Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 Next
Comments 77451 to 77500:
-
Tom Curtis at 09:59 AM on 14 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
A quick count of the PhD's amonsgst signatories of the OISM petition whose name starts with A shows that 246/900 signatories, or 27.33 per cent of signatories have that qualification. Assuming that people whose name starts with A do not have an unusual disposition to gain (or not gain) PhDs, the proportion is projectable. On that basis, approximately 8,500 people with PhD's have signed the petition. To put that in perspective we need a denominator. Between 1998 and 2008 (inclusive) 426,538 PhD's were awarded in Science or Engineering. In other words, signatories of the petition with PhD's represent less than 2% of Science and Technology PhD graduates while the petition has been active, and probably significantly less than 1% of PhD graduates in Science and Technology in the US overall. (See also Muoncounter @19) Statistically, it also means that only 10.66 of the climate scientists signing the petition held a PhD. Don't you just hate the denominator - it has this horrible habit of putting things in perspective. -
muoncounter at 09:16 AM on 14 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
Albatross#8: "between 1950 and the mid seventies global temperatures declines somewhat, ... explain the increase in CO2" That's easy: since we know it can't be anthropogenic, both warming and cooling increase CO2. That's the power of goblin-based science: assume the answer, then manipulate the theory to produce it. QED -
muoncounter at 08:59 AM on 14 August 2011Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
DougC#86: "there is (as best I can ascertain) no statistically significant information either for or against correlation. " Look harder, there's plenty of information against. See the 'It's cosmic rays' thread. -
DougCotton at 08:39 AM on 14 August 2011Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
As I said, I tend to agree. I have not at any stage taken a position that solar winds cause climate change. I am just saying that it is one of many hypotheses that (other) people do seem to keep putting forward, and I was genuinely interested to see if there was anyone in this forum who held to such views. If there had been, then I too would have pointed out that, even where there have been attempts to reconstruct sunspot data for thousands of years back, there is (as best I can ascertain) no statistically significant information either for or against correlation.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] There is a word for that kind of behaviour, namely "trolling". If you were genuinely interested in opinions here on the solar cycle length - climate correlation you would have found the relevant article, read it and the responses, and added a comment at the end saying that you felt that there was no statistical evidence for or against. Do not do this again. If you want to discuss an issue, do so directly, on an appropriate thread and state your own position clearly and unambiguously in your initial post. -
Albatross at 08:35 AM on 14 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
Nice post Muoncounter @7, Indeed. Also, note that between 1950 and the mid seventies global temperatures declines somewhat, so how then does Salby explain the increase in CO2 of about 15 ppmv during that time. He obviously now cannot claim that the increase then was in response to the warming pulse from 1920-1945 either? -
Albatross at 08:26 AM on 14 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
I think we need to be very clear about an incredibly important point here. Anyone, and I mean anyone, peddling this hypothesis about the recent increase in CO2 being almost entirely attributable to the warming is a denier of the theory of AGW. What is telling is that for years some prominent "skeptics" have been lying to us-- for example, Anthony Watts proprietor of the pseudo-science site WUWT is now peddling Bastardi's nonsense which includes Salby's refuted hypothesis. What is odd is that very Watts takes strong exception to being labelled a "denier". It it is clear that his bluster (i.e., Anthony's) is just a facade to his denial and all these years he has been lying when he claims to be a "skeptic". That, or Watts has now finally jumped from being a "skeptic" to a full-blown denier of the theory of AGW. The underlying foundation of the theory of AGW, is as the name suggests that we are almost entirely responsible for increasing CO2 (and other GHGs), so to deny that or not accept that is to be a denier of AGW. So anyone who supports Watts or his site is now also by extension a denier of the theory of AGW. EOS. PS: Perhaps Salby can explain to us how we humans have managed to increase CFCs (measured in ppbv), N20, low-level O3 and other species that are not temperature dependent, while not managing to increase CO2? -
muoncounter at 08:19 AM on 14 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
MarkR#6: "goblins are fixing the net CO2 flux" Now that's a headline worthy of FauxNews. These are some very smart goblins (or possibly orcs). They also know that the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase must slow whenever there is a drop in annual carbon emissions. That means they knew about such things as the oil price shocks of the late 70s and even the early 90s Bush 41 recession.
source
Note that when the curve doubles back to the left (a decrease in annual emissions), there follows a year or two where the dots are closer together vertically (less annual change in CO2).
This must mean that 'Goblins control our economy!'
-
hfranzen at 08:16 AM on 14 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
The question is, "is CO2 entering or leaving the ocean at the present time?" The answer to this can be found by looking at the data - Millero's review in Geochemica et Cosmochemica Acta in 1995 provides very accurate data for the temperature dependence of the constant relating the partial pressure of CO2 over seawater versus temperature, the Keeling curve provides the increase in CO2 partial pressure with time and the rate at which seawater is warming with time is quite accurately known. A "back of the envelope" calculation then shows that CO2 is presnetly entering and not leaving the ocean and that this will remain true for a long time to come unless some currently inoperative source of heating significantly increases the rate of temperature increase or the rate of production of CO2 is significanlty decreased. -
muoncounter at 06:58 AM on 14 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
pirate#24: "went through the trouble of submitting the paperwork" Will the misconceptions never cease? Here's the 'paperwork' (from the petition project website): Please print the petition, fill out the credential section, and sign as indicated. In order to obtain a pdf copy of the petition, click here. Please mail your signed petition to ... So all of 30 seconds to print, sign, check a box and write in one word (the credential section). Add in $0.38 for a stamp (a few years ago). That's it. Here's a takedown of the 'credentials,' with links to several others. Science as critiqued by petition; what a waste of time. But let's put it back on pirate: prove that there are as many active, published climate scientists among these distinguished signers as you claim. Be sure to cross off the ones who passed away prior to signing.Moderator Response:[DB] Spot-on, sir. Well-done.
-
Ken E at 06:00 AM on 14 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Also nothing presumptuous about pointing out the guy makes 2 completely contradictory arguments. Start with a model, ignore data that doesn't fit it, then argue something else that's incompatible with model you're holding above the data...and what are you left with? Certainly nothing of scientific merit. -
MarkR at 05:56 AM on 14 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
1. Wingding I accept that if the change in atmospheric CO2 is being fixed by magical goblins, then human contributions don't matter. If Joe Bastardi can provide evidence to demonstrate that goblins are fixing the net CO2 flux, and hopefully explain why they only decided to start doing it at the industrial revolution and increasing it proportionally to human emissions, then I would welcome the evidence and find it fascinating. -
dana1981 at 05:51 AM on 14 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
Regarding this particular point though, I really cannot believe that so many so-called "skeptics" actually believe that CO2 is rising in response to temperature, when the argument is so easily debunked by this simple accounting approach (let alone the many other lines of evidence). Just goes to show the power of denial blinders. They seem to completely shut down critical thinking. -
dana1981 at 05:46 AM on 14 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
MA Rodger - I've drafted up a post responding to Bastardi's Gish Gallop. At least the comments he made on Fox News and Tamino's recently. We'll publish it in a couple of days. Suffice it to say, as I'm sure you're well aware, Bastardi doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about on any of these points. -
MA Rodger at 05:06 AM on 14 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
The linked Bastardi comment on the Tamino blog provides mainly a cut & paste job from a post on WUWT which totals about 1,000 words of nonsense. I summarise it here (still 180 words because summarising nonsense is word-intense). Bastardi says in his Tamino comment that some think him and his ilk to be right-wing idiots. I don't know his politics so I cannot say that he is. SUMMARY Only 3% to 5% of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 rise of 1.5ppm is due to human emissions. This is small and (even if small is bad) oceans and atmosphere are big. And all the energy is in the oceans so showing the change is due to an atmospheric trace gas (has not been done &) is daunting. Contrary to climate models, satellites suggest the heat is escaping into space so CO2 sensitivity is low and model-assumed positive feedbacks are actually negative. Global warming from 1800 is said to be man-made with the assertion for 1977-98 “What else can it be?” But there was cooling since 1800, natural cooling so why not natural warming? Sunspots fit well as the driver of temperature since 1800. CO2 levels are driven by temperature as the ice core data show and so did Salby. Extreme weather events are more caused by cooling climates not warming ones. Ocean & solar cycles will cool the planet in coming decades. This will likely be obvious by 2020. If temperatures rise despite these cycles, “you carry the day.” -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:39 AM on 14 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
apiratelooksat50 wrote "And, you know all this how?" reading the documentation for the petition project would tell you that they organisers make no distinction between climate graduates and those actively pursuing careers in climatology. But surely you knew that already? The survey however does verify this distinction. -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:27 AM on 14 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
TC at 21 "But what of your 39 climate scientists who do not accept the consensus? The simple fact is that most science graduates do not go on to research. They still get counted as scientists for the purposes of the petition, even if their day job is slinging burgers at MacDonalds." And, you know all this how? At the end of the day, you still have 30+ climate scientists who went through the trouble of submitting the paperwork to have their names added to the petition, vs. 75 climate scientists who answered a vaguely worded, online, 2 question survey designed to ensure participation. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:44 AM on 14 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
wingding However it is implausble if we want to do some science where the causal mechansim must also be plausible. The problem for Salby is that the numbers don't add up for his theory. The fact that the numbers do add up for your (physically implausible) "theory" doesn't change the fact that they don't add up for Salby's. BTW anthropogenic CO2 emissions do affect natural uptake and emissions; the reason that the natural environment is currently a net carbon sink is a response to rising CO2 levels caused by anthropogenic emissions. -
actually thoughtful at 03:28 AM on 14 August 2011Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
Apirate, My comment wasn't flip. It was in earnest. While I respect your chosen profession, and that you are open to changing your mind (really, kudos on that - it appears we must simply wait for you to process all the good information you are getting and apply it to your life). I am very sensitive to the cognitive skills and development of teenagers, and I believe the phrase "garbage in, garbage out" applies more to teenagers than even to computers. As to your reply to me, your critical thinking, in falsely equating WUWT to SkS fails at points 3 (you have failed to judge the credibility of WUWT), 4 (you have failed to identify the assumptions of WUWT) and 6 (you have failed to judge the quality of the argument of WUWT). Given that, how can you possibly site 1-6 of your list as support for WUWT? You are not being internally consistent here. Here is a critical thinking assignment for your students (that you would benefit from): Pick an article in WUWT on a subject that also has an article in SkS - have your students compare and contrast the articles through the lens of 1-6 above. I think you will be surprised by the outcome. Most of us have already gone through this (or else it was intuitively obvious). -
wingding at 03:04 AM on 14 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
What if the delta C atm (15) is fixed by temperature, or goblins, whatever. Meaning that human emission (30) determines the natural contribution: 15 = 30 + N So currently N, nature, is a sink of 15. If we cut our emissions to 0: 15 = 0 + N Then nature switches to being a source of 15. This is at least plausible on the face of it if we are just talking numbers. -
muoncounter at 02:27 AM on 14 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
DSL#20: "using the same methodology" According to these results, there is room for significant doubt of a number of theories: Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun. Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time. Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water. Only 21% of adults answered all three questions correctly. On that basis: - Kepler's Laws (and Newton's for that matter) are subject to 'skepticism'; - evolution (and all the technology used for radiometric dating; indeed the fundamentals of radioactive decay itself!) are in doubt; - physical geography (and any form of satellite image analysis) are riddled with question marks. Is this how the science should be evaluated? By opinion polls? pirate, is that what you are teaching? -
Tom Curtis at 02:21 AM on 14 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Perhaps its time for a SkS Project Michael to match the NCSE's Project Steve? How long do you think it would take us to get 31,000 Michaels who accept AGW? -
Tom Curtis at 02:15 AM on 14 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
apirate @17 & 18, the denominator is absolutely essential to critical thinking about poll results. Probability theory is just the science of ratios, and statistics is a special branch of probability theory that applies the theorems of probability to sampling. The upshot is, if you do not keep the denominator firmly in mind, your thinking about survey results will be simply nonsense. Now, if you want to break down the figures from Doran, you get the following figures: 10,257 research geo-scientists in the US; 3,146 respondents; approx 5% (155) climate scientists; 79 actively publishing climate scientists. From this you can determine that there are approx 500 research Climate Scientists in the US, or which 255/500 are actively publishing in climate science; of which 244/255 accept the consensus on global warming. That leave about 11/255 actively publishing climate scientists who do not accept that consensus, in the US. Approximately 88% of all research climate scientists accept the consensus, meaning there are about 60/500 research climate scientists in the US who do not (a number which inlcudes the active publishers). But what of your 39 climate scientists who do not accept the consensus? The simple fact is that most science graduates do not go on to research. They still get counted as scientists for the purposes of the petition, even if their day job is slinging burgers at MacDonalds. All you can deduce from that figure is that 0.12% of global warming skeptics with technical training of any sort actually have relevant qualifications to assess the climate science. Not a very reassuring statistic for those in denial about AGW. It's no wonder that you don't want to have anything to do with the denominator. -
DSL at 02:03 AM on 14 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
I'm wondering what it would mean if, using the same methodology (well, a guess at the original methodology anyway), I managed to get 32,000 signers who accepted the theory of AGW. Exactly squat, I suspect. Yet I also suspect that the doubters and denialists would raise the same questions raised here about method and interpretation. -
muoncounter at 01:56 AM on 14 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
pirate#18: "a silly attempt" Nope. This continued fascination with a meaningless petition is silly. It was silly two years ago: Robinson claims the Petition includes 31,000 scientists, 9,000 with PhDs (and the other 22,000 have what credential that makes them “scientists”?). Let’s pretend they’re all real scientists. So what? If the premise is that this is a HUGE number (as many in the Denialosphere have tried to claim, and still do), then what is our basis for comparison? In the US alone there are an estimated 2,685,000 scientists. The OISM sent out their call to a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science and it got broadly passed around the Denialosphere … and they managed to get a mere 1.2% of the American scientific community. So if you are bothered by the observation that not everyone who received the survey that resulted in '97% agree' actually responded, be very bothered by the appallingly low response rate of the petition -- a rate so low that it virtually invalidates the results. And in what way does the existence of this minority opinion alter the basic science? pirate, you're grasping at straws. Give this one up. -
apiratelooksat50 at 01:43 AM on 14 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
TC at 16 and DB at 17 The Denominator is a silly attempt to trivialize the fact that "climate scientists" actually signed the petition. It in no way invalidates their position. It is an exercise in futility. By the way, what is the definition of a climate scientist? How many climate scientists are there in the US? -
Composer99 at 01:15 AM on 14 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
I should also mention, with regards to Dale's comment, that there are at least two obvious (to this non-scientist) reasons to reject Salby's conclusions: (1) If CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by natural factors and human emissions are not a factor, how does Salby account for the enormous amount of human-emitted fossil CO2 (30 Gt annually)? It has to go somewhere. If Salby cannot convincingly account for it (and show his working), there is no reason to accept his conclusions. Climatologists espousing the mainstream/consensus position can account for fossil fuel CO2 emissions as well as natural sources & sinks, and they can show their working. (2) It is my understanding that in the past, CO2 increases tracking temperatures were the result of oceanic CO2 outgassing following warming; it would follow in this case that the ocean pH would increase (alkalinization) as the oceans warmed. We find, however, that ocean pH is decreasing even as the oceans warm, which makes more sense in the context of warming following CO2 increase. -
dana1981 at 01:12 AM on 14 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Salby's arguments are akin to claiming that the Sun revolves around the Earth. We know it's wrong, we know why it's wrong, and we've known this for ages. There's nothing presumptious about pointing this out. -
Composer99 at 01:08 AM on 14 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Further to: It is he who is trumpeting his "results" far and wide whilst with holding the data he used so as to prevent direct refutation. He has even gone to the extent of refusing to supply copies of his charts to interested persons on the basis that there is an "embargo" on their publication, while showing them to uncritical audiences, thus breaching the "embargo" himself. Haven't contrarians made an enormous fuss about actual climate scientists "refusing" to release their data? And here we find them cheering on an actual, obstinate refusal to share data which is at the heart of open scientific inquiry. -
Albatross at 00:52 AM on 14 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
I agree Bart, Glad to see you noticed it. Posts like this need to be trumpeted far and wide. -
Robert Murphy at 00:10 AM on 14 August 2011Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
"People see what looks like half a 900 year cycle just because the climate was cold during the Maunder Minimum and then both increased till 2000" Sunspot cycles have been getting weaker for the last 40-50 years. At best there's been no trend in solar irradiance during that time; it's probably declined a very small amount. So no, "both" have not been increasing till 2000. And no, warming didn't end in 2000 either. We just had the warmest decade on record (and easily, too), according to all data sets. The oceans are still gaining heat. As for seeing a 900 year cycle in 400 years of data, I don't think there's much to say other than it's sheer folly. -
DougCotton at 23:56 PM on 13 August 2011Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
I do tend to agree. I was just interested to see what others thought about it. I guess the various institutes in 9 countries are wasting their time and money with the CLOUD experiment. People see what looks like half a 900 year cycle just because the climate was cold during the Maunder Minimum and then both increased till 2000.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] As I said, if you are interested to see what other people think about some subject, why not just read the relvant articles and responses first. The EU isn't wasting money on CLOUD; it is in the nature of research that some projects end up confirming an hypothesis and some end up rejecting them. If you know the outcome before performing the experiment it isn't research. Secondly seeing what looks like half a 900 year cycle is "climastrology". Human beings are excellent at spotting patterns in data where no pattern actually exists, especially when it fits their preconceived opinions. Next time if you want to talk about cycles, then at least present a statistically sound demonstration that such a cycle actually exists. -
bartverheggen at 23:09 PM on 13 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
Excellent and very important post! -
Robert Murphy at 23:02 PM on 13 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
"I wonder what Salby's motivation is?" Ask yourself this; had you ever heard of him before this brouhaha? I know I hadn't. Now he's being mentioned in lots and lots of blogs. He's a celebrity among the ill-informed and ignorati. Judith Curry thinks he's the Bee's Knees, and he may just be the David she's been looking for to kill the AGW Goliath. Look at the efforts that are being expended to counter him; surely this means the Team is scared, right? They must silence him now, and when his claims get torn apart and attract no favorable attention among climate scientists, he'll know he's a new Galileo. They laughed at him, remember? When they laugh at Salby it will be the same thing! He just knows it! JMTCResponse:[DB] It would be best for everyone to refrain from such introspection into Salby's motivation.
-
John Brookes at 22:15 PM on 13 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
I wonder what Salby's motivation is? Why are some scientists in the twilight of their careers given to this sort of behaviour? -
DougCotton at 22:05 PM on 13 August 2011Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
(continued) My feeling is that there may be something to be read into (a) the current longer cycle (max June 2013) and (b) an apparent underlying 900 to 1000 year cyclic trend in sunspot activity rising from the Maunder minimum in the Little Ice Age. The fact that the 2021 minimum is also predicted to be very low might indicate a long term downturn at least in solar activity.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] (a) the solar cycle length - climate relationship is debunked here. (b) reliable sunspot data doesn't go back far enough to reliably detect a 900-1000 year cycle. Also if you look at temperature data that has the effects of ENSO and volcanic activity taken out (see e.g. here) there is very little sign that the solar minimum has had much of an effect on temperatures. The 11-year solar cycle is barely detectable in temperature data, the change in solar forcing is really very small. Please do yourself a favour and go through the answers to common skeptic arguments listed to the left of the page. -
DougCotton at 21:40 PM on 13 August 2011Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
#50 and others re solar activity (related to 10.7cm solar radio flux): Would anyone care to comment on these NASA predictions? source
Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please limit the width of images to (say) 450 pixels (I have fixed this post already). Secondly, link only posts are discouraged; don't simply post an image an ask for comments, instead explain why you think the image is interesting and explain why comments would be informative. -
suibhne at 21:18 PM on 13 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
bibasir "Not true. When you are leveraged 30 to 1, a 4% decline in assets puts you in bankrupcy. What market doesn't decline from time to time?" The thing that doomed Northern Rock was to assume that the rest of the market was regulated properly. Their main assumptions were 1. Do not lend more than the house is worth or the borrower can pay. This policy has turned out to be vindicated by the Bad Bank continuing to make a profit. 2. If NR has a relatively clean mortgage book then pension funds and others who require a steady income will buy their scrutinised bonds. 3. That there will be a sufficiently liquid money market. It was point 3 that sunk the Rock. As explained above and subject to criminal investigations the hedge fund controlled by Goldman Sacks was given control over their mortgage arm. The hedge fund placed futures on a house market crash and went out of their way to make sure it happened. American AAA rated mortgage backed bonds were found to be worthless. Nobody was quite sure who held exposure to such junk the money market froze. HSBC refused overnight clearance of Barclay's credit(unprecedented) The rest is history. The problem that caused Nationalisation was that two other Hedge funds has virtual control over NR shares and would not sell to Virgin for a price rumoured to be 20p per share. As the chancellor Alistair Darling said on the say of Nationalisation. Northern Rocks assets were greater than its liabilities. Hence it was never in danger of being bankrupt. It had a major problem of liquidity due to market conditions -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:12 PM on 13 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Salby hasn't even named the journal to which his paper was submitted, which given it apparently has already been accepted seems a little odd. So it isn't even possible to verify that his work actually has been subjected to peer review. Personally I think the journal will either be E&E or some non-climate journal where peer review is unlikely to include reviewers with a sound grasp of the workings of the carbon cycle. -
Tom Curtis at 21:03 PM on 13 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale @4, to the extent that you find something presumptious in refuting an argument when we do not have access to the data, your chief concern should be with Salby. It is he who is trumpeting his "results" far and wide whilst with holding the data he used so as to prevent direct refutation. He has even gone to the extent of refusing to supply copies of his charts to interested persons on the basis that there is an "embargo" on their publication, while showing them to uncritical audiences, thus breaching the "embargo" himself. Frankly Salby's behaviour has been disgraceful. It's only merit has been showing, but the speed with which they have accepted his results as ground breaking and undoubtedly true without access to the supporting data, that the "skepticism" of many well known deniers is only a mask for refusing to deal with reality. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:32 PM on 13 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale No, it isn't at all presumptious. The fact that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is essentially anthropogenic is readily established by existing observations. I listened to Salby's podcast and he made no attempt to refute any of the existing lines of evidence and the mistake he makes (temperature changes modulate the growth rate) has been made by others before him (e.g. by Roy Spencer) and have already been refuted. It will be insteresting to see what is in the paper, it is not unheard of for scientists to make a press release that draws conclusions not mentioned in (or strongly supported by) the paper. -
Dale at 20:15 PM on 13 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Bit presumptuous to try and refute an argument without seeing any of the data, working out or graphs. -
DougCotton at 18:55 PM on 13 August 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
#152 Tom: Three genuine questions this time:- (1) I have read several papers along the lines of your post (and do understand the reasoning) but I note references to temperatures around 275 deg.K, whereas NASA sea surface means are usually a little over 294 deg.K. Could you clarify the reason for the difference? (2) I would like from you a little more explanation of the conclusiom "the source of the rest of the radiation, warming." To explain why I am asking, suppose we note the temperature of, say, the top of the ocean in some location at 4am one day and then, after all the various iterations of the feedback cycle the next day, the surface of the water is warmed during the day and starts to radiate extra and, as it cools, "pushes up" the whole plot, still with its notches. What evidence do we then have from the plot that the ocean has not returned to the same initial temperature by 4am the next day? (3) What happened to the evaporation component, assuming the latent heat was released in the troposphere quickly that day? -
MA Rodger at 18:09 PM on 13 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
I do like these folk who spot the wobbles which ENSO puts onto both the temperature & CO2 records, then conclude that CO2 wobbles are driven by temperature change. Such nonsense has wonderful implications - no global Mediaeval warm period for instance, or any other warm period for the last few million years! -
DougCotton at 15:49 PM on 13 August 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
#155 Tom: You stated: "the UV energy absorbed by O2 and O3 in the stratosphere is dissipated as IR radiation by CO2 and O3 (ozone). Thus, in the stratosphere increased CO2 does have a cooling effect." Is there any reason why could not also state "the UV energy absorbed by O2 in the troposphere is dissipated as IR radiation by CO2. Thus, in the troposphere increased CO2 does have a cooling effect." ? -
Kooiti Masuda at 15:45 PM on 13 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Relationship between variation in the inter-annual time scale of atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature was discussed by C.D. Keeling and co-authors in 1989. They suspected that the correlation is related to ENSO cycles. They did not consider that multi-decadal trends of CO2 concentration is determined by the same logic. C.D. Keeling, R.B. Bacastow, A.F. Carter, S.C. Piper, T.P. . Whorf, and co-authors, 1989: A three-dimensional model of atmospheric CO2 transport based on observed winds: 1. Analysis of observational data. In: "Aspects of Climate Variability in the Pacific and the Western Americas" (Peterson D.H., ed., Geophysical Monograph, 55, American Geophysical Union), 165 - 236. In Japan, Junkichi Nemoto, a former long-range weather forecaster and a writer of popular essays about weather and climate, included the story of Keeling et al. (1989) in his book in 1994. He quoted a figure which shows that temperature leads CO2 concentration by about one year, or a 1/4 cycle period, of the ENSO cycles. Long-term trends have been removed before making the plot. Then, Atsushi Tsuchida, a staunch AGW denier, a former physicist, an anti-nuclear-power activist and a thinker who promoted the view of the environment in terms of concepts of non-equilibrium steady-state thermodynamics (I think that he should be praised for this achievement in the 1970s-80s) picked up the relationship and claimed that the growth of atmospheric CO2 content (since 1960s-70s till present) is a result and not a cause of global warming. Around 2006, he and Kuniaki Kondo, an engineer (by the way, there are many Kondos including able climate scientists), made some analysis. They found good simultaneous correlation between the annual increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration (compilation by Scripps Institution of Oceanography via CDIAC, USA [link]) and the anomaly of global mean surface air temperature (compilation by Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), a previous version of what is available [here], where the base period was 1971-2000). They extrapolate the linear relationship and claimed that the change of CO2 concentration would be zero if the global mean temperature anomaly were -0.6 deg. C (base 1971-2000). Kondo and Tsuchida wrote a paper (in Japanese) and submitted to "Tenki", the bulletin of the Meteorological Society of Japan (MSJ). After peer reviews, the editorial board of Tenki rejected the manuscript. Their rejected paper and related materials can be found somewhere in a web site maintained by Kondo (Japanese only). Tsuchida sued MSJ claiming that rejection was politically motivated. The courts ruled against Tsuchida, but he tries again with modified claims. I think that MSJ would have passed their paper if they just mention interesting relationship between changes of CO2 concentration and temperature without making an egregious claim that the global warming is not anthropogenic. By the way, JMA has made more careful analysis. On one of their web pages, though the main text is Japanese only, there are figures with English captions. See "Fig. 2.1.2.3". The upper two panels are now well-known relationship between the CO2 increase and ENSO. The bottom panel shows simultaneous correlation between the CO2 increase and the mean surface air temperature over the tropical (30 S - 30 N) land area. The correlation broke down for a while after the volcanic eruption of Pinatubo in 1991. -
DougCotton at 15:15 PM on 13 August 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
#152 Tom: I would have considered ozone a GH gas as at least some others do. I was painting a hypothetical scenario in which all gases that acted like GH gases (able to emit in the IR range) were absent. But even if you leave ozone up there, and just had O2 and N2 where we live, they would absorb incident UV at all altitudes and we would frizzle in the absence of GH gases here in the lower troposhpere. ( -Moderation Complaints Snipped- )Response:[DB] If you wish to directly interact with Tom and the others by having actual dialogue (which involves asking questions, getting answers, pondering answers & asking more questions [which goes for either side]), then interact away.
If you are going to ignore the feedback and correction of others & Gish Gallop away, then accept that moderation of comments is an accepted condition of participating in this Forum. And moderation affects all, equally. Defamation is not allowed (however, implying legal action such as you just did tells volumes about character).
If you want to talk climate science, partake in the discussion and be welcome.
If you want a podium and a microphone, go away.
-
DSL at 13:42 PM on 13 August 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
If that has been your motive, Doug, you've gone about it in a very odd way. You're not taking into account basic science that engineering of every kind depends on. I understand you've spent a lot of time writing your site, and you've invested yourself in your ideas. I'm reminded of one of my students who spent weeks of skull sweat hashing out an argument only to find out that he had failed to consider the strongest counterargument. He spent three or four days trying to wriggle out of addressing the problem (which clearly required a re-write of the ten-page paper). He tried bargaining with me ("what if I just tack on a paragraph at the end -- what grade will that get me?"). He tried to buy a balance through extra credit (Umm . . . No). I did end up allowing him all of finals week to do the re-write, and to his credit he did a fair job of re-thinking his argument. Of course, you seem to have more at stake than my student. Your errors--the fundamentals upon which the currently crooked house is built--are public. Swallowing one's pride is difficult in some circumstances, but it should never be difficult when it results in a greater level of integrity. One thing I am certain of: if you ask questions and discuss responses without the subtext that the other participants are frauds, hoaxers, or idiots, no one here will bring forth a quantum of ridicule. For example, you finally arrive at a motivation in your most recent comment: a decrease in the rate of warming since 2003. Unfortunately, you buried that chocolate chip in a hard dough moistened by piss and vinegar. Perhaps it's understandable given the rhetoric that's been thrown at you. Perhaps. If you're still interested in discussing the science, start on a new tack. Rather than presenting your physical model as absolute and unquestionable truth, ask questions and discuss responses. Assume nothing. Ask for evidence. Don't decrease the probability of anything without clear reason. Keep an open mind. Work on one thing at a time. If this all seems condescending, take a good long look at your posts, both here and elsewhere. And keep in mind the patience Tom and others (not all others) have shown you. Finally, keep in mind that the regulars here routinely have to deal with some truly nutty crap, and so patience can be in short supply when someone refuses to engage and tinges everything with a knowing smirk and the suggestion of fraud. -
bibasir at 13:39 PM on 13 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
suibhne at 02:02 AM on 13 August, 2011 "Northern Rock was a relatively innocent victim of the general banking crisis." Not true. When you are leveraged 30 to 1, a 4% decline in assets puts you in bankrupcy. What market doesn't decline from time to time? Excessive leverage is what got the U.S. banks and brokers too. -
muoncounter at 12:34 PM on 13 August 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
DougC#156: "My motives have never been other than to try to find reasons... " Thanks, you've confessed at last. Your 'motives' should have been first to understand the science and only then formulate your conclusions. Given this admission, any 'true skeptics' here should be speaking up about now. ... anyone? Buehler? -
DougCotton at 12:26 PM on 13 August 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
All right - one more reply ... ( -Snip -) But this is not about personalities. My motives have never been other than to try to find reasons for the clear-cut reduction in warming that has been observed since 2003 - and to play whatever part I can in helping to calm the unnecessary turmoil that global warming predictions have engendered.Response:[DB] Alright, now that you've had your say Mr. Cotton, you have no purpose here. You are not here to learn: others have already pointed out the numerous fallacies and errors you have made thus far. Indeed, the mistakes and gaffes you commit are legion in this comment alone. So learning on your part is not your goal here. Please take your litanyous Gish Gallop elsewhere.
If you wish to have a rational dialogue and actually begin to learn a bit about climate science, this is the place. Thousands of posts exists with attendant comment threads, all with links to the primary literature. You would do well to read at least some of it before you attempt to teach those who already have.
Prev 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 Next
