Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 Next
Comments 78001 to 78050:
-
Albatross at 05:21 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Eric @109, "The difference is that you are using Hansen's numbers, not Rignot's" For goodness' sakes, this is getting silly. I and Hansen et al. (2011) did incorporate Rignot's data. Read Hansen et al. (2011), they reference Rignot et al. (2011) and say that: "The "high" estimates in Fig. 18 for Greenland and Antarctica, respectively, 281 and 176 Gt/year (360 Gt = 1 mm sea level), are from Velicogna (2009). A recent analysis (Rignot et al., 2011) compares surface mass budget studies and the gravity method, finding support for the high estimates of Velicogna (2009)." Using the data for 2006 in Rignot et al. (2011) you get an singular contribution to GSL for 2006 from ice melt of ~2.4 mm (~+1.3 mm from GIS and Antarctica and ~+1.1 mm from other sources). So the Rignot et al. value for 2006 (an extreme year for ice loss from Antarctica and GIS) represents the upper limit used by Hansen et al. (2011). Hansen et al. did not allow for the impact on the mean contribution arsing from a linear increase in ice melt between 2005 and 2010, but that increases the mean contribution for 2005-2010 from ~+2.4 to ~+2.6 mm, the increases is well within the margin of error. I do agree, however, that Rignot's values are probably too high, as suggested by Wu et al. (2010) and Zwally and Giovinetto (2011). On that note, it is unfortunate that "skeptics" here have accused Rignot et al. of purposefully inflating the ice loss-- that accusation is nonsense and still has not been rescinded and an apology issued. Why must 'skeptics' repeatedly engage in innuendo and accuse scientists of fudging/exaggerating/inflating the data? That is all the more bizarre when it is in fact the 'skeptics' who are doing just that. The point though is that two published papers show the mean steric contribution for 2005-2010 to be near +0.5 mm/yr., and "skeptics" here have had to employ some interesting data manipulation and cherry-picking to try and force a negative steric contribution. So Eric, you too are now arguing in circles, and are also guilty of not paying attention nor listening. This is beginning to sound more like denial on the part of you, BP and Ken rather than true skepticism. PS: The radar altimeter data used by Zwally and Giovinetto are known to significantly underestimate the loss of ice from around ice margins, also their analysis excludes ice loss from the Antarctic Peninsula. Their paper is by no means the last word on this. Again, hopefully Cryosat2 will shed some light on what is happening. -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:12 AM on 3 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
DB at 76 The Lt. Col. in the Army is hardly rank and file. He has a top secret security clearance, reports directly to a 4 star General, and is the G4 at Fort Jackson. The US Army may well have contingency plans for sea level rise as it pertains to national security. I really don't know and don't claim to know. I'm just saying that a high ranking officer has neither been briefed nor seen any documents on SLR or Global Warming related security issues. The Army has contingency plans for just about everything. One of their main concerns right now is what to in the event of an EMP.Response:[DB] We are seriously OT here. And yes, your friend, despite his level, position, clearance, etc, is hardly in a "need-to-know" position as a warrior in the field. And that is no slam on him.
FWIW, I carried a Sec Clear well above the TS level in my time with the DoD and much dialogue went on "above my pay grade", even though serving on the nation's Crisis Support team for more than a decade.
-
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross - I agree wholeheartedly with your post. In this discussion 'skeptics' have taken rates from singular, rather outlier years, incorrectly applied those extreme rates to the 5 period under discussion (cherry-picking), and used these completely off numbers to claim both a 'contradiction' and that the oceans are cooling. Add to that the statistically meaningless duration of the period under discussion, and I would have to consider these arguments ill-founded in the extreme. Definitely cases of confirmation bias, if those presenting them have not bothered to look at the difference between a single year rate and average rate over this time period. I sincerely hope that mistake was not intentional. Ken Lambert, Berényi Péter - bad arguments, no donuts. -
Eric the Red at 04:17 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross, The difference is that you are using Hansen's numbers, not Rignot's. If you were to use the values from Rignot, then you would get 2.0 - 3.4 mm/yr averaged over the 2005-2010 period. This equates to your total of Hansen plus steric. While there is enough uncertainty in these values to preclude making definitive statements, the appearance is that Rignot's values are too high. You seem to agree, otherwise you would not be continuously espousing Hansen's figures. Yes? The following paper was published recently, and also discussed in the 7/22 edition of Science magazine. http://www.springerlink.com/content/9k58637p80534284/ -
RichardFeely at 04:15 AM on 3 August 2011OA not OK part 12: Christmas present
I have been following your excellent posts on ocean acidification. Thanks so much for making this available to everyone. One point in your latest post I would qualify a bit further. You stated that...."For example, at some data collection buoys moored in the open ocean, it is easiest to have instruments that measure total dissolved inorganic carbon and the partial pressure of CO2. pH and alkalinity can then be calculated." It is my understanding that most buoys that measure ocean acidification parameters usually measure pH and pCO2 (see our website at: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/). Sensors for measuring total dissolved inorganic carbon and total alkalinity are still considered to be experimental and only have been recently tested on some moorings. I look forward to your next post! Keep up the great work. Best regards, Richard Feely -
muoncounter at 03:33 AM on 3 August 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
thingadonta#33: "Hansen and Sato with one statement seek to sweep this history aside." Hardly. Uniformitarianism is about consistency of process. The 'present is the key to the past' because the physical laws we see operating today also worked in the past. From the University of Oregon, Uniformitarianism posits that natural agents now at work on and within the Earth have operated with general uniformity through immensely long periods of time. There is nothing intrinsically special about the 'present.' Thus what we can take from the paleo record must be a result of the same processes, which will also operate into the forseeable future. James Hutton 1788: ... the progress of things upon this globe, that is, the course of nature, cannot be limited by time, which must proceed in a continual succession. A good example are floods on the scale of the Missoula Flood. Today's streams do not carry the requisite volume of water and types of sediment. We infer that unusually large volumes of water were involved and must find a source for that water (in this case, a glacial lake). Should those same conditions arise in the future, we would expect the same events. If you pond enough water behind some temporary dam, when the dam breaks, you'll get one heck of a flood (or if you melt enough ice, you'll get one heck of a sea level rise, for that matter). -
Albatross at 02:53 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
All, Well, Ken @106 that is I guess about as close as we can expect you to come to admitting error. Eric, your 2.9 mm/yr is still too high, that is the value for 2010 using a 2005 start, it is not the mean value for the 2005-2010 window, and that is what we need to calculate to compare with the other mean values for that period. That is like using the observed GSL change from the satellites in 2010 and saying that that value represents the mean rate of rise for the 2005-2010 window. That is not correct. It is falling on deaf ears, but FWIW I'll say it again-- we are working with noisy data (i.e., relatively large error bars) for a short period of time. Now the "skeptics" are not considering the possible ranges of data during this period (say the 90-95% confidence intervals). I'll repeat here what I wrote up thread @64 (source Fig. 18 in Hansen et al. (2011): "Here are the relative contributions for the 2005-2010 period: Ice melt: +1.27 to +2.4 mm/yr Abyssal oceans and southern oceans: +0.156 mm/yr Steric rise: +0.55 to +0.83 mm/yr Total: +2.0 mm/yr to +3.4 mm/yr (mean near +2.7 mm/yr). Now, satellite GSL increase for the same period was +1.4 to +3.0 mm/yr (mean +2.2 mm/yr), data from Leuliette and Willis (2011). Pretty good agreement given the limitations of the observations." Notice the positive values and range for steric, and that Leuliette and Willis (2011) also get a mean positive steric contribution of +0.5 mm/yr for January 2005 through September 2010, and Von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011) estimate a positive steric contribution for 2005-2010 of +0.69 ±0.14 mm/yr. Notice too that the mean increase in the satellite GSL for the 2005-2010 window was most likely between +1.4 and +3.0 mm/yr, compared to +2.0 to +3.4 mm/yr for steric + ice melt. There is a huge amount of overlap. One cannot claim without any amount of confidence that there is a "contradiction". And one cannot, based on these data, claim like Pielke Snr or Knox and Douglass or Monckton or our resident "skeptics" that the "oceans have been cooling". Regardless, it is a moot point, because as I keep noting (which is also falling on deaf ears) Katsman and Voldenborgh (2011) have shown that slowdowns (or even periods of cooling) are not fairly common in the OHC data. Again, we have "skeptics" making a lot of noise about the noise, and worse yet making misguided extrapolations and assertions about the alleged implications and meaning of said noise. It is called muddying the waters, obfuscating, detracting attention away from AGW-- techniques that "skeptics" use all the time. Why? Because that is all they can do in this point in the game. PS: Does anyone know if there is a published paper out there that states the estimated annual loss by year from GIS, Antarctica? PPS: Hopefully there is sufficient period of overlap between the aging GRACE mission and the new CRYOSAT2 mission that will allow scientists to improve their estimates of ice loss. -
Mark Harrigan at 01:20 AM on 3 August 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
@ actually thoughtful #109. Been away for a bit so apologies for not earlier reply. Look - I think we are "on the same side" so to speak but I really don't think I have properly got across my point to you. I am NOT falling for the "It can't be done" denial. I think it CAN be done and I hope it will be. Wishful thinking statements like "But can we say that we can achieve 50% reduction by 2050 with current and near-term technology? Absolutely! Thus we CAN solve climate change, we only lack the will." are great but they need to be backed up by evidence and practicality. We need realism or those that oppose any solution will jump to the attack. If you read my other posts on other threads you will see, for example, I have advocated trying experiments with Diesendorfs suggestions for base load renewables, using intelligent anemometry with wind to predict when local sites will drop off and reduce the need to have gas turbine already running. Diesendorf's is a plan that tries to address the current shortcoming of renewables - but it's probably a plan that needs some work. What I am saying is that too many (you included) are guilty of overhyping the (current) ability of renewables to deliver without the evidence to back you up. We've got to stop pretending that the answers are already available. They are not. I agree the trajectory is positive and I agree we should be doing whatever is (reasonably) achievable to get there (by reasonable I mean not impoverishing our economy in the short run). In the long run a measured approach means we will be a lot better off. But I think it is a mistake to overpromise and under-deliver - and so far that is what a lot of renewables programs have done (e.g. astronomically high cost of CO2 abated through 20% renewables target). It is also a mistake not to accept the reality that (at the moment) sources like Wind have serious drawbacks (e.g. intermittent performance and the need for serious CO2 emitting fallbacks) and Solar (as yet) has scalability and efficiency isses. When the "green" side make the sort of over the top claims (like in the Beyond Zero Emissions plan) then it actually creates a barrier to progress - as this critique shows. beyond zero critique Wishful thinking won't solve our problems. We need to confront the realities of renewables not (yet) being ready to provide the full answer and focus on what needs to be done to get them there while we put in place bridging solutions. So I am not saying "it can't be done because it hsn't been done yet". I am saying that overhyping what can be done now is a problem. As for your last comment - I would ask you to re-read my posts too please :) -
Bibliovermis at 01:10 AM on 3 August 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Nice try at dismissing the entire field of paleoclimatology with a little semantic hand waving. -
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Ken Lambert - "[the oceans are] cooling not warming." Just to be clear on this, Ken - are you asserting that the ARGO network is in error, that the thermometers measuring actual temperatures are incorrect? I would think that the ongoing work on the ARGO network, network coverage, calibration and analysis was only improving, hence giving Von Schuckmann & Le Traon 2011 some weight. You have also fallen prey to the same misinterpretation as BP, in that you have assumed that ice melt has been linearly scaling up since 2006, whereas Rignot et al show that over 2007-2009 ice mass increased. In short term variability the ice melt contribution to SLR has been lower than trend over a fair bit of the last 5 years, a statistically insignificant period. I would agree with what EtR actually said - "...either the above values for SLR contribution from all glaciers are too high, or the steric component is negative". And given the uncertainties and the notable misrepresentation of ice melts, I would opine that the SLR contributions are far too high. Certainly the thermometer data from ARGO indicates that there is a positive steric contribution over that time. Your statement that "[the oceans are] cooling not warming." is quite simply unjustified by the evidence. -
Dale at 00:01 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Thanks for the response, but I think I might have worded wrongly. I wasn't talking Spencer's model specifically. Let's say I wanted to find out the Tibetan Mountain Goat Belch Effect on the climate. If I expected to see a response X between time A and time B, and a different response Y had a different delay to what I originally expected and fell in the same time period, that would in effect through off my result as effect Y is masking the result of effect X in one direction or the other? So if I expected a positive response which was masked by a higher negative response, I could in fact proclaim that the Tibetan Mountain Goat Belch Effect is negative. -
Ken Lambert at 23:56 PM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albtross #104 and ETR #105 Rignot - R I G N O T....I will do better. Was writing blind of previous posts showing the gentleman's name - forgive me M Rignot. ETR has got if pretty right. Whether land ice melt SLR is 2.6 or 2.9 or 3.1mm/yr - all of which are within the wide error bars on these measurements - they are all greater that 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4mm/yr satellite observation of global SLR. That means the steric rise is -0.2 to -0.9mm/yr (negative means contraction) which means cooling not warming. Your outrage at my defence of BP's Rignot analysis - which is probably at the high end - is therefore an exaggeration - probably contrived for the less analytical viewers in the hope of avoiding the admission that the numbers are not in favour of OHC increase - nor in fvour of AGW. -
muoncounter at 23:24 PM on 2 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Eric#379: The point was to exclude earthquakes and volcanoes from the rising trend - because if they did not, skeptics would say 'it's earthquakes and volcanoes!' The worldwide count increased by a factor of approx 2 1/2 since 1980, population by a mere 50%. The 'insured value of the world,' whatever that means, has not made up the difference. It is only by looking at this display on its own that you can find some rationalization. That is what being a skeptic seems to mean these days - each individual data point must have something wrong with it and can be taken in isolation. However, taking all of the other evidence for climate change into account, this graphic is a straightforward answer to those who say 'it's not happening' and 'it's not bad.' -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:06 PM on 2 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
It's worse than I realized. The Munich Re data is based on a number of sources that contain reporting coverage increases, see http://www.ccap.org/docs/resources/345/302-03901_en.pdf particularly their insurance affiliates. It really means that the trend is skewed by the extent of insurance coverage along with the increases in population and insured value. -
Eric the Red at 21:52 PM on 2 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Muon, Quite interesting. He is basically saying that migration caused by past weather events has led to conflict in many cases; particularly when the migration crosses ethnic or cultural borders. Therefore, migration should be avoided. In order to avoid this type of migration, the least developed countries (LDC) should reduce their dependence on the land, i.e. increase modern development. Also, these countries should invest (with help from the developed world) in infrastructure to withstand environmental changes. -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:39 PM on 2 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
muoncounter, excluding tsunamis which are rather rare, the effects of weather are dispersed unlike earthquakes and volcanoes. So volcanoes and earthquakes can stay the same and have the same number of "catastrophes". Weather, on the other hand, will cause an increasing number of "catastrophes" because their definition is based on dollar value. The dollar value of property in volcanic zones is not going to increase as much as nonvolcanic zones. And while earthquake zones may increase in dollar value, they have rigorous construction and zoning laws. That is not as true for flood zones, and likely not true at all for other types of storm zones. In short, weather can hit anywhere and cause more dollar damage to meet the catastrophe threshold whereas earthquakes and volcanoes can only occur where they have in the past. But that doesn't mean that such weather events are not increasing, just that some of the upward trend can be explained by population and wealth. -
Eric the Red at 21:34 PM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross, I agree that six years is too short to make grand assertions. Therefore, neither von Schuckmann nor Rignot can be considered definitive. Getting past the obvious uncertainties, we can still evaluate the measurements in comparison to one another. I think we can agree that the Rignot numbers for SLR contribution from Greenland and Antarctica are high. Ignoring the extrapolation out to 2011, his 2010 value still leads to 1.7 mm/yr SLR, which combined with the mountain glacial loss from Meier results in 2.9 mm/yr. Whether you use this value or your quoted value of 2.6 mm/yr, the contribution from all glacial melt still exceeds the recently observed SLR of 2.2 – 2.4 mm/yr. Therefore, either the above values for SLR contribution from all glaciers are too high, or the steric component is negative. Simple math. -
CBDunkerson at 21:31 PM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale, this is covered in the article above. There is no 'what if' here. It is absolutely the case that there is a delay between the introduction of an external forcing and the climate reaching a new energy equilibrium. However, that has nothing to do with feedback direction or strength. As explained in the article (see the 'It's the PDO!' section and the previous article linked therein), Spencer's model can produce a large range of feedbacks. Essentially, he set his ocean energy absorption and distribution variables to the values which would suggest the least global warming... but when those values are compared to real world measurements of ocean heating they aren't even close. Let me give you a simple example; Assumption 1: "The empire state building is about 16 times as tall as it is wide." - This is true and provides a very basic mathematical model Assumption 2: "The empire state building is 10 feet wide." - This is false. Conclusion: "16 * 10 = 160, therefor the empire state building is about 160 feet tall." That is essentially what Spencer did... except that his model had flaws even before bad variables were put into it. -
Kevin C at 21:07 PM on 2 August 2011Oceans are cooling
Highly relevant paper here (h/t Ari): http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/katsman_voldenborgh_grl_all.pdf It is also interesting with respect to Kevin Trenberth's recent guest post on the energy imbalance. -
breath-relic at 19:07 PM on 2 August 2011Skeptical Science now an Android app
Xoom advises unexpected stop each time shortcut is chosen. -
lukeness at 16:59 PM on 2 August 2011An experiment into science blogging
Interesting... it actually still says "There are no comments posted yet" just above where it says comments are temporarily disabled... And I can see the comments on this post, just not the survey post. -
Albatross at 13:56 PM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Hello Ken @103, No, sorry but you are still wrong-- and from your post I can see again where your logic continues to fail you. But I have addressed those problems (note plural) before, you are not listening. I used BOTH too (i.e., glaciers and ice caps, plus GIS and Antarctica), and I also allowed for the estimated increase, and you do not get a mean contribution to GSL from ice melt for the 2005-2010 window of 3.1 mm/yr, the value is very close to 2.6 mm/yr, 2.4 mm/yr if one does not allow for the expected increase. Please stop trying to float red herrings about Pinatubo. And it is not Richot, it is Rignot et al. (2011). -
muoncounter at 13:52 PM on 2 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
ThinkProgress posted a US version of the annual disaster count chart:
The global version appears here.
Geophysical events such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions show no pattern of increase. All the increase is due to meteorological, hydrological and climatological events which have all more than doubled. From an insurance point of view it certainly looks like the climate is changing.
-
Ken Lambert at 13:17 PM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross #102 Rob Painting at #80 and again at #98 has told HALF the story. In both posts he has only included charts for Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet loss. He has not mentioned Glacier and Ice Cap loss which roughly DOUBLES the equivalent SLR. BP has simply combined the two and run down the trend lines shown on the Richot's charts starting in 2006. This gives a mass SLR of +3.1mm/yr in 2010. That was his point. If you believe Richot et al (2011) then that is the result. That was BP's point - not whether Hansen or others have lower numbers. There is no 'colossal' error - just a logical conclusion from analysing Richot's numbers. Richot may well be at the upper limit. Take Hansen's numbers if you like. Would you also take Hansen's 'delayed Pinitubo rebound effect' as an explanantion for the reduced warming imbalance as well? -
thingadonta at 13:11 PM on 2 August 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
"The past is the key to the future". Hansen and Sato 2011. This is a reversion of the classic statement that took decades in 18th and 19th centuries geological science to establish: "the present is the key to the past". It is not a simple idea, and has numerous political ramifications and subtleties. Historically, creationists were the ones fighting for the idea of the reverse, which is what Hansen and Sato are also doing: that the past is the key to the present, and the future, which is not valid. Just because A leads to B, does not mean that B leads to A. The reason it is not valid is we cannot determine the past as accuately as we can determine the present, neither can we determine the future as accurately as we can determine the present. Centuries of earth scientists fought hard to establish these basic truths, Hansen and Sato with one statement seek to sweep this history aside. The rest of the arctile has similar issues. Eg "However, about half of the fast-feedback climate response is expected to occur within a few decades." This 'fast-rate' cannot be determined from the past due to the inability to determine rates and feedback in sufficient resolution on geological time scales. In other words, the rate of the warming in the e.g. Eocene thermal event cannot be sufficiently determined below an error of at least 1000 years, which means the fast feedback rate as stated by Hansen above cannot be determined, nor the negative feedbacks which act to slow this rate etc. -
Albatross at 12:40 PM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Hello Ken, Re your comment "All BP did in his calculation was run along the trend line from 2006 to 2010 for BOTH sources of land ice loss." Yes, I know that he used both sources of ice loss, as did I, as did Hansen. BP's numbers are not right, and you have now elected to make those errors yours as well. You both have been told (and shown) why that is multiple times now by several people. Yet you steadfastly refuse to listen. And instead of soliciting unnecessary apologies from Rob Painting, you should rather be asking BP to apologize for slandering scientists on this thread and for sending us all on a wild goose chase. -
Ken Lambert at 11:25 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob Painting #98 "And is typical of BP, he never acknowledges his mistakes, or apologizes for slurs against actual scientific experts, but simply moves on to the next bit of nit-picking. It's a shining example of the lengths even very intelligent people, like BP, will go to in order to fool themselves." Incorrect - I did see BP acknowledge a mistake once (a couple of years ago) - obviously he has improved his act since. There are TWO sources of land ice loss. What you have ignored in your charts above is half the story viz: Glacier & Ice Cap loss in 2006 is 402+/-95 Gt/yr. You have only shown the charts for the Greenland & Antarctica Ice Sheet Loss which was 475+/-158 Gt/yr in 2006 All BP did in his calculation was run along the trend line from 2006 to 2010 for BOTH sources of land ice loss. I will graciously accept your future apology to me and BP can please himself.Response:[DB] "I did see BP acknowledge a mistake once (a couple of years ago)"
The mind simply boggles at this statement.
"I will graciously accept your future apology to me"
??? Who appointed you BP's Agent Provacateur? You would do well to focus less on the moderation others receive, Mr. Lambert, as it tends to reduce your comment to caricature, which surely is not your intent. You are capable of far better than that.
-
Dale at 10:54 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Just a quickie, but what if (as the satellite data does tend to suggest) there is actually a delayed build up and release of energy? Might there actually be a possibility that this delay could mask later responses and cause a possible erroneous result (in the case Spencer harps on about, a weaker positive feedback)? If an expert could school me on the specifics as to why it wouldn't, I'd be appreciative. -
Albatross at 09:07 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob @89, Yes. It may be worse than that though. As I noted earlier @84, the "skeptics" elected to start in 2006 when they should have started in 2005. Worse still, they appear to have then decided to calculate the expected contribution in 2010 (using the 2006 start and then applying the expected annual increase) and then assumed that that 2010 value (the end point value) applies to each and every year in the 2005-2010 period. The mean contribution from ice melt to GSL for 2005-2010 (allowing for increased melt) was about 2.6 mm/yr (I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I will have to double check that). So yes an error on the order of 0.5 mm/yr when the error bars are also about 0.5 mm/yr is significant. But maybe Ken is coming around. He was adamant @63 that: "so therefore steric rise must be negative (-1.1mm/yr if isostatic rebound is included)." Now he is saying @89 that: "means that steric rise is very small, negligible or negative." So perhaps he is finally getting the point. The point being that 6 years is simply too short a period to be making grand assertions that "the oceans are cooling", or the science of AGW has major inconsistencies or that the centennial-scale warming is 0.2 C. Moreover, as shown by Katsman and Voldenborgh (2011) such slowdowns (or even periods of cooling) are not fairly common. The fact the the rate heat is accumulating in the oceans may have decreased in this time is not equivalent to cooling, they are just accumulating heat at a slower pace, probably in response to the dramatic increase in aerosol loading and the prolonged solar minimum. What also makes me a little nervous with these calculations is that a zero lag is assumed, and we know that there are lags in the system. So that too complicates matters. You are correct Rob, this thread is yet another example of the tricks of the trade used by "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW. -
Rob Painting at 08:09 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
ETR - 'I agree with BP @93, in that the deep ocean cannot warm if the surface does not." The deep ocean is warming, particularly the layer between 3000-4000 mtrs deep. See Kouketsu (2011). Does that mean you agree the surface is warming? -
Rob Painting at 07:47 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
KL- "Where is BP's 'colossal' error in this calculation? Ken are you serious? Look at Rignot (2011):
2006 was a year of exceptional ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica, but look at 2007-2009, ice mass increased. So how can they be contributing to total sea level rise in those years? Go back as far as you like, there is huge year-to-year variability in the surface ice mass balance.
Compare the observations to BP's calculations - he simply assumes that the ice loss that occurred in 2006 has happened every year since, and yet he was the one that referenced Rignot (2011) in the first place.
And is typical of BP, he never acknowledges his mistakes, or apologizes for slurs against actual scientific experts, but simply moves on to the next bit of nit-picking. It's a shining example of the lengths even very intelligent people, like BP, will go to in order to fool themselves.
-
pbjamm at 07:43 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Rob Honeycutt@5 This would be a great way to expose hypocrisy unless the contrarians chose, once again, to ignore the facts. Likely they would focus only on the flaws in *your* methods and ignore evidence of Spencer's errors. -
Andy Skuce at 07:26 AM on 2 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, everyone. I deliberately avoided discussing the merits of Ridley’s ideas about the importance of trade in human history and prehistory, although he certainly downplays the positive influence of government on human development. I would be surprised if many anthropologists and economic historians did not disagree vehemently with his ideas. The aim of my counter argument was to show that laissez-faire won’t work for the unique challenge presented by climate change, even if Ridley is correct about the past. Tony Noerpel, thanks for the link to your interesting review of Steve Keen’s book. I also enjoyed your article Ideology Versus Reality which makes similar points to those that I am trying to make in this series. I had already referenced the Bezemer (2009) article in my part three. On the subject of Ridley’s political beliefs, it’s probably an error to label him a right-winger or a conservative, especially in the context of how those terms are currently used in the USA. The following quote is his own account of his political views, taken from a recent discussion with Mark Lynas.On the topic of labels, you repeatedly call me a member of “the right”. Again, on what grounds? I am not a reactionary in the sense of not wanting social change: I make this abundantly clear throughout my book. I am not a hierarchy lover in the sense of trusting the central authority of the state: quite the opposite. I am not a conservative who defends large monopolies, public or private: I celebrate the way competition causes creative destruction that benefits the consumer against the interest of entrenched producers. I do not preach what the rich want to hear — the rich want to hear the gospel of Monbiot, that technological change is bad, that the hoi polloi should stop clogging up airports, that expensive home-grown organic food is the way to go, that big business and big civil service should be in charge. So in what sense am I on the right? I am a social and economic liberal: I believe that economic liberty leads to greater opportunities for the poor to become less poor, which is why I am in favour of it. Market liberalism and social liberalism go hand in hand in my view. Rich toffs like me have self interest in conservatism, not radical innovation.
-
scaddenp at 07:17 AM on 2 August 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Okay, that is perhaps the best way rather than hijacking another thread. -
muoncounter at 06:58 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Stephen Baines#9: "he is supposed to be the yang to Hansen's yin ... he can spout such garbage" Unfortunately, we've been conditioned to listen to both sides and expect that somewhere in the middle lies a form of objectivity (or at least a balanced view). As Paul Krugman observed, Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” This creates pressure to move towards increasingly extreme views, so that the 'center' moves in your direction. However, this is supposed to be science, not political debating. In science, it is very possible that one side is utterly incorrect. -
scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 2 August 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Moderator - in writing that comment, I am very conscious that I walked into political territory but it is my belief that political values are an important part of the question as to whether someone is in skeptic camp or not. Furthermore, I am trying to get some constructive engagement with right wing thinkers on alternative policies. I would plead that posts provide for such engagement be allowed through.Response:[DB] Phil, as long as the comments continue to be tangential to this thread, then go ahead and conduct them here. As long as the participants construct their comments to comply with the comments policy and keep them relevant to the topic of this thread, "Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?" then it will be allowed.
Or, if you wish, put together a specific guest post of your own geared to that and we can discuss it with John.
-
Stephen Baines at 06:20 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dean...I see... he is supposed to be the yang to Hansen's yin. And that somehow means he can spout such garbage out the yin-yang, while on the federal dime as well. -
Berényi Péter at 06:19 AM on 2 August 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
At least let me get the message through, please. Dear scaddenp, if you happen to find a public place which is [...], let me know please. We could continue the thread there. I suggest the same to you, Eric. -
Berényi Péter at 06:05 AM on 2 August 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
#457 scaddenp at 13:33 PM on 11 July, 2011 Government action is portrayed as theft of the rights of fossil fuel property holders but is their situation any different from asbestos property holders? Our knowledge of the toxicity [carbon dioxide & asbestos] has improved in both cases and the response of the industry has been rather similar. #458 Eric (skeptic) at 10:02 AM on 14 July, 2011 Note for the record, I am taking up scaddenp's offer to discuss this by email. I have replied to scaddenp 457 here, but it got deleted. On the other hand I am not willing to discuss it in private like Eric (skeptic) does, { complaints about moderation again, snipped }Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Only hostility to speech here is hostility to speech that is off-topic and/or violates the Comments policy. But you knew that already. -
bbickmore at 04:54 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Rob @2, I don't think Spencer knows he's wrong. My impression (and it could be wildly off) is that he has a chip on his shoulder because other scientists haven't been particularly polite about it when he's ticked them off in the past. Maybe some of their objections were even a little overblown. But instead of swallowing his pride and asking himself whether there wasn't anything useful in the criticisms (like the rest of us do when we get a bad review that isn't sugar-coated or is somewhat unfair,) he allowed himself to be embittered. Now he seems to have a vendetta against the rest of the climate science community, and it's his mission in life to find that one key piece of evidence that takes down the whole house of cards. (Which leads me to believe that he needs to read a few books on philosophy of science, as well.) -
Bibliovermis at 04:47 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP, Let's do a quick "back of the envelope" calculation. Ocean's Depth and Volume Revealed ocean volume: 1.332 billion cubic kilometers water heat capacity: 4.186 joule/gram °C 90% x 1.322 billion cubic kilometers x 1 million grams / cubic meter x 1 billion cubic meters / cubic kilometer x 4.186 joule/gram °C x 0.002 °C = 9.96 x 10^21 joules argument #122: Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming A global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m^2 means the planet is accumulating 145 x 10^20 joules per year. --- The surface is warming the deep ocean, rather the deep ocean inducing the surface to warm. The easier heat goes into the deep ocean, the slower the surface is able to warm up if it is heated. Think about it. You are simultaneously presenting contradictory arguments and dismissing entire fields of research with that hand waving. -
Dean at 04:26 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
As have been noted by a few, Spencer himself has commented upon what his scientific motives are in the context of his political struggle. -
CBDunkerson at 04:21 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Rob, while it certainly seems like they should "know they are wrong", I don't believe that many of them do. Frankly, I consider the evidence for evolution overwhelming... but Spencer disputes that too. Likewise, it seems self-evident that pure free-market capitalism is just as hopelessly flawed as pure socialism... but that doesn't prevent Spencer from ascribing to that viewpoint as well. Ditto his partner Christy. Indeed, ditto most of the 'skeptics'. So either these folks are all actively promoting views which they know are false and will lead to potential disaster... or they are deceiving themselves first and their adherents second. Self deception is a powerful force and seemingly endemic in modern society. The old saying about, 'you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts' has long since been tossed aside. On many topics there are two (or more) radically different versions of 'reality'. Personally, I consider this the single greatest problem we face. Global warming is bad... but we could deal with it if we were all living in the same universe. Spencer and most of the other 'skeptics' aren't. Having half the population believe in an array of 'facts' which are actually pure nonsense leads to self-destructive decision making. We have to work on getting everyone accepting the same reality... probably the best way to go about that is to structure things so that the consequences of believing fiction strike the person directly rather than everyone around them. For instance, if some scheme had been enacted in the 80s where avowed AGW 'skeptics' would pay lower taxes if temperature anomalies went down while AGW 'believers' would pay less if anomalies went up then I doubt there would be many 'skeptics' left by now. Yet since there haven't been any consequences to believing this nonsense they have been able to continue updating their false beliefs and still hold that it has 'just recently turned around' every time temperatures dip at all. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:21 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
I would be very interesting to use Roy's model to produce a "paper" showing extremely high climate sensitivity and publish it in the same journal this one was published. -
chris at 04:16 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
"I wonder what edification he get's out of this process?" Good question; however if he wants to get proper ocean heat transfer he really needs to put in some sort of eddy-fication! -
Berényi Péter at 04:11 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#96 Bibliovermis at 03:21 AM on 2 August, 2011 Do you realize that even a 0.1 deg C temperature increase in the 90% of the ocean that comprises the deep ocean is an immense amount of heat? Of course. But the warming we are taking about here is only 0.002°C annually, fifty times less than your 0.1°C. That's close to the accuracy/precision limit of thermometers applied by ARGO. And even if it were 0.1°C: how would it induce a more than an order of magnitude larger warming on the surface? The easier heat goes into the deep ocean, the slower the surface is able to warm up if it is heated. Think about it. -
Stephen Baines at 03:58 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Great post Barry. Seriously though, the mistakes are so simplistic (though not necessarily easy for others to see) that Spencer must be aware of them. I mean, no one would model ocean heat transfer as a purely diffusive process. I wonder what edification he get's out of this process? Is he really just so tired of trying to get things through peer review that he's just given up? Has he traded in science for applause from the madding crowds of "skeptics." -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:48 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Roy Spencer is not trying to do science, that much is very clear. What he's trying to do is get "science-y" sounding material propagated into the denial machine. He doesn't care if it's right. He only cares that it motivates the deniers. At this point I believe virtually ALL of the lead (faux) skeptics out there know they are wrong. They are now only engaging in ideological battles. -
Bibliovermis at 03:21 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP, Do you realize that even a 0.1 deg C temperature increase in the 90% of the ocean that comprises the deep ocean is an immense amount of heat? -
Berényi Péter at 02:38 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#94 Eric the Red at 01:22 AM on 2 August, 2011 I agree with BP @93, in that the deep ocean cannot warm if the surface does not. More than that. The surface may warm on average, still, temperature of the abyss is determined by the coldest patch of open water available, which is just above freezing as long as sea ice exists anywhere. Distribution of salinity may complicate the picture somewhat, but since with large scale freezing of seawater salinity of the fluid phase increases by brine exclusion, it does not make much difference.
Prev 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 Next
