Recent Comments

Prev  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  Next

Comments 76801 to 76850:

76801. garethman at 17:31 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Eric the Red at 13:11 PM on 21 August, 2011 garethman, So far, there is no official polar bear death attributed to climate change (even those found drowned), so do not hold your breath with regards to a citation. Polar bear populations are difficult enough to document, let alone the logistics of each death. Numbers are difficult to attribute to climate change, since hunting (and other human encounters) have had the greatest impact on their numbers. The increase in the past few decades is largely attributed to the international hunting ban Many thanks Eric, I thought I’d missed some important information.
76802. Tom Curtis at 17:29 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       guingenbresil, I have responded here and here.
76803. Tom Curtis at 17:28 PM on 21 August 2011
       CO2 effect is saturated
       Guigenbresil asks a wholes series of questions to show that Harries 2001 is based on localized conditions both temporally and spatially and excludes common meteorological conditions. However, those questions miss the point. Haries 2001 is not trying to determine a global energy balance, or to show the strength of the greenhouse effect. Indeed, if the strength of the greenhouse effect is understood as the climate sensitivity of doubling CO2, the type of observations by Harries even if truly global would not be able to determine that strength. As explained above, what Harries was trying to do is to provide empirical proof that there is an enhanced green house effect. And to show that, all he needs to show is that increasing GHG concentrations results in reduced emissions in the wavelengths of their emission/absorption. As the greenhouse gases are well mixed, ie, their concentrations anywhere on Earth closely approximate each other, if there is an enhance greenhouse effect over the central Pacific, there will also be an enhanced greenhouse effect over the Arctic, or anywhere else. Finally, Guigenbresil writes:

       "So the increasing CO2 changes the OLR spectrum, but since the system is essentially in a quasi-equilibrium when averaged spatially and temporally, the integrated spectrum would have essentially the same total value so you wouldn't expect to see it as a drop in measured total OLR. "

       Not quite, or at least, not true until the equilibrium response to increased GHG concentrations is reached. It takes decades to reach the equilibrium climate sensitivity after increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas. During those decades, we expect the OLR on average to be slightly less than the incoming short wave radiation, and hence slightly less than the equilibrium OLR. However, during that periods, sometimes the Earth will have hotter years and sometimes colder. In hotter years its OLR will be greater, causing it to cool. In colder years, it will be smaller, causing the Earth to warm. These fluctuations can exceed the disequilibrium between OLR and ISR introduced by increased GHG concentrations. So, if you compare a La Nina year with an El Nino year, you cannot say the OLR has increase and therefore there is no enhanced green house effect. You need to take an average over a reasonable period to eliminate the noise introduced by annual fluctuations in surface temperature.
76804. Doug Mackie at 17:23 PM on 21 August 2011
       OA not OK part 18: Been this way before
       NOAA posted this on the oyster story (in April IIRC). Also Richard Feely (who popped in to the comments for post 12) testified before the Committee on Science and Technology subcommittee on Energy and Environment U.S. House of Representatives. Hearing on a rational discussion of climate change: The science, the evidence, the response. November 17, 2010. You can read about it here . Don't be afraid - because it is testimony to politicians it is, shall we say, level appropriate. I'm not going to spoil a good story by giving away the ending but it is fair to say that there are a couple of villains, one of which goes by the initials OA.
76805. Tom Curtis at 17:11 PM on 21 August 2011
       CO2 effect is saturated
       Following a tip from DB, I am responding to Guigenbresil here. Guigenbresil objects to Harries 2001 because it uses clear sky spectra rather than all sky spectra. The problem with not using clear sky spectra is a problem of interpretation. Consider the spectrum from the thunderstorm anvil in figure C below. The important thing here is not that it obscures the radiation from all Green House Gases below the stratosphere, but that it radiates with an approximately equal brightness temperature across the whole spectrum. That means that if you do not have clear skies, IR radiation from clouds across the spectrum will be significant. They may or may not obscure the absorption band for any particular greenhouse gas. Whether it does or not will depend on the altitude of the cloud and the effective altitude of emission for that particular greenhouse gas,ie, the average altitude from which IR photons emitted from that gas escape to space. But because the emissions from the clouds come from across the spectrum, and in particular the wavelengths at which various GHG emit photons, it will become difficult, or even impossible in the presence of clouds to determine how much of the reduction in emissions at those wavelengths is due to the increased concentration of a Green House Gas, and how much is due to the cloud. The point is that Harries is trying to detect any reduction in emissions due to increase green house gas concentrations, if there are any such reductions. Therefore like any good scientist he uses data that restricts the number of independent variables which might obscure the relationship he is looking for. The problem appears to be that you are looking for some sort of silver bullet approach to science, and that is not how science works. Well, occasionally it is. The graphs above are cast iron proof that Green House Gases effect the Earth's energy balance, and hence that there is a greenhouse effect. They do not by themselves show how strong that greenhouse effect is, and nor do they show that the greenhouse effect will be strengthened by increasing the concentration of Green House Gases. Haries has found proof that increasing the concentration of GHG does increase the strength of the greenhouse effect, ie, the CO2 is not saturated and that their is an enhanced green house effect. You seem to want him to also show exactly the strength of the enhanced greenhouse effect, but he cannot do that with the data provided, and nor does he try to. He is only attempting to show, and does show, one thing - that enhancing GHG concentrations reduces top of atmosphere emissions in the wavelength of absorption/emission by those Green House Gases. You would be astonished at how many denialist arguments are falsified by that simple observation.
76806. Rickoxo at 16:25 PM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Sphaerica, I'm not at all saying that Doran has anything to do with climate science. Both he and Anderegg did a great job of saying their papers were about describing the state of the field and added nothing to the research base on climate science. I'm not saying anything different if that's what you're pointing out. But what I was trying to say in the quote you cited was that Doran (2009) was given by people at this site as evidence of the GWS position that there is overwhelming consensus for GWS science. I haven't disproved anything about actual science, but Doran's wording is too simple to argue against. "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" He didn't say which direction, he didn't define human activity and significant contributing factor says nothing about how much of a factor. In academic writing, significant is a term with precise and unequivocal meaning, it is not used in the more common place sense of important or substantial. Tests for significance are important in research and knowing that human activity is a significant contributing factor is great, but it says nothing about the degree to which it's a contributing factor or the role played by human activity in climate change. When Doran writes that debate in GWS over the role played by human activity is non-existant, that might be true, but he didn't provide any evidence for that statement. He could cite someone else, Anderegg maybe, but he didn't give evidence in favor of that statement. It's no big deal to do a bad survey or to have to chuck pieces of evidence that was supposed to argue in favor of your position but doesn't turn out to in the long run. It's a big deal if the peer-review community tries to say that a bad survey is still legitimate because the idea it's saying it found evidence for is corroborated in other places. I get that the quote at the end of Doran, the one about the debate being non-existent is a powerful quote, it's well written, it's clear, it's direct and it might even be true. But he didn't provide evidence it was true so to cite him as evidence opens you up to getting ridiculed for citing bad research in support of your positions.
76807. Rickoxo at 15:58 PM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       DB on Anderegg, so your question is totally valid and I completely agree (as well as with DSL's examples) that the huge bulk of evidence is on your side. I'm not debating that. A big part of what I'm trying to do in this thread is get at the question of consensus around the issue of the science being settled. Is there consensus on that and if so, what does that mean? So here's what hits me as the critical issue. If the science is "settled" in the way I hear Dana1981 saying, then it is logically impossible for anyone to be a climate scientist who doesn't agree with GWS. The degree to which they disagree with GWS demonstrates their lack of expertise in climate science. There are no possible legitimate alternative interpretations of the data. The other option is that 90% of climate scientists (according to Anderegg (2010) evaluate the current evidence and are convinced that GWS has the most explanatory power, fits the data most accurately and can answer the most arguments against it. But, 10% of legitimate climate scientists aren't convinced of that and have evidence-based reasons why not. Their disagreement doesn't indicate a lower degree of expertise. They could be less expert for all sorts of other reasons, but disagreement with GWS doesn't indicate lower or complete lack of expertise. The big difference between the two and why I chose Newton's laws as an example, in option 1, disagreeing with F = MA for simple motion (I'm not talking about relativistic motion) demonstrates you don't know physics and everyone who knows physics knows that. In option 2, the climate scientists who are in the 90% camp can understand the logic and reasoning of the 10% scientists, they don't consider them frauds, myths peddlers or oil company shills, they get that the evidence is not entirely conclusive and there are legitimate alternative explanations, albeit ones that the huge majority of the climate science community finds unconvincing. But those are sooooooooo different. At this site, it mostly seems like group 1. How do you know if someone is a legitimate scientist, they accept GWS. Anyone who doesn't is a myth peddler. So, can a legitimate climate scientist look at all the evidence currently available, and come to a scientifically valid conclusion that disagrees with IPCC? Again, I'm not talking disagreeing that the planet has warmed since 1800 or does CO2 affect the climate. But let's say with the single premise, "we can quantify the amount of warming human activity is causing, and verify that we're responsible for essentially all of the global warming over the past 3 decades?" Could a legitimate climate scientist disagree with that statement and not be a fraud, myth peddler or oil company shill? Could other climate scientists who think we have caused all the warming look at the reasoning used by the skeptic and agree that it is valid reasoning because the data are not entirely conclusive?
76808. scaddenp at 15:56 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       guinganbresil - Doesn't this belong in The CO2 effect is saturated?"
76809. guinganbresil at 15:49 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Sphaerica @75, I think my big issue hinges on the window region 800-1200 cm^-1. From my understanding of the spectra and the atmosphere, this window region will vary greatly depending on the cloud fraction and cloud top temperature. This is not evident in the frequently cited graphs since they are almost exclusively for clear-sky conditions. Are there any papers on the behavior of this emission spectrum over non-clear sky conditions that might give better insight into how this spectral change due to CO₂ translates into temperature change on a local or global scale? It is treated almost as a given that increasing CO₂ translates into increasing average temperatures, but it seems just as plausible that it could show up as a change in average cloud fraction, cloud altitude, or time of the onset of afternoon thunderstorms - all would impact the average OLR over the window region, and thus total OLR...
76810. guinganbresil at 14:59 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Tom Curtis @70, Cogent explanation. So the increasing CO₂ changes the OLR spectrum, but since the system is essentially in a quasi-equilibrium when averaged spatially and temporally, the integrated spectrum would have essentially the same total value so you wouldn't expect to see it as a drop in measured total OLR. I will have to think about that. Would you agree that the work of Harries 2001, Griggs 2004 & Chen 2007 covers only: 1 - The Central Pacific Region (108N-108S, 130W-180W)- not the whole globe? 2 - The spectral range 710-1,400 cm^-1 which is only about half the IR emission range of the Earth? 3 - The Clear-Sky condition, so does not look at the effect of clouds? 4 - Covers only the months April, May and June? 5 - Covers snapshots in 1970, 1997, 2003 and 2006 only? Would you also agree that they show an decrease in the spectrum over time in the CO₂ band due to increasing CO₂ concentrations, but does not show that this spectral change translates into a change in overall outgoing radiation?
76811. jyyh at 14:51 PM on 21 August 2011
       OA not OK part 18: Been this way before
       I was a bit shocked by the 'Great Oyster Crash'-story just published (http://www.onearth.org/article/oyster-crash-ocean-acidification). It took 3 years to rule out any diseases as the reason for this and the solution of the oyster larva producer was to take surface water for them since the bottom water had become too acidic for the larvae.
76812. Bob Lacatena at 14:42 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       73, guinganbresil,

       I agree with the first part, but the temperature would only change if the total energy balance tilts in the direction of warming...

       I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "total energy balance tilts in the direction of warming." That entire phrase is nonsensical to me, but I think what you mean to say is exactly what is expected to happen, what is happening, and what has been observed. It's very simple. Radiation is emitted from the earth in a perfect, unblemished spectrum. Picture that perfect curve. Add gases that block certain bands and they create notches in that spectrum. But the earth must still emit that much energy, so the entire curve has to shift up, so that the area under the curve (i.e. the total energy emitted) matches that of the original, unblemished curve. In this way, emissions at TOA continue to equal incoming radiation, but the way that this happens is for the planet to warm. More radiation in one band is blocked, so the entire planet warms and radiation in all bands increases just enough to compensate.
76813. Bob Lacatena at 14:26 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       15, Barry, I suspect the difference is in counting by tons of carbon versus tons of CO2. Atomic weight of CO2 = 12 + (2 * 16) = 44. Atomic weight of C = 12. 30 tons * (12 / 44) = 8 tons. It's just a guess, though.
76814. Bob Lacatena at 14:20 PM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       420, Rickoxo,

       ...folks here need to be able to let go of arguments that don't support the GWS position.

       That's true, and I for one will be more than happy to do so when you find such an argument and make an adequate case. You have completely and totally failed to do so here.
76815. barry1487 at 13:41 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       Nice to see Denning go on the offensive in this way. Maybe a risky strategy, but I enjoyed it. CO2 "emits heat"? I winced when that popped up. That was not a good bit of rhetoric. There is an apparent discrepancy between his values on CO2 emissions (8 billion tons emitted, 4 billion tons remaining after absorption) and that given at skepticalscience (30 billion tons emitted, 15 billion tons remaining after absorption). That's a four-fold difference. What gives?
76816. Rickoxo at 13:35 PM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       What an abundance of comments. Stepping back from the issue of consensus and GWS for a second, part of what I'm trying to find here is the nature of the argumentation. Again, I didn't bring up Doran, I had never heard of it, but it was used as evidence by people here that there is consensus. DSL, the word significant is not open to interpretation in research journals, it only has one meaning, and Doran knows what it is. The words of Doran's second question are exceptionally clear. But by asking about significance and not the strength of the effect, his survey gives no useful information. I would offer that the worst thing to do with a bad survey is attempt to "interpret" it so that it accomplishes what you wished it would have on its own. I get there's a lot more evidence in favor of consensus and tons of evidence about GWS I haven't begun to look at, but for this piece, can folks admit its not evidence and doesn't support the positions of this site? If you want to ask skeptics to let go of arguments that don't support their skeptic position then folks here need to be able to let go of arguments that don't support the GWS position.
76817. muoncounter at 13:17 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       Dave123#12: "surely must inspire people in Heartland" Heartland Institute is trumpeting Lindzen and Choi's rewrite -- and WUWT's enthusiastic cheering for it. I'd say they are willing to continue wasting evertone's time, fighting for Denning's last few decimal points.
76818. grypo at 13:13 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       Oh, yeah, I'm sure he recognizes there is certain amount of the "C" category that just can't be engaged. No communication effort is going to be perfect, but I think highlighting this one is important. It shows that are ways to get through to people by speaking about what is important to them. Let's ask ourselves, "what's important to the Heartland crowd?" The answer, "free-market solutions". What is at risk if they do not get involved. "The free market". Sure, they can gamble that they'll continue to win the small battles of putting off policy, but do they really believe it is an effective way to win the "war"? He even put a face on the enemy. "Greenpeace." :) I think this is a really good starting for some kind of bridge.
76819. Eric the Red at 13:11 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       garethman, So far, there is no official polar bear death attributed to climate change (even those found drowned), so do not hold your breath with regards to a citation. Polar bear populations are difficult enough to document, let alone the logistics of each death. Numbers are difficult to attribute to climate change, since hunting (and other human encounters) have had the greatest impact on their numbers. The increase in the past few decades is largely attributed to the international hunting ban.
76820. Dave123 at 12:51 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       11 Grypo- these cognitive options for heartland- a. Agree that Denning describes the truth about the science and thus the need to affect public policy b. Agree that he's right about the politics and therefor engage public policy as if they believe the science c. Continue to believe he is wrong on the science, and believe that they can prevail over anyone trying to enact public policy. For those not in the US, the recent exercise in breath-holding tantrums about the debt ceiling surely must inspire people in Heartland that they can be successful with option C.
76821. DSL at 12:43 PM on 21 August 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       News yesterday: NASA finishes the first Antarctic ice flow speed map.
76822. Alex C at 12:20 PM on 21 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Let's not let the thread get derailed again, there was already a decent sized strain that was removed from before. Newton's third law of motion, whether demonstrated wrong by the collapse of World Trade Center 1 or not (or, whether the "official line" contradicts the third law; I sympathize with dcruzuri's stance on the issue in any case), is only meant as an analogy. As to the third law being applicable here, unless you go from a mathematical perspective it is not appropriate to compare a mathematical law to derived theory. As to whether settled science is simply enough, no it's not. When much of the fight "skeptics" put up though revolves around propagating imaginary "uncertainty" in the science, pulling in the rope and hanging these issues up by their balls is a good start. I also don't think anyone here has implied that this is the only necessary step for swaying public opinion, so your anger (if you will) funglestrumpet toward AGW proponents is I think unfounded.
76823. grypo at 11:46 AM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       I think people are missing an important point. Using Denning's logic, policy will be enacted. It doesn't matter at what speed the thermometer rises in the next few years. What he is trying to tell his audience is that, whether they believe that warming will be slow or even doesn't come to pass, the rest of the world believes the climate is changing. So if they want to effect the policy that is enacted, they need to get involved. The human race will act on risk assessments sooner rather than later. He's telling them their bickering over how fast/slow/medium/hot/lukewarm/hockeysticks/FOIA/etc is big waste of their time.
76824. dcruzuri at 11:45 AM on 21 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       @20 Okay, funglestrumpet, you lost me on how the official explanation of the destruction of WTC1 violates Newton's third law of motion. It was a non-elastic collision (in aggregate) with the combined kinetic energy of the top 12 stories transferred to the 13th, which then collapsed, transferring even more energy to the next story, and so on, all the way to the ground. Introductory mechanics was a long time ago, but I don't see a problem with this.
76825. funglestrumpet at 10:38 AM on 21 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       You would think that Newton's third law of motion was settled science. After all, it was first proposed over 300 years ago and has been verified by countless experiments since. Yet the official line on 9/11 is that 12 stories of WTC1 managed to destroy the 93 stories below it simply due to gravity, in direct contradiction to said third law. You can't get simpler than that. It is worrying that the public have been convinced that Newton was wrong and I rather fear that they have also been convinced in large number about Climate Change, which is infinitly more complicated. The really sad thing is that this site appears to think that defeating the skeptic's/denier's arguments is enough. At least if my efforts to try and widen its scope and thus reach a much wider readership are anything to go by. Until this side of the fence is at least as effective at influencing public opinion as the likes of Monckton (and they say vauderville is dead) and those like him, then it matters not a flying act of copulation how ****ing settled the science is while the policies remain almost unchanged. As things are, future generations are bound to suffer and the descendants of Monckton, Watts etc. will simply say that the lack of action to combat climate change is not of their doing. The science of this site is very impressive, as is its general structure. Furthermore, the standard of the comments is generally constructive, except when the odd looney gets in. (Yeah, I can guess that I might be in a glasshouse on that one.) But is it enough that the science is settled if nothing political comes of it? No one on this side of the fence needs reminding that time is running out, not for us maybe, but for those that will follow, certainly.
76826. adelady at 10:22 AM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       Tom, I think part of the problem with Denning's presentation on this is that he is putting the science on one side and their claimed economic beliefs on the other. And skipping a lot of relevant details of both in the process. The big detail omitted on the economic side is that someone presenting this needs to argue that the highly acclaimed 'free' market stance must, by definition, be opposed to all government subsidies and other official support. His biggest advantage here was also his biggest problem. He's a scientist not an economist. Perhaps next time he needs a partner with other expertise to argue the case more convincingly. This audience should favour eliminating all forms of government support for any industry. If they hang onto the idea that government should continue subsidising, supporting or giving tax breaks to coal or oil or nuclear or Granny's hand-knitted woollies, they have to be called out on it explicitly. Denning can't do that.
76827. guinganbresil at 10:19 AM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       CBDunkerson, Tom Dayton, Sphaerica - Thanks for engaging... CBDunkerson says: "what happens is that energy in the GHG bands is blocked from escaping and remains within the climate system... which causes the climate system to be warmer..." I agree with the first part, but the temperature would only change if the total energy balance tilts in the direction of warming...
76828. Andy Skuce at 10:15 AM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       LazyTeenager@60 Yes, I use "skeptic" also because it sets a high standard that nearly all climate "skeptics" fail to meet. It's strange that certain "skeptics" get so wound up about being called "deniers" of AGW when what they do, in fact, is deny AGW. This is particularly odd when nobody prominent (to my knowledge) has ever explicitly likened them to Holocaust deniers. Where it gets really weird is when "skeptics" remain silent when one of their number likens climate scientists to the perpetrators of the Holocaust. In the real world, people who deny war crimes get derided and booed; people who actually commit them get tried and severely punished. Yet,some "skeptics" think it's an outrage to be even accidentally compared to the former group, while they think it's only fair to liken their opponents to the latter, far worse, category.
76829. Tom Curtis at 10:04 AM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       I was going to say what an impressive presentation it was (and it is), but: 1) "CO2 emits heat" is a phrase no denier worth their salt would hesitate at jumping all over to dismiss. With climate deniers bandying about all sorts of absurd arguments about how climate scientists get the physics wrong, why is Denning handing out ammunition like that; 2) For his target audience, Denning absolutely needs to bridge the gap between "is getting warmer" to "will cause wide spread economic harm". Many deniers will equate "is getting wamer" with "is getting better", and most of those that don't will take the (older) Lomborg line that any cure is worse than the disease; and 3) His concentration on the potential growth of China and India will feed straight into the denier claims that we (the US, or Australia) should not agree to limit our emissions until China and India agree to equivalent absolute (not per capita) limits on their emissions. China and India, of course, will never agree to that until (and if) the economic cost of renewable power becomes so low that it becomes a non-issue. Those issues are minor compared to what I consider to be the fundamental flaw to Denning's approach. The fact is that most Libertarian's and other extreme free market/small government protagonists are deniers is because their political/economic philosophy in fact can provide no solutions to problems such as global warming. The only solution (and it is a good one if it could be realized) that they can offer is that market forces will rapidly substitute renewable for fossil fuel energy when renewable energy becomes significantly cheaper than fossil fuel energy. Beyond that, they cannot even support market solutions like emissions trading schemes because those markets must be contrived by governments. Therefore Denning faces a problem with his approach. It might be an effective approach with right leaning mainstream Americans, but he has not channel to communicate with them. But with Libertarians and fellow travelers, it is doomed to failure. They will only take home three messages from his effort: 1) A genuine climate scientist is taking our gurus seriously, therefore our gurus position is reasonable; 2) Genuine climate scientists don't want to debate the nitty-gritty of the science, ergo they must know they cannot win on that basis; and 3) The only effective policy response to increasing CO2 must come from the American right, and therefore the correct response is the one we are offering. In other words, for all his good intentions, Denning will have only validated in their minds their opposition to genuine means of tackling climate change.
76830. muoncounter at 09:42 AM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       Dave123#7: "watch for signs of them agreeing to Denny's logic?" I wouldn't hold my breath. Read some of the later comments in the Yale forum, Talking up daily “what ifs” and trying to tout the “gravity” of climate change will never change the fact that science, real science, will always prove them wrong. Science is falsifiable and the AGW claims are not falsifiable and thus not science. AGW is junk science based on two hockeystick graphs for temperature and CO2, which are both bogus, and on climate computer models that are so flawed it’s laughable that we actually have paid these clowns billions for such crappy work and products. Yawn. Same old same old. As Prof. Denning brilliantly pointed out in the video, "Physics doesn't care what you believe." I want that on a tee shirt.
76831. Tom Curtis at 09:32 AM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Guinganbresil @65, you may have misunderstood the index, but I did not. What I objected to is a false claim that SkS was personalizing the issue presented as an objection to an index of denier myths. Given the vicious way in which the deniers have personalized the issue, to object to having their pseudo-scientific views clearly identified on the grounds that is is "personalizing the issue" is too much hypocrisy for me to swallow. Having said that, I certainly agree with you that it is reasonable, and there is every reason to believe it will be done to SkS's usual high standards.
76832. Tom Curtis at 09:23 AM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Guinganbresil @64, under an enhanced greenhouse effect due to increasing greenhouse gases, and before the temperature has increased to match the equilibrium climate sensitivity, we expect that: 1) Globally and temporally averaged, the OLR in the GHG bands will be reduced relative to the reference; 2) Globally and temporally averaged, the OLR outside of the GHG bands will be increased relative to the reference; but that 3) Globally and temporally averaged, the area under the black body curve will be slightly reduced relative to the reference. The global and temporal averaging are important. If a particular region or year are unusually warm due to natural weather changes, that will easily overwhelm the slight reduction in outgoing power, increasing the overall OLR. If the particular region or year are unusually cool it will show a reduced OLR. Consequently, when you compare the OLR over the Central Pacific from a La Nina year (such as 1970) with that from the strongest El Nino on record (such as 1997), it is hardly surprising if the overall OLR is increased in the later case relative to the former. Even with such a comparison, however, the reduced OLR in the GHG bands can be detected, and the existence of an enhance GHE inferred. Clearly, if the reduced OLR in the GHG bands exists, than averaged over a decade, to iron out ENSO effects and solar cycles, the OLR in the non GHG bands must increase to maintain energy balance.
76833. Dave123 at 09:15 AM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       6. Sphaerica, I think right wing deniers are perfectly capable of playing the victim at any level..we're economic victims if we have to change, and if China and India and the rest of the world creates global warming, well we're their victim in that case. I doubt they care about raising living standards around the world...that's a lip service thing with them. They primarily care about themselves (as do we all). And they are perfectly capable of kidding themselves, we know this because they have been. So shall we watch for signs of them agreeing to Denny's logic? That's a falsifiable test after all...will Heartland come out and issue a formal endorsement?
76834. Bob Lacatena at 08:43 AM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       4, Dave123, I don't agree at all with your interpretation of his comments. His logic seemed pretty straight:
       • 2 billion more people than today will need energy (mostly India + China)
       • To fuel that will require coal and increase CO2 levels by 400% when it's done.
       • Waiting until later to have a chit in the game is too late. If that's the future they foresee and want, they need to act now... arguing about details now, and impacts at 30% CO2 increase is ignoring the real problem.
       Thinking that a 400% increase won't happen, or won't have any effects (considering what it's always meant in the past) is kidding yourself. Admittedly, I think the problem is way more serious than that, but that's where deniers are at, unfortunately. The fact is they have to confess to agreeing with that logic. No matter how much they want to dismiss climate sensitivity estimates or the meaning of a 30% increase in CO2, the reality of their position ("Burn fuel! Energy for everyone! Growth and economy!") projects out to exactly what Denning laid out. They can't have it both ways. They can't want an energy rich future and completely ignore CO2. They can ignore CO2 now, but that means giving up on the sort of energy rich future they tout. Or they can try for their energy rich future but that means addressing CO2 now (and finding alternate sources). They can't have both.
76835. renewable guy at 08:37 AM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/07/scott-denning-shares-lessons-from-dialog-with-skeptics/#comment-23452 I read through the comments on the link above, and many people tried to make it political. Denny did a nice job of sticking to the physics. My response to strictly waiting for the free market to solve everything is like going into a competition with one hand behind your back. Any country you hope to compete against that has gov help of some kind, there is a tough road to compete against. Government can also be part of the tool to bring prices down.Many times the market is waiting to see what the government will do. Especially on something this big and fundamental. Government provides certainty to the investors that this will be stable.
76836. Dave123 at 08:20 AM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       3, Sphaerica- I got the emphasis on India and China...but this came across as a bit of hand waving- "what we're doing isn't a cause for alarm, it's those other guys". And while this plays to US historical racism (they aren't white over there after all) and the need of the American Right to have an external (and internal) enemy to wet the bed over, it's still a bit of eyeballing. When some Denier spews out "it's only 300 ppm, that can't have any important effect" we deride such as an argument from incredulity. Saying now isn't important but the 5-6 increase will be- "well just because it would be incredible if it didn't"- isn't the way we're supposed to play the game. Can you imagine the deniers that will sprout up in India and China, looking to their national interests and personal pocket books, parroting the Western Deniers with an added does of "Western Colonial Imperialism"? For them it will be obvious that the Western Deniers were not only right, but that those arguments can be carried to their levels of CO2 production.
76837. scaddenp at 06:33 AM on 21 August 2011
       Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
       Anthony, I might add that if you want to discuss the internals of the climate models, you might prefer to post at RealClimate.org where you are talking to the people that build them.
76838. Bob Lacatena at 06:04 AM on 21 August 2011
       Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
       14, Anthony Mills, Your assumptions about models are just that, and they are very, very, very wrong. You are so far off it's laughable. I encourage you to research things in substantially more depth before making such unsubstantiated claims, while insisting that others prove to you that they are false. You might want to read this: Introduction to Climate Dynamics and Climate Modeling The section that pertains directly to your ridiculous reference to latent heat is here in the chapter/section on heat transport. Want a basic, simple model you can use yourself, that includes latent heat? Try STELLA: Modeling Earth's Climate System with STELLA STELLA II for Mac and PC But really, it took me 75 seconds to find this stuff by googling "latent heat transport climate model". Was it really that hard for a "skeptic" to do the same? As far as a citation... how about Effects of Dynamic Heat Fluxes on Model Climate Sensitivity: Meridional Sensible and Latent Heat Fluxes I just have to say, I am so tired of "skeptics" who "know" everything because they don't bother to actually look for just a couple of minutes.
76839. Bob Lacatena at 05:46 AM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       1, Dave123,

       ...doesn't address one main line of skeptical argument- that is ok, change is coming but it will be so slow we don't need to do anything about it right now, and free market solutions can evolve on their own.

       I disagree. I think his comments on India and China were quite well made and address that point. If we do nothing now we can hardly stop China and India as their own growth accelerates, and they make the problem 6 to 7 times worse than it is today. Doing nothing now ourselves means we get no say in what they do later, and that is where the real problem lies, not in the 30% mark we're at now, but rather at the 400% mark that we're currently on target to meet or surpass.
76840. Bob Lacatena at 05:43 AM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       This is awesome. That's a smart, smart approach to dealing with skeptics. And I love the way he called them out. And he's right. As long as certain people insist on denying the facts and arguing details, they are going to get the exact opposite of what they want. The truth is the truth, and denial does them a disservice. If they don't step up to address the problem, other people will, with solutions they don't particularly like. But if they abdicate their own power by declaring that there is no problem, then they only have themselves to blame for their own impotence when the problem reaches the point of being undeniable.
76841. Bob Lacatena at 05:15 AM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       64, guinganbresil,

       Since this forms the connection between increasing CO2 and global temperatures and thus the basis for climate alarmism, this might be worth more rigorous investigation.

       Please: 1) Tell me that you understand CBDunkerson's explaination in 66. If not, visit this post: Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming and here: Empriical Evidence for Global Warming 2) Once you understand this, please openly and publicly withdraw your remark above, as well as the following:

       Or has the climate science community really built their house on this soft sand of incomplete analysis?

       In addition, in the future please demonstrate more skepticism by properly investigating issues with an open mind, rather than assuming that your are smart and all climate scientists are dumb.
76842. Anthony Mills at 04:21 AM on 21 August 2011
       Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
       scaddenp:I appreciate your comments.I simply wish to make the point that"computer climate models" do not use "solid fundamental physics"to describe some important phenomena,and should not be overrated.I took exception to Dana's statement"---climate science has aged like a fine wine" Penfolds Grange it is not! However I would like to see a citation to a latent heat transport model based on fundamental physics that has been used in a computer climate model.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Actually climate models do use "solid fundamental physics" (for example fluid dynamics) to describe "some important phenomena" (emphasis mine). The reason they are not 25 year old Laphroig cask strength (not a fan of the grape) is that they don't include all the important phenomena, and because the temporal and spatial resolution is limited by computational expense. As GEP Box said "all models are wrong, but some are useful". Current AOGCMs may not be "Penfolds Grange", but that doesn't mean they are not drinkable, or even quite palatable.
76843. Dave123 at 03:43 AM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       I suppose "CO2 emits" heat is technically correct...but will mislead in some senses, leading the usual literalist types to go off down the expected roads. (Where does CO2 get the heat it emits, playing weasel words with "trapping heat".) Actually, I rather like the dodge, but it needs more explanation. The other thing is that this initiative, worthy as it is, doesn't address one main line of skeptical argument- that is ok, change is coming but it will be so slow we don't need to do anything about it right now, and free market solutions can evolve on their own. (Not to get too political here, but I think on topic given the advocacy contents of the video ----it seems to me that the classic libertarian response to the tragedy of the commons is the privatise the commons. How you can privatize climate is beyond me, hence the need for command and control regulation that restricts a free market) Still two flaws in an otherwise interesting presentation to an intrinsically hostile audience isn't bad. It woiuld have been nice to see the Q&A. Imagine Spencer or Christy talking to us.
76844. Tom Dayton at 03:20 AM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       CB, I think confusion results unless we state more explicitly what you stated implicitly: Total energy loss to space across all wavelengths does decrease temporarily in response to increase of greenhouse gas insulation of infrared wavelengths. That temporary decrease is what causes the extra energy to accumulate, which manifests as greater temperature, which then causes an exactly compensatory increase in total outgoing radiation across all wavelengths. But in practice we don't expect to measure such a distinct step-set of stimulus-response changes in outgoing total radiation. Changes in greenhouse gas insulation are continuous rather than discrete, and the resulting increases in temperature are continuous and instantaneous. Further smearing of the radiation response times is done by the existence of the various energy sinks such as the oceans, and noise from the large number of influences over incoming and outgoing radiation other than greenhouse gases. Finally, when the temperature increases, the system's attempt to emit more radiation is not restricted to non-infrared wavelengths. If greenhouse gases do not block 100% of a given wavelength, then an attempted increase in radiation at that wavelength can cause some successful increase at that wavelength.
76845. CBDunkerson at 02:28 AM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       guinganbresil wrote: "'and therefore the greenhouse effect...'? Really? Doesn't that require an actual decrease in the total heat loss to space?" Ummm.... no. The energy still leaves eventually. Most of it is just at different IR bands by that point. I'm not sure why you would think that GHGs need to have an impact on non-GHG radiation bands in order to prove the greenhouse effect... but, by definition, they don't. If the total outgoing energy decreased by any significant amount while the incoming energy remained the same (what you describe as required to prove the greenhouse effect) then the planet would be burned to a crisp in short order. Rather, what happens is that energy in the GHG bands is blocked from escaping and remains within the climate system... which causes the climate system to be warmer... which causes more radiant energy to be emitted at non-GHG bands... which results in incoming and outgoing energy being balanced - just with a higher surface temperature than would have existed without the GHGs. Same principle as putting insulation on a house to keep it warmer.
76846. dana1981 at 01:20 AM on 21 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Kooiti - unfortunately we can't anticipate every bad argument the "skeptics" will be able to come up with. And considering that i) 'natural' CO2 emissions have the same residence time and ii) humans are constantly emitting more and more CO2 and iii) although it may not remain in the atmosphere for more than a few years, it still remains in the carbon cycle for centuries, this is a really bad argument.
76847. guinganbresil at 01:05 AM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Tom Curtis @55, Your 1) I think both of us misunderstood SkS's new resource... I thought (in error) it was a forum for personal attacks against skeptics, you apparently believe it is a record of their personal attacks on proponents. A quick check would show that SkS has stuck to the science (see Monckton, no reference to Hitler Youth...) I stick by my statement: "it is reasonable and I believe it can be done professionally"
76848. muoncounter at 00:47 AM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Rickoxo#410: "10% of climate scientists with at least 20 publications" When did you establish that 'at least 20 publications' guarantees valid work? That qualifies Spencer, Lindzen (240 publications!), Svensmark, Akasofu ... as trusted experts. Why not look, instead, at the quality of their work, rather than the quantity? And do the same with the likes of Trenberth, Hansen, Rahmstorf, Schneider ... ? Hint: That's hard work, but it is exactly the purpose of this site. You say you're in education (as am I): How many surveys are there that directly contradict one another? One survey says class size must be reduced; another that students in smaller classes don't show higher levels of achievement. One survey says we must give more standardized tests; another says testing deters meaningful teaching. A well-known climate 'skeptic' once responded to a question about the value of opinion polls with a scornful 'So?'
76849. guinganbresil at 00:45 AM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       "The results presented here provide (to our knowledge) the first experimental observation of changes in the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, and therefore the greenhouse effect..." Harries 2001 "Changes"? Did the OLR actually go down? Really? All sky? - Oh, Clear sky only... Oh, over the GHG bands only... "and therefore the greenhouse effect..."? Really? Doesn't that require an actual decrease in the total heat loss to space? Since this forms the connection between increasing CO2 and global temperatures and thus the basis for climate alarmism, this might be worth more rigorous investigation. Griggs 2004, Chen 2007 added additional data sets, but did essentially the same thing - clear sky only, and still showed increasing brightness temperature in the window region over time (exceeding the decrease in the CO2 band...) Did Harries or others ever follow up on All Sky analyses as they said they would? Has the observed decrease in the CO2 bands actually impacted the overall OLR measured by non-spectrally resolved sensors? Has anyone closed the loop on this? Or has the climate science community really built their house on this soft sand of incomplete analysis?
76850. Tom Curtis at 00:29 AM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Sphaerica @417, the purported weaknesses of the Doran survey are entirely imaginary. The questions asked where phrased exactly the same as questions asked in a previous Gallop Poll. The idea was to compare expert opinion with public opinion, and that can only be done by asking the same questions. That does mean the Doran survey does not give us as detailed a break down on some issues as we would like, but just because research does not answer some of the questions we would like answered does not mean it was not effective research for answering the questions the researchers posed.

Prev  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  Next