Recent Comments

Prev  1573  1574  1575  1576  1577  1578  1579  1580  1581  1582  1583  1584  1585  1586  1587  1588  Next

Comments 79001 to 79050:

79001. Tom Smerling at 10:06 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Thanks for posting this, Rob. Regardless of one's take on the details -- half-empty or half-full cup -- its always refreshing -- and rare -- to hear a first-hand account. So many of us are just "reading the tea leaves" from afar.
79002. Norman at 10:02 AM on 19 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Tom Curtis @ 342 Your countepoint 2) "You repeatedly assert that the models do not allow for a changing environmental lapse rate. That is false. Rather, they do not program the change in lapse rate in to the model, but allow the physics to sort it out." That is not my question. My question is why do their models not show a change in the lapse rate. Quote from Trapp et al (2009) article you and Albatross have links to. "For the current experiments, these are listed in increasing order of importance, with essentially no longterm trend indicated in the temperature lapse rates over a 3–5 km AGL layer (not shown)," Other souces are claiming Global warming would change the lapse rates in a negative way (one reason is the the mid-lattitude troposphere would be the receiver of latent heat and tend to warm). I am not stating they should put in a changed lapse rate in their model. I am asking why doesn't the model develop a changed lapse rate.
79003. Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr at 09:51 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Dear Rob, your answer according to which "all of aviation accounts for about 4% of total human carbon emissions" is slightly disingenuous. Using that kind of trick with numbers, travelling with private jets is very green, since it represents 0,0000001% of total human carbon emissions... The only sensible and honest approach is "how much CO2 per person per year"? By that token, polluting with more than two tons of CO2 in a few hours when your yearly quota is around 1,5 t cannot be acceptable, when one knows the dire consequences of climate destruction. And when you look at numbers for "rich" countries like the UK or France, aviation has a share that's far from negligible, approaching 10%. Furthermore, re. "One solution would be to basically shut down all economies around the world": no problemo, the extreme weather that's coming -thanks to the overuse of energy- will do just that for millions of people. Saying it another way, I think the question I raised re. the most climate-polluting machine a normal citizen can use -aka the "plane"- deserves a more serious discussion.
79004. SNRatio at 09:45 AM on 19 July 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
       I think that, in the development of science, there comes a time where it is simply not legitimate any longer to neglect theories that are firmly based on standard physical understanding, and have stood the test of time quite well. While they may, ultimately, still be wrong in many (if not all) ways, we are simply not allowed to deny the possibility that they are right, and still stay within the realm of science. It's fully legitimate to believe something different than consensus, and to find and present the evidence supporting that alternative view. It is _not_ legitimate, however, to overlook all the evidence supporting the opposing views. One may propose alternative interpretations, but those interpretations may have a very hard time getting accepted. When we have a simple (in terms of physical understanding) model, we won't reject that for a more complicated one until that one is shown to be significantly better. It is _not_ a competition on even terms here. To throw established parameters out of a model, you have to substitute something that is demonstrably better, subject to model complexity. Here: Given the understanding and the evidence re greenhouse gases, it is a very big task to establish valid explanations that they don't matter in practice, after all. Akasofu's cyclical explanation model may be a case in point here. It would have to perform brilliantly on new data to be accepted, which it can hardly be said to do now. In the context of confirmation, there is no need to fully specify a hypothesis (here: the totality of forcings from gases), and it's therefore not quite fair to judge the merits of an only partially specified hypothesis on comparison with observations alone. Rather, we can look at the original formulation, and make some estimates about how a more complete specification, based on the present state of knowledge, would modify the original predictions. It seems that Broecker's work then looks even better.
79005. Norman at 09:41 AM on 19 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Tom Curtis @ 342 Tom, I can't agree with your statement: "1) If a spinning body extends its radius, it will slow down the spinning body. Consequently, the raising of the tropopause does indeed slow down the Earth by some imperceptibly small amount. (Or perhaps no imperceptible, they measure the length of the day very accurately these days.) But in extending the radius, the angular velocity of the outermost portion of the rotating body becomes greater." Quote from information on angular momentum: "This formula indicates one important physical consequence of angular momentum: because the above formula can be rearranged to give v = L/(mr) and L is a constant for an isolated system, the velocity v and the separation r are inversely correlated. Thus, conservation of angular momentum demands that a decrease in the separation r be accompanied by an increase in the velocity v, and vice versa." Source of above quote.
79006. Tom Curtis at 08:48 AM on 19 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Eric (skeptic) @883, first, Sphaerica's 880 and 881 are I believe restatements of my first point in 886. So are Dikran's 877 and 879, though he states it with greater clarity and economy than I do. Second, I think the best way to state it is that the unrealized instantaneous forcing is very much larger for CO2 than for TSI changes associated with the solar cycle, and significantly larger than for TSI changes at any time in the twentieth century. By "unrealized instantaneous changes" I mean the change in total forcing due to a given factor at anytime minus the change in OLR due to changes in surface temperature at the same time. I take it that is what you mean by "ongoing long term forcing", and also what Sphaerica was describing in his 882. That being the case, we can all now agree furiously together on this point.
79007. Tom Curtis at 08:30 AM on 19 July 2011
       Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
       adelady @27, an interesting and relatively insightful article. I guess that is what makes it depressing.
79008. Tom Curtis at 08:28 AM on 19 July 2011
       Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
       Rob Honneycutt @26, I definitely exempt Wendy Carlisle, from whose program I drew my quotes, from my criticism. Although even she made one clear science error in her program. But Wendy Carlisle, or even the ABC in general, do not have that large a market share. Where is "A Current Affair"s expose of Monckton? Or any of the major commercial curren affair's programs? Or where is the expose in "The Australian" or any of the major Newspapers? At the moment the Australian media is mostly playing Dumb to Monckton's Dumber.
79009. scaddenp at 07:48 AM on 19 July 2011
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       "Climate modelers can most likely make sure their models do whatever they want." Another baseless assertion. Please explain then why skeptics cant use the models to make anthropogenic warming go away? Camburn, so you would bet on that being a long term trend?
79010. Rob Painting at 07:45 AM on 19 July 2011
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       Steve Case -"Analysis without any data is even more useless." So ARGO is now useless because the data do not match your preconceived notions? You're not making any sense whatsoever. "Climate modelers can most likely make sure their models do whatever they want" This comment is skirting dangerously close to a violation of the comments policy. No comments of scientific malfeasance please. As well as breaking this forum's rules, it just demonstrates you have no rational argument to make. " I assume they got the value for the observed 0.1°C over 42 years in that 700-meter layer of ocean from a legitimate source." Ditto, my comment above. "The only place I see that happening is in the models." Note that the actual sea level rise is at the upper end of IPCC projections: "World temperatures have been on an upward trend for 120 years but the sea level trend during that time has remained relatively constant. It's on course for about 275 mm or less than a foot.' So you didn't even bother to read the post you are commenting on? Did you not notice the graph in the post above?. Just to refresh: That steadily rising curve, that's an acceleration in the long-term rate of sea level rise. It doesn't mean sea level won't slow-down or speed-up on short timescales however.
79011. Eric the Red at 07:20 AM on 19 July 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Perseus, Two explanations: First, figure 4 is only plotted through 2009; the websites is current (make sure you are using a 12-month running mean for comparison). Second, the graph is not using a linear fit, but some other mathematical fit (polymeric maybe), and appears to be part of a longer trend which is not displayed on the graph. Be careful when using fitting on short term data. That is my take, FWIW.
79012. Eric (skeptic) at 06:43 AM on 19 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Sphaerica, your first post didn't really address my concern because you turned the 11 years of increase into a shorter interval of high solar. Then your second post changed the topic to secular solar changes and I have no argument with it (they are small). In your third post you resumed the original topic but missed my point which is quite simple: there is an interval of 11 years in which the TSI forcing increases roughly the same amount as CO2 does during that same interval. It is then balanced by the next 11 years of decreasing TSI forcing. Dikran, you are suggsting that the earth has a different thermal intertia to TSI changes than to CO2 changes. I don't see how that can be true. Tom, regarding your statement "Second, the level of the forcing for changes in TSI and especially for the solar cycle are not large certainly not nearly the same size as the CO2 forcing" would make sense if it was simply appended with "in total" or "since preindustrial" or "ongoing long term". Then we would all be able to violently agree.
79013. Paul D at 06:41 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       UK DECC/DEFRA emissions factors for many types of transport can be downloaded for 2010: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/pdf/101006-guidelines-ghg-conversion-factors-method-paper.pdf I'm not sure what will be produced for 2011 with the new coalition government.
79014. perseus at 06:41 AM on 19 July 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Perhaps someone could explain this anomaly Under Figure 4 it states "The observed changes (lower panel; Trenberth and Fasullo 2010) show the 12-month running means of global mean surface temperature anomalies relative to 1901-2000 from NOAA (red (thin) and decadal (thick)) in °C (scale lower left)" Figure 4 shows only 0.1C change between 1993-2010, yet a linear regression through the monthly figures from NOAA ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ano...1-2000mean.dat yields about 0.3C over this period. Are we using the same temperatures?
79015. Steve Case at 06:39 AM on 19 July 2011
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       "Your actual observations link was a link to method, not data"
       That's being a little bit silly. Data is useless without analysis.

       Analysis without any data is even more useless.

       The point was that your simplistic calculations bore [no] relationship to reality.

       What doesn't bear any relationship to reality is the mismatch of claims within the IPCC's AR4.

       So, is it reasonable or is it an exaggeration to project that the thermal component of sea level rise by 2100 might be over ten to nearly 20 times what it is today?

       Well climate modeling sure suggests an increase in the thermal component.

       Climate modelers can most likely make sure their models do whatever they want.

       It's to do with the greater temperature rise expected this century.

       We are over ten years into the century and certainly sea level is not demonstrating any positive change in trend. this graph

       certainly doesn't and if you plot out the tide gage data from PSMSL you will find that the timeline over the last 120 is nearly as straight.

       Much more than the 20th century. Like this study for instance: Note the inset portion, where the thermal component reaches 6mm per year by 2100.

       The IPCC no doubt got their value for table 10.7 from such a study. I assume they got the value for the observed 0.1°C over 42 years in that 700-meter layer of ocean from a legitimate source.

       I'm questioning whether or not it's reasonable that the empirical record described in the Chapter 5 Executive Summary of the AR4 could lead to the worst case projected outcome in table 10.7. If it's reasonable, then the annual rate of sea level rise, and it's claimed that it's mostly thermal expansion, has to change very dramatically in the next few years. The only place I see that happening is in the models. World temperatures have been on an upward trend for 120 years but the sea level trend during that time has remained relatively constant. It's on course for about 275 mm or less than a foot.

79016. Rob Honeycutt at 06:26 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Paul... Here is a better version of their data.
79017. Paul D at 06:22 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Rob@8 and the chart. The walking and cycling bar is wrong. It is impossible to have zero carbon emissions. The fuel in these cases is additional food, footwear and clothes that probably wear out quicker. This has a carbon footprint. It will still be the smallest, but it won't be zero. Although a cycle has a carbon footprint, I think it will be offset against walking because cycling is more efficient.
79018. apiratelooksat50 at 06:20 AM on 19 July 2011
       Visions of the Arctic
       Michael Sweet @ 40 You are correct that polar bears build up their fat reserves during the winter and live off that during the leaner times of summer. Basically a reverse of other bear species. However, I was referring to the mother and cubs. I should have been more clear. New mothers do drop up to 40% of their body weight over winter while in a state of hibernation. Once she emerges from the den in the spring, both her and her cubs need to gain weight.
79019. Paul D at 06:16 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Travelling across water (oceans) is probably more efficient by air. I think the main problem is the convenience and low cost of air travel, which makes travelling to and from China easy.
79020. apiratelooksat50 at 06:11 AM on 19 July 2011
       Visions of the Arctic
       Paul D @ 42 Our state Department of Natural Resources does not "control nature" as you put it. The DNR actually protects or Natural Resources from exploitation. As far as your statement: "'Nuisance wildlife control' - Humans are expanding and using more land, those pesky animals keep coming into our cities, we need to control them." Guess what? I agree with you! Except for the implication of controlling wildlife. In my mind if you build a house in cougar territory and a cougar eats your dog, then that's your fault - not the cougar. When I use the word control it is in the following manner. When bees, bats, snakes, etc... set up residence in someones home, we relocate them without harming in all cases possible. We also educate the public on the importance of creatures that are normally feared. I have had several clients that once we got the bats out of attic actually installed bathouses on the side of their house. Note: Just this past week I rescued two juvenile hawks that had run into tree trunks while learning to fly. These birds would most likely have died without human intervention. It's all in the language.
79021. Rob Honeycutt at 05:45 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Here is a graphic that shows the relative carbon emissions per passenger mile of various forms of transportation.... [click] Per passenger mile airplane travel is not much different than automobiles. But everyone drives pretty much every day. The larger impact on the CO2 emissions is to address automobile transportation first. I think that's happening with the new EV's starting to hit the market.
79022. Rob Honeycutt at 05:30 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Pierre... One solution would be to basically shut down all economies around the world and have everyone live like they do in Cambodia. I don't think that is a realistic option. Nor is it a necessary option. Addressing the crisis requires having a vibrant economy that can create the solutions necessary to reduce carbon emissions. Most of the technologies are already there and already proven. It's just a matter of building the economic incentives to implement them. This means, yes, we have to keep doing what we are doing right now while we shift to carbon free systems. Cutting back right now is very important. Cutting everything off would be a huge mistake.
79023. Rob Honeycutt at 05:25 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Pierre... I knew that was coming. Yes, I think in general people should be flying less. We should be avoiding needless long distance travel. I do not believe that people should never travel. Currently all of aviation accounts for about 4% of total human carbon emissions. A large portion of that can be offset by switching, as China is doing, to high speed rail. Trans-oceanic travel is a different matter. The aviation industry is very engaged in the challenges of offsetting their carbon output by transitioning to biofuels. But that's going to take some time, likely over the next two decades. You say, "How is it possible, in 2011, to state that to address global warming will be crucial... at some future date?" I agree that today is the crucial moment but the fact is, on the whole, governments are not addressing climate change due to a highly motivated energy sector disinformation campaign. That is just the state of the world today. I would like us to be addressing the problem now by investing heavily in renewable energy and new forms of electrified transportation. It is depressing that it's going to take a much more blatant crisis to shift the course of humanity (or more specifically, the west) the right direction. I offer up this picture of China as a unique perspective of what is going on outside our western perspective.
79024. Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr at 05:11 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       CBDunkerson, this is a standard answer that does not make sense for the climate system. The climate does not care whether we could do even worse than the current course. Sure, you could say planes are great because people could use private jets. But what counts is what the system can take without going beyond the tipping points. On a planet on which a minority of people (we in the "rich" countries) are already using way, way too much energy, you don't add insult to injury by tripling energy use for certain activities. Sometimes, simple arguments are not simplistic but true.
79025. CBDunkerson at 05:03 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Pierre, if you don't have high speed rail people will take cars or airplanes... ergo, while high speed rail may be more energy intensive than regular rail it is less energy intensive than the modes of transportation which would actually be used in its place.
79026. Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr at 04:57 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Dear Mr Honeycutt, I find your article highly depressing. You do not seem to be aware of the most basic data re. greenhouse gas pollution. 1. “To travel to China on holiday or for business is one thing, and something I highly recommend to anyone who has the opportunity (...)”. There simply is no other machine that allows a human being to destroy more effectively the climate of the earth than a plane. For example, a Paris-Montreal flight pollutes with 2,5 t of CO2 in a few hours. For context, most scientists say we should not emit more than 1,5 t per person per year (all activities taken together, of course), and a Cambodian emits less than 400 kg... in a year. 2. “And that ain't all! Here is a map of all the high speed rail that is either built or under construction in China.” In order to have "usual" trains go from 150 km/h to 300 km/h, ie. in order to double speed, you must triple energy use. In 2011, to triple energy use to go from A to B, such a move seems highly irresponsible, to put it mildly. 3. “When it finally becomes crucial that humanity addresses global warming we in the west (...).” How is it possible, in 2011, to state that to address global warming will be crucial... at some future date? I read the rich information of your website, along other scientific sources, and such a statement seems at odds with the severity of today's situation. Yours. Pierre Neurohr
79027. Bob Lacatena at 04:34 AM on 19 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Eric, Whoa! Lastly, I just noticed that you bumped the CO2 forcing down to only consider the change in forcing, i.e. in the increase during an 11 year period. But the CO2 forcings are cumulative, where the TSI changes are not. It's hardly a fair argument to compare 11 years of TSI changes (which net to zero!) to 11 years of CO2 changes which pile on top of decades of previous change in the value. Those are not the two values under discussion (11 year change in CO2 versus 11 year change in TSI, which itself is probably less than 0.0025 W/m2 anyway -- you have to measure the areas under the two curves to get a true number).
79028. Bob Lacatena at 04:14 AM on 19 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Eric, Just to make it a little clearer, no net change in minima, and a net change in maxima of about 0.03 W/m2 i the past 33 years, would net out (since most of the time is spent in the basically unchanged ups and downs of the cycle) to probably an addtional 0.03 W/m2 for maybe 6 or 9 of those 33 years, or at best 1/4 of the time, meaning a net of 0.0075 W/m2... a completely inconsequential number.
79029. Rob Honeycutt at 04:10 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Composer99... When I'm there I don't hear any skepticism over climate change. Here in the west we have large corporate interests who are actively trying to seed doubt about climate change. The same thing is just not happening in China. And even if it were it wouldn't matter because the government there is not popularly elected. In fact, I get the sense that there is somewhat of an adversarial relationship between the government and oil companies there. When I was there during the last oil price spike a really interesting dance was taking place. The central government sets the price of gas. But the oil companies couldn't make any money at the price the government set, but the government refused to raise the price of gas because the don't want to inhibit the growth rate of the economy. So, the oil companies' response was to just pump gas as slowly as possible until the price of oil went back down. You'd see these long lines of blue trucks waiting in line at the gas station for their turn to get gas. When the price of oil went down the lines disappeared. The general public in China seems to be less aware of climate change per se, though, but they are very much concerned about clean air, water and safe food. You also tend to find people are very interested in clean energy, likely because that fits well with those interests.
79030. Patrick 027 at 04:08 AM on 19 July 2011
       OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
       PS the thermodynamic equilibria for various carbonate-silicate reations shown in fig 1 of http://www.pnas.org/content/98/7/3666.full "Initiation of clement surface conditions on the earliest Earth" N. H. Sleep, K. Zahnle, P. S. Neuhoff (not entirely on topic but it is related to chemical weathering) (PS note the temperature plotted as a function of atmospheric CO2 - I'm pretty sure this includes the effects of the faint young Sun.) C&P w/ formatting change, the reactions shown: 1. "leonhardite + albite + CO2 = calcite + paragonite + 4 quartz + 2.5 H2O" 2. "leonhardite + CO2 = calcite + kaolinite + 2 quartz + 1.5 H2O" 3. "clinochlore-14A + 5 calcite + 5 CO2 = 5 dolomite + kaolinite + quartz + 2 H2O" 4. "clinochlore-14A + 5 CO2 = 5 magnesite + kaolinite + quartz + 2 H2O" 5. "daphnite-14A + 5 CO2 = 5 siderite + kaolinite + quartz + 2H2O" 6. "2 albite + CO2 = 3 thermonatrite + kaolinite + 4 quartz " 7. "paragonite + CO2 + 5 H2O = thermonatrite + 3 kaolinite" mineral formulas given in table 1 http://www.pnas.org/content/98/7/3666/T1.expansion.html , and references are identified for thermodynamic data.
79031. Composer99 at 03:36 AM on 19 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       I wonder to what extent the Chinese social dialogue over climate change (if there is one) is saturated with skeptic/denialist positions & claims.
79032. adelady at 03:14 AM on 19 July 2011
       Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
       Tom "What is transparently lacking is responsible media... This item isn't about climate change or any kind of science - but it's worth reading through your science-tinted glasses. It's a bit glum-making if you're hoping for higher journalistic standards.
79033. Bob Lacatena at 03:12 AM on 19 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Eric, I think your comparison is apples and oranges. First, as to the cycle, while the change in amplitude could be 0.34 W/m2, it's not really fair to treat the minima as the baseline, so you're really talking about +/- 0.17 W/m2. It's also not a square cycle, jumping from minimum to maximum in one leap, so the duration of time spent at that full increase or decrease is low, with the majority of the cycle spent within 0.09 W/m2 or even less. Also, every positive swing has the negative swing, so any lag at all is going to be very muddled (with the counter/braking action starting before the original action is able to take effect). Second, for changes between cycles, the difference is even less than 0.34 W/m2, much less. In the past three cycles, the variation from the first to the third maximum (eyeballing it) looks to be less than one one hundredth of one percent, while the minima have no apparent change.
79034. Dikran Marsupial at 03:05 AM on 19 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Eric, the point is that you are confusing the instantaneous response with the equilibrium response. The climate starts responding to CO2 rapidly just as it does the 11 year solar cycle, but in the case of CO2 it eventually overcomes the inertia (as it is monotonically rising) but the 11 year solar cycle doesn't as it alternates phase far earlier than thermal inertia is overcome. If TSI gradually increased (rather than oscillated) it too would have an equilibrium response that would only be fully realised after several decades, but temperatures would start to rise immediately. I don't know if you have an engineering background, but it is the difference between the equilibrium response and transient response of a system described by differential equations. They are not the same thing.
79035. Bibliovermis at 03:01 AM on 19 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       What we see here is another tragedy of the deniers hijacking the discussion. There is a difference between discussing a reduced energy imbalance due to the solar minimum and the goalpost-moving "global warming has slowed / stopped / is now global cooling" tripe.
79036. Eric (skeptic) at 02:56 AM on 19 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Tom, I must take issue with your statement "Second, the level of the forcing for changes in TSI and especially for the solar cycle are not large, and certainly not nearly the same size as the CO2 forcing." Please double check these numbers, but 11 year TSI amplitude is 0.1% or 1366/1000/4 or 0.34 W/m2. For CO2 over 11 years it is 22 ppm or (22/280)*3.7 or 0.29 W/m2. That means they are roughly the same amplitude over that phase of the solar cycle. Dikran, perhaps you can check those numbers too, I don't see how the damping on the CO2 rise can be any different than the damping on the TSI oscillation. Aren't they exactly the same?
79037. Alexandre at 02:44 AM on 19 July 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
       "you should remember about these uncertainties..." hehe... it´s great to see people clinging to straws to avoid seeing the obvious: the science that predicted AGW is around for quite a while, has resisted the test of time and has improved in the meantime. On the other hand, clumsy predictions of cooling based on nothing more than graph eyeballing are deemed as worthy mavericks. It's really a "debate" that does not excite me anymore. Fortunately, renewables seem to be getting close to a tipping point economically (like this) and I hope to see big changes within this decade.
79038. Camburn at 02:28 AM on 19 July 2011
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       So I present data from a new satillite and that is suppose to be bad? And from that data we can see that MSL rise has slowed. Do we know why it has slowed? All satillite data shows that it has slowed. That is why I posted the link to all of the current measureing satillites. Ya know, to make an observation supported by all metrics, and then be told that I am cherry picking? A valid question is, the major temp metrics all show wraming, yet MSL is not responding....why?
79039. Rob Honeycutt at 02:12 AM on 19 July 2011
       Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
       Tom... You know, actually the ABC is doing a pretty good job of pointing all this out. Wendy Carlisle did an excellent radio piece on Monckton.
79040. Rob Honeycutt at 02:08 AM on 19 July 2011
       Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
       Yes, definitely a form of black humor, Tom. These people actually concern me a great deal. It's my hope that the general voting population sees them in the light of the extremes they profess. I think that most moderate right wing folks don't buy into this kind of rhetoric, and I hope that plays out in upcoming elections.
79041. Tom Curtis at 01:53 AM on 19 July 2011
       Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
       Rob Honeycutt @22, you obviously like your humor black. Not only is he (as you put it) an all round bad seed, he is also intimately connected with all the major deniers in Australia. These are the "independent advisers" of the ironically named "Galileo Movement": Professor Tim Ball Warwick Hughes Professor Fred Singer Professor Dick Lindzen Bill Kininmonth Professor Bob Carter Professor Ian Plimer David Archibald Professor Peter Ridd Professor Garth Paltridge Dr Vincent Gray Dr Jennifer Marohasy Jo Nova Des Moore John Nicol David Flint Andrew Bolt John McLean David Evans Pat Michaels Joe D'Aleo Viscount Monckton Jo Nova in particular, has been sharing the podium with Monckton on his speaking tour. While she has been saying,

       "We sceptics are not calling for anyone to be silenced."

       he has been getting up and saying:

       "So to the bogus scientists who have produced the bogus science that invented this bogus scare I say, we are coming after you, we are going to prosecute you and we are going to lock you up!"

       Apparently they do not see the disconnect. What is transparently lacking is responsible media who put to those involved why they are willing to associate with a man like Monckton (no more accurate description can be given with in comment policy).
79042. dana1981 at 01:49 AM on 19 July 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
       Thanks Lou. Agreed, I had no idea Broecker had even made this prediction, let alone its impressive accuracy, until Ari pointed me towards the paper.
79043. Dikran Marsupial at 01:37 AM on 19 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Eric (skeptic) In comparing the lag of decades for CO2 and months for the 11 year solar cycle you appear to be confusing "equilibrium" and "instantaneous" responses of the climate. Think of the thermal inertia of the oceans as acting like a damper in a car suspension system; if you increase the weight of the car, it will slowly sink on its suspension at a rate depending on the damping. If you put a 100kg weight in the car, it doesn't immediately sink an inch, it takes a fraction of a second. If you fit stiffer dampers, it will take longer. So there is an "equilibrium" response of the suspension that is larger than the "immediate response" (it starts settling immediately, but it takes time to get to its equilibrium position). Now consider what happens if you drive down a cobbled street (i.e. a cyclic forcing), the damper then will attenuate the oscillation in ride height, and you will find there will be lag introduced in the ride height relative to the road surface, but there is no "equilibrium response" as the cobbles don't change the equilibrium ride height.
79044. Rob Honeycutt at 01:04 AM on 19 July 2011
       Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
       Tom... It's actually quite humorous, the whole thing. The House of Lords is essentially saying there is no such thing as a "non-voting member" of the HoL, which is what Monckton claims he is. Basically he just wants to have his cake and eat it too. What's not humorous is the extremist rhetoric he's using in his lectures this time around. He may have been called out on the whole swastika thing but he continues to call for climate scientists to be jailed and saying that the media are fascist. He's an all 'round bad seed.
79045. Tom Curtis at 00:58 AM on 19 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Eric (skeptic) @875, first, I think there may be a difference in definition. Specifically, when talking about thermal lag for CO2, we are talking about the period of time to reach 60% (or there about) of the equilibrium response. When we talk about thermal lag for seasonal temperature changes, we are talking instead about the time difference between the peak (minimum) insolation and the peak (minimum) temperature response. That is because the oscillating insolation does not leave enough time for 60% of the equilibrium response to be reached. Rather, the insolation falls below the equilibrium level of the current temperature long before it reaches that point. The same is certainly true for the solar cycle, and probably true for changes in TSI over the 20th century in general, which first fell, than rose to about 1950, then fell again, then rose almost as far, and then fell gradually. Consequently thermal lag for insolation probably measures the period to peak measurable response rather than the period to a certain percentage of equilibrium response as with CO2. The difference is not because of the different source of forcing, but because the CO2 forcing is increasing monotonically (note: CO2 forcing, not total or total anthropogenic forcing). Second, the level of the forcing for changes in TSI and especially for the solar cycle are not large, and certainly not nearly the same size as the CO2 forcing. Remember that the greatest change in TSI in the twentieth century (from 1910 to 1950) accounted for approximately a third of a slower warming than that at the end of the twentieth century which can be attributed exclusively to CO2 (but only in that the other factors canceled out). Consequently the peak solar forcing is at most a third of the peak CO2 forcing in the twentieth century, which means the resulting decadal temperature change from solar alone is not greatly different from the annual variation in mean global temperature. If the temperature is rising then falling due to an oscillating forcing, it will approximate to a sine wave. It will first rise slowly, then quite rapidly, and then slow down again. For a weak forcing, it is probable that only the change in temperature during the rapid rise will be statistically detectable, particularly if the forcing is very weak (solar cycle) or there are only one or two examples to test against (major TSI changes). Consequently the end of the peak measurable change of temperature will coincide with the end of that rapid rise rather than the actual peak which will be obscured by year to year temperature variations. Third, and particularly for the the solar cycle, because annual temperature fluctuations are large compared to those induced by the solar cycle, it is probable that after a short period of time a random fluctuation will bring the temperature up to the peak response point. From that point the higher (or lower) insolation will be acting to dampen departures from that temperature rather than lifting (or lowering) the temperature to that point. And as we have established, there is no thermal lag for that. Consequently the two month lag (which I and, more importantly as he has reasonable claim to expertise in this area, Tamino find surprising) may just be the average period until a random fluctuation shifts the temperature towards the effective equilibrium temperature. My point is not that any of these factors is shortening the "thermal lag" period for TSI variations including the solar cycle. It is that there are good reasons to expect weak, and fluctuating forcings to exhibit a reduced lag response both because their full response is never exhibited due to lack of time, and because noise can swamp out the more subtle parts of the signal. I do not suppose these are the only ways that can happen, and nor can I claim to know how much each factor is relevant in particular cases. But I do know that the difference between the thermal lag duration for CO2 and solar forcings is a function of characteristics of those forcings, not special pleading.
79046. Tom Curtis at 00:21 AM on 19 July 2011
       Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
       Bernard J @21, Monckton has already been publicly confronted with that statement. His response is that the Houses of Parliament, even with Royal assent, are not capable of depriving him of his membership in the House of Lords. As the Houses of Parliament, with or without Royal Assent, can depose the sitting Monarch, I don't see what is so special about Viscounts.
79047. Bernard J. at 23:42 PM on 18 July 2011
       Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
       A little aside about Monckton, hot off the press...

       Climate sceptic Lord Monckton told he's not member of House of Lords Clerk of parliaments publishes letter on Lords' site saying peer is not and has 'never been a member of the House of Lords'

       I can't wait to hear of Monckton's response to being firmly told by the Lords to cease and desist.
79048. Lou Grinzo at 23:40 PM on 18 July 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
       Excellent post. I'm glad to see Broecker get a little attention for his outstanding work -- he's been seriously overlooked in discussions, even among the climate geeks, for far too long.
79049. Rob Painting at 23:32 PM on 18 July 2011
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       Steve Case - "Your actual observations link was a link to method, not data" Now Steve that's being a little bit silly. Data is useless without analysis. I'm sure you know this. The point was that your simplistic calculations bore no to relationship to reality. "So, is it reasonable or is it an exaggeration to project that the thermal component of sea level rise by 2100 might be over ten to nearly 20 times what it is today?" Well climate modelling sure suggests an increase in the thermal component. It's to do with the greater temperature rise expected this century. Much more than the 20th century. Like this study for instance: Note the inset portion, where the thermal component reaches 6mm per year by 2100.
79050. Eric (skeptic) at 23:11 PM on 18 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Tom (874), that is interesting, but seems like an odd dichotomy. Lag of decades for CO2, lag of a decade for a similarly large change in solar output, but only 2 months for the small solar cycle TSI change. I think the answer is in your #3, that there is no lag for solar TSI cooling as you explain, but a lag for every type of warming no matter what the source (essentially the ocean absorbing the extra warmth). That seems consistent with the statement: "we should see a slowing of warming with the solar minimum" although not necessarily cooling. Your logic for why we should see that "slowing of warming" right away seems very sound, so I believe I was wrong about implying a "lag for cooling" up thread.

Prev  1573  1574  1575  1576  1577  1578  1579  1580  1581  1582  1583  1584  1585  1586  1587  1588  Next