. The anthro papers seem to be modern such as "Nonlinear Aspects of the Climate Response to Greenhouse Gas and Aerosol Forcing" by Feichter and Roeckner. Regardless of origin, they are both forcings that at the very least add noise to that scatterplot if not some sort of bias. The paper also points out that the aerosol-temperature feedback is very nonlinear. There appear to be papers that simultaneously support and counter Dessler's conclusions, such as ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu/pub/breth/papers/2007/Zhu-etal-LowCldClimSens-JGR-2007.pdf That paper shows a negative correlation of clouds to SST (bottom of Fig 1), but also shows that other ENSO effects such as changes in circulation patterns have an even bigger effect on clouds than SST ((see top row in Fig 12). -
muoncounter at 12:40 PM on 5 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Eric#34: "Jonathon does not have "confirmation bias" since he did not read the paper (never mind the critiques), That's about the best example of bias imaginable - to have confirmed a pre-conceived opinion without even reading the paper! "just ignorance." Watch the ad homs! "I believe S&B11 is "correct" as far as the data goes, but the data cannot be used to draw any conclusions" How can an author be 'correct' if they use data in a manner for which it is not intended? Isn't that a bit like trying to measure your height with a thermometer? "what Spencer says on his blog is quite different from that or the paper." This practice is destructive to good science. Write a questionable paper, then say whatever you want about it in a forum that you regulate. The echo chamber picks it up and repeats it; soon it is accepted as 'true.' A prime example of garbage in, garbage out. -
Camburn at 12:19 PM on 5 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Jonathan@26: Wagner was upset enough that he sent an appology to Dr. Trenbeth. Something just doesn't add up in all of this. I hope it blows over quickly. -
Camburn at 12:16 PM on 5 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Eric@34: I caught up reading the comments. S&B was not a good paper either. The only good to come out of S&B is the seeming acceptance of satillite measurements as being accurate as I have not read a criticism of them anywhere. I just got done listening to a video of a presentation at Rice University. I am going to post the link, I don't know if it is applicable to this thread, part of it is. It deals with a host of climate issues. Presentation by Dr. Lindzen and Dr. North @ Rice I hope the link will stand as it is a very candid, gentlemanly presentation by two climate scientists. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:15 PM on 5 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Thanks Camburn. My view hasn't changed much from that old thread and I'll comment on that there. -
Camburn at 12:09 PM on 5 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Eric@34: Yes, I read Dessler's 2010 paper. I found numerous questions concerning his conclusions. It has been awhile since I read it, but I just remember that nothing conclusive at all could be derived from it. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:00 PM on 5 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Jonathon does not have "confirmation bias" since he did not read the paper (never mind the critiques), just ignorance. Camburn, have you read the paper and Dessler's? I believe S&B11 is "correct" as far as the data goes, but the data cannot be used to draw any conclusions about long term (or short term) sensitivity. I critiqued Dessler 2010 for somewhat similar reasons on a thread last December http://www.skepticalscience.com/an-even-cloudier-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html although I started with the wrong model and a few other mistakes. I though that "Chief Hydrologist" summed the situation up pretty well on Judy Curry's site:"Dessler 2010 assumed that cloud changes were a feedback to ENSO related temperature changes – and calculated a global warming cloud feedback . Spencer and Braswell found using lagged relationships that the ENSO cloud radiative forcing came before the temperature change – and therefore there was little scope to calculate cloud feedback as it was not possible to distinguish AGW cloud feedback from natural ‘unforced’ variability. Changes in cloud are an ENSO feedback involving changes in ocean/atmosphere coupling and likely to respond, as well, to changes in dimethyl sulphide emissions from phytoplankton." However, what Spencer says on his blog is quite different from that or the paper. He makes the claim I quoted above starting with "Now, if we assume...". That claim is unsupportable.
Prev 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 Next
