Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 Next
Comments 78301 to 78350:
-
Chris G at 13:45 PM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Monckton continues to have audiences because he tells people what they want to hear. I would also be very happy to believe he is right that climate change is not a serious problem, but I can't reconcile what he says with what I learned in college courses on physics, chemistry, and statistics, and logic, for that matter. But, I don't think I represent his audience. He survives debates by talking about science that is beyond the skill level of the audience, and laying down a series of half-truths which lead to incorrect inferences, or outright fabrications. He does not engage climate scientists in the battlefield of published research; he would loose even if he did manage to get something published. The average audience does not appreciate that peer-reviewed journals are an open battlefield. They often think it is some kind of private club. Peer-review is just a first-pass filter to keep people from bringing knives to a gunfight. He wins audiences by convincing them that he is on their side, which has an unspoken implication that his opponent must not be. You will not win an audience who doesn't know Stefan-Boltzman from the ideal gas law with more facts. Even if you provide correct information where he has not, as has been said, it will be a he-said/he(she)-said situation, and if you are telling people what they don't want to believe, you loose. I tend to agree with Rob that it is a not a good idea to give him a microphony. Monckton is far better at rhetoric than science. To beat him in front of a science-challenged audience, it is not enough be better at the science, you have to be better at the rhetoric as well. But, then the debate becomes one that only has a pretense of being about the science. Oh...I see. As far as Monckton is concerned, this has always been the case. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:40 PM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Pirate @25 etc I agree with many of your sentiments about the ultimate capacity of humanity to survive what is likely to be coming - probably. Consider a few things. Survival does not necesarily mean survival of civilisation. Early hunter/gather type societies might well survive in the world that is coming but possibly literate, knowledge rich civilisations. Will that future world be perhaps harsher than the world of our ancestors. Sure, Icy wastes may have been uninhabitable then while in the future it will be scorching deserts. But what will the still 'habitable' zones look like. What will the density of possible prey species for our descendent be for example. As the world crashes from a peak of 10 billion to way way lower due to a cornucopia of pressures, with hunger at the top of the list, James Lovelock's words may prove chillingly prophetic - "Forget Lions & Tigers. If it moved we ate it". And what state will the oceans be in as a food resource - acidification events and all that. Could our descendents face a much harder future than our primitive ancestors. And what of civilisation ever recovering? If we are driven down that far because of environmental circumstances essentially all our moder knowledge will be lost. Past civilisations grew and expanded their knowledge because they flourished in some key regions of biological bounty. If there are no such regions in the future, could our ancestors ever rise back up again. Look at the Aboriginal population here in Australia. They occupied the entire continent and lived successfully and innovatively here, even developing some very primitive agriculture, fish farming etc, as far as the local conditions permitted. But the climate never allowed them to rise to the level of the great Middle-Eastern civilisations - conditions restricted them to essentially hunter-gather societies over 60,000 years. Could that be our descendents fate, but with nothing bigger than small rodents to live on? Even if our descendent do eventually manage to start climbing back up, what resources will they have available? We have mined and or burned so much already, including virtiually all the easily accessable resources. They won't find surface coal, oil, etc like our ancestors did. Without these will they be able to make the leap back to electricity, nuclear physics etc. Could the atronauts on the space station be the last humans in space, ever? And what of the transition to this harsh future world. What will the lives of our descendents be like as they live through the 'crash'? How far off is it? Of those 182 children you spoke of; how many of them will dy terrible deaths during this decline. The harsh future world of 'just biology' will happen to anonymous future generations. The horros of the journey to that destination are likely to happen to those we know and love today. So every tiny thing we can do now to diminish this will be some measure of horror averted for our loved ones. -
Composer99 at 13:32 PM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Monkcton has suggested (threatened?) that he will bring suit against several people on several occasions (Dr John Abraham comes to mind); to my knowledge he has not carried out any such suits. Perhaps for the same reason why he has declined to participate in a fact-check debate. Anyone know otherwise? Has Monckton pressed ahead with one or more of his lawsuit threats? -
DSL at 13:30 PM on 29 July 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Spencer's Spins? -
ptbrown31 at 13:27 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
KR, 44, 47 I think that can be satisfied by looking at Arrhenius 1896, pg. 265, where he states "An increase in carbonic acid will of course diminish the difference in temperature between day and night. Thankyou!!! That is what I have been asking for and I appreciate you pointing it out to me. The original post should reference the Arrhenius paper. I have to say, however, that this greenhouse/DTR claim does not seem to be backed up by more contemporary science on the subject (references mentioned above). It is not too hard to imagine that the thinking on this issue has evolved since 1896. Also, as I said in my original post (#6), the IPCC AR4 points out that there was no change in DTR from 1979-2004 (a time period when greenhouse forcing was as very strong) I suspect that it's been part of the known literature for so very long that current authors just don't bother to emphasize it. That is extremely unlikely, especially since current authors actually attempt to explain the change in DTR and they don't mention that it might be a simple result of an enhanced greenhouse. 45, Sphaerica, I am frustrated because I really don't think that you have understood what I have been saying. Also your tone continues to be condescending. It seems that you continue to think that I am arguing that DTR changes are not an anthropogenic signature. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the decrease in DTR is probably due to increasing anthropogenic aerosols (which suppress Tmax warming relative to Tmin). This is what the papers that you listed have said. -
KR at 13:20 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Camburn - Again, you are making assertions that are not statistically supported, such as "...is flat. No warming nor cooling.". The rise in sea levels has been 3.2 mm/y +/-; there is not yet enough information to establish a trend (up, or in particular down) from that. The Von Schuckmann and other papers indicate that there is evidence not contrary to continuing SLR; you on the other hand seem driven by a need to state that the oceans are not warming, or even cooling. I have to view this as a continued campaign to claim it's not happening. The evidence does not, unfortunately, support your claim. -
Chemware at 13:18 PM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
What would possibly work, but be very risky, is for someone to debate Monckton, and publicly call him a liar and a scientific fraud. Monckton would then sue, with the best lawyers the Koch brothers could buy. That would provide the opportunity to discredit Monckton in a court of law, with great publicity. Any volunteers ? -
Pete Dunkelberg at 12:46 PM on 29 July 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Hey guys, how about a Spencer icon? Something about a satellite lost in clouds perhaps. -
scaddenp at 12:42 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
"That is the main reason I put little value in Von Schuckmann's paper." And yet you seems to regard the earlier result for 0-700m as more reliable? Why is that? -
KR at 12:37 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Camburn - "After the data splice, there is no effective way of knowing whether the oceans are cooling or warming as the time period is too short." That is a reasonable position to hold. I can respect that. I would therefore question, however, your (and BP's) assertions that the oceans are not warming, despite the known physics of CO2 levels and radiative balance. You, by your own statements, do not have sufficient data to establish a trend, yet you have repeatedly done so. Perhaps the recent aerosol loads and solar minima are causing a short term downswing (with the concomitant warming upswing later). Perhaps the ARGO data needs more corrections. Perhaps the XBT data requires more corrections. Perhaps transport to the benthic depths is faster than we thought. But we certainly know the physics of radiative balance, and such short term variations only add noise to the larger picture of GHG physics and global warming. My opinions on assertions (such as yours) of non-warming oceans via indirect evidence would violate the Comments Policy - suffice it to say that I am impressed only by the audacity of such statements, and not by the scientific value. -
Camburn at 12:25 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
KR: Yes and no. Physics demands that if OHC has increased as Von Schuckmann indicates, thermosteric sea level should be value A. We have in evidence another published paper showing the addition of glacial melt, etc to sea level rise. When you do the math, even on a short time period, the basic physics indicates a different result than Von Schuckmann has found. The early ARGO data has substantial error bars, which are readily admited to in the Von paper. The main thing is, 2-6 years of data does not prove much of anything. We will need at least another 10 years, and even then it will be subject to question. That is the main reason I put little value in Von Schuckmann's paper. After the data splice, there is no effective way of knowing whether the oceans are cooling or warming as the time period is too short. -
KR at 12:25 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
Sphaerica - Hang in, this too shall pass. -
KR at 12:24 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
I will point out that this 1896 (!!!) paper by Arrhenius notes multiple fingerprints of AGH (polar amplification, winters warming faster than summers, greater for N. hemisphere than S. due to land mass, faster over land than water, albedo feedback from ice melt) based upon simple radiative physics. Stratospheric cooling is not mentioned; but since the stratosphere was discovered quite some time later, that's not surprising. Arrhenius was quite frankly concerned about an ice age, but discovered to his surprise that warming was more of an issue. His work on the subject was excellent, and has held up quite well over the last century. I suspect that it's been part of the known literature for so very long that current authors just don't bother to emphasize it. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:15 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
KR, thanks. I kept meaning to go back to that, and lost track. Sheesh. I can't wait to get rid of this illness. It's crippling my brain. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:14 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
42, ptbrown31,I was saying that the claim that DTR should decrease with an enhanced greenhouse effect is not a part of literature and established theory.
And this was proven to be false. It is in fact a part of the literature and theory. The way you keep changing and rewording your stance makes you ineligible for further discussion. It's not worth the effort. Suggestion... go read more of the literature before deciding what it does or does not say. Here's one that get's pretty close to what you're demanding, but I'm not wasting any more time correcting you after this: Daily maximum and minimum temperature trends in a climate model – Stone & Weaver (2003)“The recent observed global warming trend over land has been characterised by a faster warming at night, leading to a considerable decrease in the diurnal temperature range (DTR). Analysis of simulations of a climate model including observed increases in greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols reveals a similar trend in the DTR of −0.2°C per century, albeit of smaller magnitude than the observed −0.8°C per century. This trend in the model simulations is related to changes in cloud cover and soil moisture. These results indicate that the observed decrease in the DTR could be a signal of anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.”
Emphasis mine. FYI... an increase in night time cloudiness, that in turn raises night time warming, is probably also a signature of GHE (I haven't studied the modeled cloud changes in the simulations enough to say, and even if I had, clouds are an area of inaccuracy in past and current models). The fact that the mechanism is or isn't from cloudiness is a mere detail, and as I've already said, I think it is related to all warming. But the expectation that already exists in the literature is what it is, your personal interpretation not withstanding. -
KR at 12:13 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
Arrhenius 1896, pg. 265, states "An increase in carbonic acid will of course diminish the difference in temperature between day and night." Nothing like the classics... -
KR at 12:02 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Camburn - What I am noting is that BP has proved nothing - he chose a short period of SLR, fit a trend to it, and made indirectly based claims that there was therefore no OHC increase occurring. Von Schuckmann & Le Traon demonstrated that the last 3-4 years of ARGO data match up with satellite altimeter data (which has considerably longer data sets), validating the ARGO data, and that the ARGO temperature records indicate sequestering of heat in the deeper ocean. They fully acknowledge that there is a significant seasonal variation, but indicate (based on a statistical analysis) that the data is statistically significant over the ARGO data period. BP's claims that Von Schuckmann & Le Traon are wrong are simply handwaving. He has done zero sensitivity analysis, or significance analysis, used a value for SLR 30% off from the measured value, and then claims that he has somehow invalidated the thermometers on the ARGO floats. There is certainly room for more data from the ARGO floats, particularly since they are now providing a more complete sampling. But BP's invalidation is a bad joke. -
ptbrown31 at 11:57 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
41, Sphaerica All I did was to point out the very, very frequent references to the concept in the literature. The logic behind it and the nature of it are not fabrications of SkS. That is clear. You seem to think that I was arguing that the general concept of DTR change was invented by SkS. That is not what I have been saying. What I do think is that SkS has used DTR change as fingerprint of an enhanced greenhouse effect when the evidence seems to show that the DTR change is actually attributable to the growth of anthropogentric aerosols (and or clouds) suppressing the rate of warmth of Tmax relative to Tmin. But your initial claim was not that it was unproven, but rather that what changes were observed could not be attributed to the GHE, and my answer to that is that you are demanding that someone show you the far side of the moon to prove to you that it exists, because you can't see it from here. Is it so much to ask for a single sentence in a paper to actually corroborate the original claim* being made? *by claim I specifically mean "an enhanced greenhouse effect should warm Tmin more than Tmax and thus DTR should decrease" -
KR at 11:46 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - "No one can predict GSL reliably in 10 years from now, the science is simply not mature enough to do that. Perhaps never will be." If you are not willing to make testable predictions, Berényi, you are simply not doing science, end of story. Predictions with bounds of uncertainty - those are testable assertions. "No, you're wrong" statements are not, they are just rhetoric. -
KR at 11:42 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - "Therefore dismissing 2004 altogether is not justified. It should be taken into account, with somewhat larger error bars perhaps." I strongly suggest you read the paper, in particular looking at Fig. 4, Method validation using gridded altimeter SSH measurements, where Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) demonstrate why they feel that Nov. 2007 is the earliest point where the ARGO data is fully trustworthy. You have not, as far as I can tell, pointed out any serious issues, or contradictory references, that indicate problems with this paper. Direct measurements of temperature and OHC really are more convincing than indirect arguments, particularly with your short term (cherry-picked?) sea level trend. -
Berényi Péter at 11:35 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
It also worth noting that pushing heat into the upper 2000 m of oceans at a rate of 0.55 W/m2 means it would warm at a rate of 0.2°C/century. Compare it to the ~3°C/century IPCC projections for surface warming. In other words, the surface is supposed to warm at a rate 15 times faster than the oceans do. -
ptbrown31 at 11:28 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
39, Sphaerica I was not saying that the concept of DTR change was not a part of both literature and established theory. I was saying that the claim that DTR should decrease with an enhanced greenhouse effect is not a part of literature and established theory. Do you accept that the predicted reduction in DTR is, in fact, a long established and well recognized aspect of GHG theory? Again, I have never seen, and you have not shown me any scientific article that says something to the effect of "an enhanced greenhouse effect should decrease DTR and in fact this is what has been observed" So I accept that a reduction in DTR has been observed over a certain time period but I do not accept that this is a fingerprint indicating that the warming that we have seen is due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. However, the rest of the original post makes many other valid arguments for recent warming being due to an enhanced greenhouse effect (i.e. I am not an AGW skeptic) -
Bob Lacatena at 11:24 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
36, ptbrown31,But as you can see, none of the above papers say that the change in DTR is an outcome of an anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect.
You're standing everything on it's head, because no one has written a paper titled "Hey, PTBROWN31, We Think Explicitly That Anthropogenic Climate Change From Greenhouse Gases Will Cause a Noted and Observable Drop in Diurnal Temperature Ranges", I. B. Buttscratch, 1983, Geophysical Research Letters. All I did was to point out the very, very frequent references to the concept in the literature. The logic behind it and the nature of it are not fabrications of SkS. That is clear. Whether it is proven or not is another issue, and one that I have already said I don't think is possible until temperatures increase considerably, and even then, possibly not. But your initial claim was not that it was unproven, but rather that what changes were observed could not be attributed to the GHE, and my answer to that is that you are demanding that someone show you the far side of the moon to prove to you that it exists, because you can't see it from here. It's a fools errand, and not one that anyone is going to bother to undertake. -
ptbrown31 at 11:19 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
37, Composer99 This is from my 1st post (#6): 1) I have looked quite a bit and I have never found a peer reviewed article that attributes the observed change in DTR to an enhanced greenhouse effect alone. All of the references above either do not attempt to attribute the change in DTR to anything or they attribute it to cloud/aerosol suppression of daytime warming (while both tmin and tmax are presumed to be warming do to an enhanced greenhouse effect). This makes a change in DTR an anthropogenic fingerprint but that is very different than an enhanced greenhouse effect fingerprint. And that is why I was clear to say in #37: none of the above papers say that the change in DTR is an outcome of an anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect. An anthropogenic signature is not the same thing as an enhanced greenhouse effect signature (which is the claim that the OP makes) -
Bob Lacatena at 11:18 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
36, ptbrown31, You are arguing two different things. I'm not arguing about whether or not the case is proven. I'm arguing that you said:1) They make the same claim in many posts 2) It is NOT a part of both literature and established theory.
I have categorically proven your second claim to be false, and so the first claim to be moot. Do you accept that the predicted reduction in DTR is, in fact, a long established and well recognized aspect of GHG theory? -
Composer99 at 11:14 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
I should clarify my final paragraph by noting that Braganza et al indicate that maximum temperatures increased faster in the model runs than in the empirical observations. -
Berényi Péter at 11:14 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
As for the Von Schuckmann & Le Traon paper itself. It would be much easier if the authors broke down their estimates at least above/below 700 m depth. That way their results were directly comparable to online data based on Levitus 2009. Of course it would also help if their results were expressed in Joules (or 1022 J) as it is standard in the literature (instead of W/m2). While we are at it. This 0.55 ± 0.1 W/m2 is actually only 0.39 ± 0.07 W/m2 globally, because they have chosen to project their results to the ocean surface, not the entire planetary surface, as it would be appropriate if one is talking about planetary imbalance. For the six year period between 2005-2010 the Levitus data give 0.14 ± 0.06 W/m2 imbalance for the upper 700 m. It means Von Schuckmann & Le Traon calculates 0.25 ± 0.09 W/m2 (almost twice as much) for the layer between 700 & 2000 m (for the entire surface). One can hardly evaluate how realistic it is with no supplementary material whatsoever. What is more, choosing 2005 as the starting year is kind of cherry picking. For 2004-2010 Levitus data give 0.055 ± 0.047 W/m2 for the upper 700 m, which is essentially zero. Please note that by about mid-2003 ARGO coverage got global (the huge gap previously open in the southern ocean was filled by that time). Between 2004-2007 only density of the network improved further, not its coverage. Therefore dismissing 2004 altogether is not justified. It should be taken into account, with somewhat larger error bars perhaps.
-
Composer99 at 11:10 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
ptbrown31, it seems to be that you are engaged in cherry-picking the Braganza et al 2004 paper. First, you claim that "none of the above papers say that the change in DTR is an outcome of an anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect." Yet, the abstract of Braganza et al states:The usefulness of global-average diurnal temperature range (DTR) as an index of climate change and variability is evaluated using observations and climate model simulations representing unforced climate variability and anthropogenic climate change. On decadal timescales, modelled and observed intrinsic variability of DTR compare well and are independent of variations in global mean temperature. Observed reductions in DTR over the last century are large and unlikely to be due to natural variability alone. [Emphasis mine.]
Assuming Braganza et al take climate change to mean anthropogenic climate change, I do not see how it can be seen as a useful index of change & variability unless the authors expect a reduction in DTR to be a result of anthropogenic greenhouse warming. From the conclusion, we find:Diurnal temperature range appears to be a suitable index of climate variability and change, in the context of similar simple global indices outlined by Braganza et al. [2003]. While changes in maximum and minimum temperature are strongly associated with changes in global mean temperature, DTR provides additional information for the attribution of recent observed climate change. [Emphasis mine.]
Again, unless Braganza et al attribute global warming to non-anthropogenic sources, their suggestion that the change in DTR is a useful index of climate change certainly implies that it is indeed an outcome of the human acceleration of emissions. The statement you cite, from the abstract, suggests a qualification of the model runs, indicating that DTR diverged more in the models than in empirical observations because of a factor that was not included in the models used. They are pointing out a quibble with the climate models, which seems to me to be a rather different thing than what you claim they are saying. -
Camburn at 10:34 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
SNRatio@27: I would suggest you read the published paper. Reading and understanding it explains a lot and answers a lot of here to fo, unanswered questions. -
ptbrown31 at 10:26 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
35, Sphaerica You are only proving my point. All you have to do is read some of these papers to see that none of them back up the claim being made about DTR. Comparison of observed and anthropogenic-forced model changes in DTR over the last 50 years show much less reduction in DTR in the model simulations due to greater warming of maximum temperatures in the models than observed. This difference is likely attributed to increases in cloud cover that are observed over the same period and areabsent in model simulations. -- Braganza, DJ Karoly… - Geophys. Res. Lett, 2004 The cause(s) of the asymmetric diurnal changes are uncertain, but there is some evidence to suggest that changes in cloud cover plays a direct role. -TR Karl, G Kukla, VN Razuvayev… - Geophysical Research …, 1991 - agu.org Because the daily minimum has increased relative to the daily maximum, the diurnal temperature range (DTR, the difference between the two) has declined (Fig. 2a). The negative trend implies increasing cloudiness, which lowers daytime temperatures by blocking solar radiation and raises night-time temperatures by reducing radiative heat losses -- JA Pounds, MPL Fogden… - Nature, 1999 - cct.or.cr The other references you cite don't really address the question. But as you can see, none of the above papers say that the change in DTR is an outcome of an anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:08 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
34, ptbrown31, I have no idea why you'd think such a thing. From this post:As far back as the mid 1800s, Tyndall predicted that greenhouse warming should cause nights to warm faster than days.
From google scholar, searching for papers that reference "Diurnal Temperature Range" and "Climate Change": Google Scholar... 74,200 papers Including: Diurnal temperature range as an index of global climate change during the twentieth century -- Braganza, DJ Karoly… - Geophys. Res. Lett, 2004 Global warming: Evidence for asymmetric diurnal temperature change TR Karl, G Kukla, VN Razuvayev… - Geophysical Research …, 1991 - agu.org Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain -- JA Pounds, MPL Fogden… - Nature, 1999 - cct.or.cr An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high‐resolution grids -- TD Mitchell… - International journal of climatology, 2005 - Wiley Online Library Adapting stochastic weather generation algorithms for climate change studies -- DS Wilks - Climatic Change, 1992 - Springer And a bazillion others. -
SNRatio at 10:01 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP: "Come on, I am talking about facts, you know, events that happened in the recent past (last 19 years or so) and were measured by actual instruments. No one can predict GSL reliably in 10 years from now, the science is simply not mature enough to do that. Perhaps never will be." No, you are talking about estimates. And the quality of those are to be checked by their predictive power. And I think you demonstrate your thinking quite well when you refuse to produce estimates. Estimates will of course have to be qualified by uncertainties, and your whole reasoning breaks down when those are taken into consideration. I tend to stay a bit Popperian: If you are not willing to assert something than can get refuted, you stay outside of natural science. And for scientists of Roy Spencer's caliber: How often and thoroughly will you be refuted, and still consider yourself a significant scientist? -
muoncounter at 09:59 AM on 29 July 2011It's not bad
pirate#122: "Human survival many generations from now, may depend on us leaving the planet." Whoa! That science isn't settled. Which planet would we go to? Planets would have to be 'rated' by an independent authority, preferably someone with no actual expertise in planetary science. And the cost of leaving the planet would destroy our economy. 'Scientists' involved in space flight would get rich on the free-flowing government money. Anyone who questioned leaving the planet would lose their job. It all sounds like a c--spiracy to me. -
ptbrown31 at 09:50 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
I am referring to it as SkS's model because: 1) They make the same claim in many posts 2) It is NOT a part of both literature and established theory. That is the whole point. Again, the references do not support the claim being made (that we would expect DTR to decrease as the greenhouse effect is enhanced). -
muoncounter at 09:49 AM on 29 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
scaddenp#29: "who do you propose pays for the adaption?" Last time someone prescribed 'adaptation' to sea level rise, we had China building cities out of nothing and Egypt building a seawall from Alexandria to Port Said. It was said to be no problem, they have lots of folks looking for work. Send the bill to the authors of such comments. I'd love to hear someone offer a serious counter to the quote in my prior comment. Until then, there's no strategy for this. -
SNRatio at 09:44 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
I think it is a bit funny to see this line of "skeptical reasoning" unfolding. At the most basic level, talking about inconsistency in a situation with so much fluctuation and so large error margins in the estimates, has little logical foundation. When the sea level rise due to GrL+AntA ice sheets was 1.3+-0.4 mm in 2006, there is in fact a fair chance it was only 0.5 mm - nobody can say for sure, and it may certainly not be used for anything but the most tentative reasoning. Acceleration is even worse, when you can't even differentiate once, you can surely not do it twice. As an exercise to develop some intuition on this, BP may take the raw data and carry out the acceleration calculations back through the 90es. It has varied a lot, and so far has had little predictive value. BP's graphing is extremely misleading in that the running average values say nothing about the actual spread in the observations, and convey the impression of a kind of determinism that simply is not there in the raw data. Furthermore, the fluctuations are far from entirely random, which makes identification/attribution of short time trends even more problematic. Even with a consistent measurement regime in place, it would be problematic to quantify short time trends with any precision, as Rob points out. It may well be that BP's estimates for rise and deceleration turn out to be correct, it's just that it will take several years to get enough data to tell. And the profession of predicting longer term trend shifts from short-time fluctuations over periods where the fluctuations may be an order of magnitude larger than the trend, has a terrible track record. I really can't believe technically adept people will use it for anything unless they are deeply emotionallly invested in the causes they try to prove. For example, the UColorado 60-days moving average was almost flat from 2006 to 2008. Which of course "proved" that sea level rise had virtually halted. Only to suddenly start again 2009-2010. Surprise! Because so many different factors play a significant role, we must be very careful to extrapolate or conclude from the data we have so far. When a system is far from equilibrium, which the radiation imbalance indicates that the earth is now, we may get all sorts of quasi-periodic phenomena. Such phenomena lend themselves to diverse types of pattern matching, and disregarding the basic physics, all sorts of "laws" may be "proved" by the extremely good matches of the ad hoc models. An example here: BP tries to fit the sea level rise almost exclusively by melting, and that would then "prove" than oceans are not heating, that we are, rather in zero or negative radiative balance, which, in turn "proves" that the climate sensitivity must be very low etc etc. But when you build your reasoning on data, zoomed in so that they are overwhelmed by noise, and don't take the noise fully into consideration, the results also become overwhelmed by noise. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:43 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
32, ptbrown, Why do you keep referring to SkS's model? What do you think here is conjured by the people behind SkS, instead of part of the actual science? The OP is riddled with references to papers, and it's long been part of both the literature and established theory. It's admittedly an area, compared to others, that's a little thin... but what makes you think that it was somehow invented by SkS? -
scaddenp at 09:41 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
I dont see how you can call V&T an "outlier" unless you have other published analyses of the Argo data that give different answers. The paper was primarily about how accurately could measures could be made from the Argo data so have you got a criticism of their conclusions? What there seems to be is a broad consensus that Argo is a better instrument than satellites. -
Tom Curtis at 09:20 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
norandroids @5, that sort of suggestion is never welcome, and never appropriate. wingding @6, perfect analogy. -
Berényi Péter at 09:08 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#21 Albatross at 08:27 AM on 29 July, 2011 So by your reckoning, what will the GSL be 10 years from now? Would you bet money on the quoted figure. Come on, I am talking about facts, you know, events that happened in the recent past (last 19 years or so) and were measured by actual instruments. No one can predict GSL reliably in 10 years from now, the science is simply not mature enough to do that. Perhaps never will be. -snip- So by your reckoning, what will the polar ice sheet melt rate be 10 years from now? Would you bet money on it? -snip-Moderator Response: Please refrain from making inflammatory comments. Thank you. -
KR at 09:01 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - From Von Schuckmann 2011: "Our revised estimation of GOIs indicates a clear increase of global ocean heat content and steric height. Uncertainty estimations due to the data handling reveal that this increase is significant during the years 2005–2010 (this does not mean, of course, that these are long term trends)." (emphasis added) Do you have a peer reviewed refutation of this? Because your post here is quite unconvincing considering your short term trend analysis. -
scaddenp at 08:53 AM on 29 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
apirate - who do you propose pays for the adaption? Those that created the problem I hope? Where does my city send the bill to? -
KR at 08:50 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - I find it curious that you are arguing against increasing ocean heat content from sea rise numbers, when actual thermometers are measuring said increasing OHC. Curious, and unconvincing. As Albatross asked earlier, do you have any peer reviewed references that contradict Von Schuckmann and Le Traon 2011? Because I think that direct temperature evidence from the ARGO floats is more rather convincing than your indirect arguments (contradicted by direct measurement data). Especially given the error ranges on melt scales, and your quite frankly cherry-picked short term slope estimate. -
Albatross at 08:27 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP @19, "What you are effectively saying is that Rignot et al. 2011 is flawed somehow." I see also that you are here to try and attribute words and opinions to me that I never uttered. Stop it, I am not here not play word games BP. I do see a lot pontification and hand waving by you, with no published papers provided by you to support your assertions concerning OHC. Do you have any substantive facts to make to challenge Von Schuckmann & Le Traon's (2011) finding that from 2005 to 2010 the global oceans (10 to 1500 metres down) have continued to warm...? Yes or no? "By the way, the 0.1 mm/yr2 deceleration in sea level rise shown by satellite data is not negligible." So by your reckoning, what will the GSL be 10 years from now? Would you bet money on the quoted figure. -
JonnyT at 08:25 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
It would help in these 'debates' if the opposition would point out the blatantly obvious inconsistencies in Monckton's polemic. At the start he says that you can't predict the climate because it is too chaotic and in the middle he says that it is immensely stable before then heading back to it being chaotic again at the end. "There is no physical basis in science for any such sudden lurch in what has proven to be an immensely stable climate." Also there was the classic idiotic statement he made in his spiel about the MWP, where he brazenly stated that the central England temperature series was "a good proxy for the global climate, it's at about the right latitude" ... wtf? These things stick out like a sore thumb, and they need to be hammered every time they do. -
Albatross at 08:22 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP @19, I see. You are ignoring the fact that you are curve sitting the GSL data. Can we deal with one thing at a time please. -
Berényi Péter at 08:01 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#18 Albatross at 03:47 AM on 29 July, 2011 All of these papers note the importance of abyssal and deep oceans. I see. What you are effectively saying is that Rignot et al. 2011 is flawed somehow. That is, land based ice (GIC + polar ice sheets) are in fact melting at a much slower, possibly decelerating rate. Is that your opinion? By the way, the 0.1 mm/yr2 deceleration in sea level rise shown by satellite data is not negligible. Its absolute value is about the same as the 36 Gt/yr2 acceleration due to polar ice sheet melt according to Rignot. As for basic physics: Heat of fusion for water is 334 kJ/kg. To raise sea level by 1 mm by adding water to it you need to add 3.6×1014 kg, and to melt that much land based ice 1.2×1020 J is needed. On the other hand from data published on the NOAA NODC OCL Global Ocean Heat Content page you can easily derive that in the upper 700 m of oceans you need to add 7×1021 J to produce the same 1 mm rise by thermal expansion. That is, the same amount of heat is 58 times more efficient in rising sea level if it is expended for melting land based ice than for warming the upper ocean. Specific heat and volumetric thermal expansion coefficient of seawater depends on both temperature and pressure. The former not so much, but the latter one tremendously. It increases with both temperature and pressure. However, while pressure increases with depth linearly, temperature of oceans decreases fast in the upper several hundred meters, but as one goes deeper, this rate of cooling converges to zero. Therefore, although heat content changes below 700 m may be somewhat less effective in changing sea water volume than in the upper 700 m, but not immensely so, and beyond about 1000 m they start to grow increasingly efficient once again (due to pressure). Anyway, you can't put more heat in the abyss and expect its volume to shrink at the same time. Seawater (unlike fresh water) is the most dense at the point of freezing, provided its salinity is greater than about 30 PSU, which is obviously true for all major basins. -
ptbrown31 at 07:38 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
30, Sphaerica - The first item of your post that set me off was any requirement that DTR not merely be expected and detected, but that some level of attribution be made. To me, the latter is a ridiculous and unattainable requirement at this point in time, or in the near future. I don't really understand your complaint here. I am not the one who said that the DTR change needs to be attributed to anything. I am criticizing the fact that the OP attributed it to an enhanced greenhouse effect when the papers that are cited do not corroborate that conclusion. As far as your actual grasp of the factors involved, I was bothered by the "simple model" approach of your logic. This very, very often fails. It fails to include all of the variables, as well as to properly quantify those variables. The latter is very often a problem. I agree. All I was doing was giving a counter example to the conceptual model that SkS presents to argue for DTR changes being due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Both of our models are ultimately wrong on some level. You state that the earth "should radiate more heat to space during the day," and then conclude that "it does not seem obvious why an enhanced greenhouse effect should cause more warming at night." I see absolutely no tie between these two points, or why they should appear together in an argument. My only point here is that the greenhouse effect suppresses radiative cooling at all times, not just at night. When the earth is warmer (during the day) it is radiating more (to the 4th power of temperature) and therefore there is more radiative cooling to suppress. They seem to completely miss the actual reason why a GHE would expand the DTR... the simple fact that during the day, solar radiation dominates temperatures, while at night, only the GHE has an influence. I understand SkS's conceptual model. That point is exactly what I articulated in the quotes. The end result is not that your premise is wrong, but rather that the system is clearly more complex than this, so it is a dangerous premise to make without considering far more factors, and actually running the numbers or doing observations. I totally agree. I was not trying to say "SkS's conceptual model is wrong and my conceptual model is right". Instead I was trying to say that it is not obvious that SkS's model is correct. Therefore, it is not obvious that an enhanced greenhouse effect should decrease DTR. This would be fine if SkS had cited articles that went into a rigorous treatment of whether or not we would "expect" to see a decrees in DTR with an enhanced greenhouse effect. But the articles cited to not do this. None of them say anything to the effect of "an enhanced greenhouse should decrease DTR because....". This bothers me slightly because I would prefer if SkS's missions was to DEFEND the established science against bad skeptical arguments not make up its own physical arguments and cite sources that don't back up those arguments. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:22 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
adelady... I wouldn't expect Peter would do that. Literally it's just a no-win to debate with someone who is so willing to tell such bald-faced lies. That's what Monckton does for a living. He is a master of telling lies with such zeal and confidence that people who don't know better just believe him. It's easy to battle this when you have the time to pull up the actual research and read through it to see where he gets it wrong. That's been a very effective tool at dealing with Monckton. John Abraham did a great job. Peter's Hatfield and Sinclair have both done excellent video series. There are lots of other articles online which Dana has now added to. The only really effect moment in a debate against Monckton was when Tim Lambert caught him out on Dr Pinker's work. And that was mostly effective just because Monckton clearly didn't even realize that Pinker was a woman. While Denniss did a good job of getting his own message out, generally I think it's not a good idea to give Monckton any kind of microphone. It's just allows him one more opportunity to project his lies. -
Chris G at 06:56 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
#13 scaddenp, An excellent point Phil. The cost of shifting can be managed by gradually replacing the infrastructure that goes offline anyway. I didn't rush out and buy a ground-source heat pump as soon as they became available, but I did make the investment when my AC died. A shift to a new energy infrastructure is bound to cause an increase in energy costs in the short term. The reason we use so much fossil fuels now is there is very little that can compete with the internal costs of getting energy from them. We have learned, and our knowledge is increasing, that the external costs are going to be difficult to live with. I very much like the idea of a phased-in carbon tax (+dividend) to give utilities incentive, and time, to shift from FF plants to alternatives. Let the market sort out which alternatives work better in different places. Any time you get more energy out of a system than you put into it, energy becomes cheap. So, there will be a increase in costs in the near term, but in the long run it will be fine. I believe that from now on, fossil fuels are going to be increasingly expensive, especially petroleum-based forms. So, we can use some of that energy now to shift to alternate ways of generating energy, or we can wait until fossil fuels are even more expensive, and we find our situation is even more dire and that we have to make the shift even quicker.
Prev 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 Next
