Recent Comments

Prev  1615  1616  1617  1618  1619  1620  1621  1622  1623  1624  1625  1626  1627  1628  1629  1630  Next

Comments 81101 to 81150:

81101. les at 17:18 PM on 27 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       120 okatiniko - you really have to make your mind up: either the 'hockysticks' show features you feel they should show and, therefore, are not creating artefacts; or everything they show are artefacts. However you have decided - and this is clearly only based on your bias and, self-declared ignorance of statistics - that the hockey-sticks are real because they show up the LIA (and, indeed many other ancient climatic conditions). But are artefacts because they don't - in your opinion - show modern features pinned to a particular date. And as evidence? You dismiss the need for established science as being just a bias of mine, don't present any statistical analysis (because you can't) but use the good old eyeball-o-matic on graphs that you feel support your case (cherry picking). I still await your substantial demonstration of your claims, supported through published material, other than McIntyre's work which, as KR has pointed out, if not reliable. You cannot avoid that by claiming my incompetence. You will note, finally, that I am not presenting any "graph" showing a pick-up in 1970. That is, first, a total red-herring. Second, your dismissal of the indication of AGW through this data will come back, clearly, to your confusion about random noise, variance etc. which ... you have not substantiated . So, no I'm presenting nothing that allows you to spin around a circular argument.
81102. emilio.gagliardi at 15:35 PM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       Hi everyone! my first comment on the site. First off, thank you all for your efforts; I love this resource. Secondly, I try to communicate climate change to interested people who more often than not lack the formal training necessary to understand the three types of science posted in the article. My job has been to try and personalize and create stories/parables that people can feel into so that climate change moves beyond the alienating double talk of politicians and the cold abstract language of the likes contained within this thread. My question is, does someone have another way of characterizing the three kinds fo science in a way that is more approachable with examples of the kinds of science at that level? Imagine my market is dominated by aging baby boomers that sadly watch a lot of tv. They relate to stories much better than theories and facts. Thanks again!
81103. Patrick 027 at 15:28 PM on 27 June 2011
       The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
       Re 40 Michele - The transformation heat->photons and vice versa requires the cohesive contribution of a very an very large amount of gas, so it cannot occur within a little rising particle or if there is present also the sole temperature gradient. Almost completely untrue. A single molecule with the necessary properties can emit a single photon (or absorb one). The only need for a large number of molecules (but still a very small amount of material) is in order to be statistically sufficient for fitting the distribution of energy at LTE (PS photons could still be emitted and absorbed when not at LTE, it would just be quantitatively different. Heck, you could even(theoretically) have a greenhouse effect based on fluorescence). The only need for a large amount of material (relatively speaking, and depending on optical properties of the material) is to provide sufficient optical thickness to be able to emit a given fraction of the blackbody flux for the temperature (or a representative temperature, etc.) of the material. The sizable isothermal regions exist at least in part because the solar heating is not more concentrated into even thinner layers or excluded from only even thinner layers. Regarding your comment 39: Yes, the ability to emit more radiation while absorbing less at a given temperature will cause the temperature to fall (unless solar heating and convection or diffusion make up the difference). Relative to optical thickness, the closer one goes towards TOA, aside from other factors, the less downward LW flux there is to absorb, so aside from other factors, equilibrium temperature tends to decline with height. Yes, the temperature at the base of a convective layer (a sufficiently vigorously convective layer, (?perhaps with sufficient localized overturning in particular?) is to a first order approximation coupled to the temperature at any other height in the same layer including the top of that layer, by a convectively-sustained lapse rate. This doesn't determine the temperature of the whole layer, merely the lapse rate of the layer. But it is entirely mistaken to assume that the net radiant cooling which balances convective is isolated to the top, or near the top, of such a layer. It is possible to have such a situation but it is also possible to have net radiant cooling of almost the whole layer. What determines the temperature of any reference level in the layer, given the lapse rate it will have, is the balance of non-radiant fluxes going into the top or base of the layer - THIS DOES NOT MEAN THOSE FLUXES ARE EMITTED OR ABSORBED ONLY AT THE BOUNDARIES; they can be emitted or absorbed anywhere within the layer. The only caveat is that the distribution of net non-convective heating and cooling must not stabilize the layer to convection, or else the convection would stop shaping the lapse rate, and we'd be back to a radiative or radiative-diffusive/conductive equilibrium. Regarding Venus vs Earth - and now I see why some are saying that Earth would be like Venus without oxygen (I used to think they just meant that there wouldn't be a stratosphere/mesosphere division without an ozone layer, or some equivalent UV-shield operating in a sufficiently similar manner) - Take away the ozone layer and the upper stratosphere and lower mesosphere get colder. That's pretty much it. There isn't much change to the troposphere; except there is some added warming effect because some portion of the solar heating of the ozone layer is now solar heating below the tropopause (warming effect for the surface and troposphere - small, nothing that would get you anywhere at all near Venus, not even close, not even remotely), while the downward LW flux from the ozone layer is also gone (cooling effect - reduces the greenhouse effect). Why wouldn't the troposphere extend up to much greater height? ****Because the radiant heating and cooling just aren't there to support it.***** Most, maybe nearly all, of where the stratosphere is now would remain stable to convection in pure radiative equilibrium there. If you tried to heat the surface up to 700 K, without adding a sufficient amount more CO2, etc, then the surface and troposphere would be emitting a lot more radiation then they'd be absorbing (LW + solar) and they'd cool off. There is no physical basis for the idea that photons are emitted to space just from the two cold layers or levels. CO2 does not form a layer just at the mesopause and tropopause - it is almost evenly distributed up through the mesopause and I think a little beyond that. How could you get CO2 at the mesopause emitting to space and not CO2 just above it or (given the thinness of the layer and CO2 spectral properties) just below it? How could tropopause CO2 emit radiation and not the CO2 in the stratosphere or stratopause or lower mesosphere? It makes absolutely no sense. Line broadenning and line strength vary but they don't take everthing away and they tend to vary gradually with height withe the pressure and temperature that determine them. Photons are emitted whereever molecules with sufficient energy can emit them, and also tend to be emitted more at higher temperatures; it's just that photons are also being absorbed and not all emitted photons escape to space or travel beyond any particular given distance. Cooler temperatures tend to be found where there is less radiant energy (including solar) available to be absorbed (and less convective heating - where some of the troposphere is, it would be colder without convective heating), so equilibrium requires less emission. At any given location, generally the flux of photons reaching that location are emitted over a range of distances away. Sometimes there is a concentrated source, like a surface, or the boundary of a cloud layer, but otherwise the source of the photons reaching some location is not a single level but a distribution. On Earth, the photons escaping to space come from all levels of the atmosphere, but more from one or another depending on frequency and the thickness of that layer. Adding greenhouse gases changes that distribution. Yes, at sufficient heights CO2 is reduced by photolysis, but that is just reducing the optical thickness there, making that layer of the atmosphere thinner in terms of optical thickness - it's like lowering the TOA. It's not that special. And conduction/diffusion becomes significant at some height because of long mean free paths. The vast majority of the mass of the atmosphere is below such levels. And the mesosphere is not convective - at least not in the sense that the troposphere is. Not all positive lapse rates imply convection.
81104. Stevo at 14:45 PM on 27 June 2011
       The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
       Liam23 @7 Here in Australia we have the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) but unfortunately it is a bit of a toothless tiger and rarely issues penalties harsher than slaps across the wrist with a piece of wet lettice. (For more information refer to ABC Media Watch website.)
81105. okatiniko at 14:30 PM on 27 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       121 : Sphericae : again, which of these hockey sticks show an unusual rise after 1970, rather than after 1900 ? but between 1900 and 1970, there was nothing really unusual in forcings, nowhere. http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-9-12.jpg KR : same can be said with Taminos' HS of course. and the choice of random proxies correlated with instrumental temperatures is normal. After all, there are considered as proxies BECAUSE they're correlated with modern temperatures, so you also have a selection effect in real life. Again, it would be surprising that there is no temperature signal in them, but again the issue is just : lower variance. Philippe : I'm sorry that you didn't understand of what I said. I cannot be clearer. But you're free also to propose a hockey stick starting after 1970 if you know one ! sean : I'm ready to discuss with everyone. Tamino isn't. That's life.
81106. Bob Lacatena at 14:26 PM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       Camburn, Again, you are offering Dr. Svalsgaards paper as evidence... yet we cannot read it. We can only trust you, and your glowing endorsement of him as a scientist. He is a good scientist, from what I see... but I don't know why you simultaneously dismiss all of the other work (and the scientists who have come before him), yet put so much weight on a paper that has not yet been published... except that it obviously draws a conclusion which you'd like to see. I really don't care that you've read it, or what you think of it, or him. None of that is valid if I and the rest of the world can't see it. If you can't provide a link to a paper, you can't use it as evidence. That's how this game is played. Everything else is hearsay and inadmissible in the court of convincing anyone that you know what you're talking about.
81107. Liam23 at 14:21 PM on 27 June 2011
       The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
       Personally, I think media outlets and journalists should have a regulatory body and a license to practice, like doctors and solicitors. If a journalist prints a story they know is untrue, their licence is revoked, and they can't be a journalist again. If a newspaper publishes a story that misrepresents the truth, then it should be shut down. Democracy depends on a well informed public, and that depends on the public receiving accurate information.
81108. adelady at 14:04 PM on 27 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Norman. Munich Re's prime source of information is their own records of claims against insured risks. Being a reinsurer they have a much wider base of information than an individual insurance company. When assessing risks related to floods, storms and like events they take account of known meteorological and other science relating to the areas in question. So they have a fairly comprehensive set of data available. Their own problem is that the information they are most comfortable with relates to insured risks. If there is information out there on events in areas where people don't insure, it doesn't get directly into their database where they can analyse how well events line up with actuarial assessments of risk at the time policies were negotiated. Their general advice about climate overall is an amalgam of climate science at large combined with their own oversight of how well risk assessment lines up with insured events. So they're pretty confident about their assessment of trends in flooding in Europe and USA, but far less directly knowledgeable about south Asia and Africa. Seeing as their claims records about European floods line up very well with what meteorology and climate science say, they're pretty comfortable relying on meteorological records and climate science alone for areas where they have less claims experience.
81109. KR at 13:39 PM on 27 June 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       Eric (skeptic) - Regarding speed of CO2 uptake, I would strongly suggest you take a look at the IPCC report, Section 7.3, The Carbon Cycle and the Climate System, and in particular 7.3.4.5 Summary of Marine Carbon Cycle Climate Couplings, where this is discussed. Given that the various mechanisms (uncertain as to positive/negative feedbacks) have time ranges from 1 year to 50K years, with high capacity negative feedback mechanisms kicking in around 5-10K years, a 50 year time cycle for full equalization is quite an underestimate.
81110. Eric (skeptic) at 13:17 PM on 27 June 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       Tom, on point 5, if my argument is void because "seasonal variations have a half cycle significantly less than the typical time to reach equilibrium with the surface", then it seems that it would also void your argument that 50% of fossil fuel contribution is soaked up each year, rather than roughly 2% of the excess over full system equilibrium. It is the reality of full system equilibrium (not just surface ocean0 that allows the consistent soaking up of CO2 year after year. Simply put, the top layer ocean carbon has to go somewhere each year so that the top layer can soak up more the next year. The only possible place is the deep ocean and it must have been consistent the past 100 or more years to reach the level we are now at given all those past releases. We have the needed data to quantify the actual amount of CO2 emitted by the decay of the NH biosphere in autumn. It is in the paper that I referenced. I could not provide a link since I had to purchase the paper, but here's the abstract: http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1997/97GB02268.shtml I'd be happy to send the paper if you want me to upload it or send it somewhere. For your point 2, I did take Archer and Brovkin somewhat out of context. But their context is not as simple as you suggest, an equilibrium between the deep ocean and top layer / atmosphere. That is not a slow process as you suggest and they imply. The main reason they get away with that implication is that they are adding warming feedbacks to the analysis without explicitly saying so (although it is obvious from the rest of the paper). The deep ocean and top layer have a sufficiently rapid exchange to sequester roughly 40% of the warming expected in the atmosphere / top layer from AGW. That same turnover sequesters CO2. But that also fills the deep ocean reservoir which is the other (an important) reason for the very long tail described by Archer and the graphs earlier in this thread. My essential point in the carbon sequestration process is that CO2 can drop half way back to preindustrial in 50 years as shown in my spreadsheet and .the charts in this thread. The reason it is able to do that is relatively rapid deep ocean sequestration. Archer does not fundamentally contradict that, but he does posit lots of changes to that rate based mainly on warming (also acidification). I think that point also argues against your point 3. I think your charts A and C in your point 4 don't contradict either of our positions. It can be visualized either way, the 40% of annual emissions that are absorbed or the 1.6% of total anthropogenic carbon that is absorbed. The real question is, what does the carbon system do, does it quickly absorb the annual anthropogenic CO2 into the top layer for a variety of effects including acidification and deep ocean sequestration? Or does it behave more simply as a deep ocean sequestration system albeit with a rapid top layer interface, but the long term rate (1.6%) being determined by the deep ocean turnover? I think the answer is both are true because across the world from the tropics to the arctic, the ocean are doing all of the above all of the time. There are always places with lots of deep ocean sequestration (e.g. the arctic before freezeup) and places with very little (the tropics most of the time). The mix of those conditions is what supports the current atmospheric levels over the long run but the multi-year changes in that mix is what also causes the fluctuations seen in the charts you posted.
81111. Tom Curtis at 13:17 PM on 27 June 2011
       There is no consensus
       Sorry, forgot to cover the important thing, but two essays is enough or one day. Very briefly, it is the nature of the IPCC consensus. The positions taken by the IPCC are the position that nearly all scientists have least disagreement with. Some might disagree significantly with some points, but an equal number will disagree just as much in the opposite direction. A rough measure the level of disagreement is the statement of the likelihood of the claim (which should be paid careful attention to.) If something is considered very likely, there is very little disagreement, and those who disagree do not disagree by much. If something is "more likely than not" then there is wide disagreement, but the IPCC position is still the position from which there is least disagreement.
81112. quokka at 13:15 PM on 27 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       [ -snipped-] and although Okatiniko may not have expressed the issues particularly well, there is every reason to turn a critical eye on much of the material in a situation where non-hydro, non-biomass renewables currently supply such a tiny portion of world energy consumption. For me, and I suspect many people, that is simply common sense. It should be pointed out that documents such as the EREC "Re-thinking 2050" are not plans as referred to above. They are scenarios. There is a big difference. Although the EREC document is cited as supporting the claim that renewable energy can provide baseload electricity, as far as I can see, it does no such thing. It hardly mentions variability of electricity production. It just stacks up various resources and makes assumptions about projected growth in each. There is plenty of material in the EREC document to raise an eyebrow at. It projects 90 GWe of EGS (aka hot dry rock) geothermal electricity generation capacity by 2050. Until we see at least something like 500 - 1000 MW of EGS running commercially for a number of years, that sort of projection should be taken with a grain of salt. What could possibly go wrong 4 kms underground in hot granite? EGS theoretically ticks all the right boxes and is a very "likable" technology, but commercially completely unproved. There has been some interest and research for decades, that that is where we are today. Another and probably more serious issue with the EREC document is the huge fraction of bioenergy in their 2050 scenario at ~36% of their projected final energy consumption - more than wind, CSP and PV combined. Is this really where we want to be? How much land needs to be taken over for growing the feedstock? From memory, the Zero Carbon 2030 "Plan" for the UK advocates turning over 80% of the UK's grazing land to growing biomass. One might observe that restoration of some of that land to native broad leaf forests might be a better thing to do. It is not over generalizing to say that there is a tendency to take a cavalier attitude to "energy sprawl" in much of the advocacy for the renewables only line. This is not only a matter of aesthetics and nimbyism - there are also quite real ecological issues involved. But even if it were just a political issue, it still needs to be taken much more seriously. A bit of hand waving about "political will" does not cut it. There is political push back against energy sprawl from multiple sources, including conservationists, and there will be more of it. There is much more that could be said, but the bottom line is that there is much uncertainty in the future transition from fossil fuels. Furthermore the uncertainties come from multiple directions - not only the technologies for energy production, but also from population growth, magnitude and nature of economic growth, especially in the developing countries and claims of realizable energy efficiency. Ascribing unrealistic degrees of certainty to scenarios, and wrongly elevating them to "plans" very much looks like a politically driven agenda to shut out nuclear power. There is nothing scientific or skeptical about this and in view of the multiple uncertainties, the very least that could be said is that it is a high risk path.
81113. KR at 13:11 PM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       Camburn - You might also be interested in Benestad and Schmidt, 2009, where they examined Scafetta's simple regression method, found the reported error bars far too small, and concluded: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7±1% for the 20th Century, and is negligible for the warming since 1980."
81114. Tom Curtis at 13:10 PM on 27 June 2011
       There is no consensus
       mik_rosser @355: Consensus: I think there are two important things to understand about consensus and climate change. The first and most important is that arguments about consensus are not an argument from authority, it is an argument about who is an authority. It is an unfortunate fact of life that most things that we "know" we accept on authority. It can hardly be any other way - there is simply to much to learn, and to much to analyse for anybody to have more than a passing understanding of more than a small range of topics. Even in those topics where we claim some expertise, most of what we know we know on authority because we have not done the experiments or made the observations ourselves. To give just one example, how do I know that man has ever trod on the moon? The answer is, on authority. I was not on any trip to the moon, nor part of the effort to get man there. I have not myself seen footprints on the moon. Consequently, at some level I must accept the theory that man has walked on the moon on authority. There are those who do not accept that theory, who dispute the claims of those who could actually check for themselves (such as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin). I can, and have, looked at the evidence the lunar landing deniers present, and see that their claims are unsupported. That means I can show that they do not have a reason to believe the various films of men walking on the moon are doctored, or staged. But what I can't do is prove that they were not doctored or staged because there is no in-principle limit on how well such doctoring or staging can be done. At some point I just have to trust that the films are not fakes - but when I do, I am accepting something on authority. Now, it is obviously best to rely as little on authority as you can, especially in matters of importance. In climate science, if you don't want to rely on authority at all, you first need to get yourself a PhD in physics, making sure you are well qualified in programming and statistics. You then need to read carefully around a thousand scientific papers. That's less than a quarter of all the relevant papers, but it should get you up to speed. You then need to start a major program of experimentation that will require an annual budget of millions to sustain. Even then you will need to accept the authority of various space agencies to make use of satellite data. But you will probably then be in as good a position as anyone to not rely on authority at all in your beliefs about climate change. Of course, not everyone in the population is going to do that. Indeed, only a tiny fraction of the population will undertake the limited measure or reading multiple books, about 100 scientific papers, and several excellent essays need to become, not expert, but moderately competent in understanding the arguments about global warming. Consequently, most people will have to accept most of what they believe about global warming on authority. If anybody ever tells you different, they are lying to you*. Not only are most people going to have to accept most of what they believe about global warming on authority, it is vital that most people actually have an opinion about global warming. This is because we live in a democracy, and there is not substitute for democracy as legitimate government. Given the risks involved, is is therefore vital that people have informed opinions about global warming. But to do that, they must accept much on authority. So the essential issue for most people is this: Whose authority do you accept? So called "climate change skeptics" claim that they are the authority that you should listen to. They say that they are scientists (and some of them are); and that they have studied the issue (and some of them have even done that); and the implicit claim is that you should accept them as your authority. I disagree. If you are not very well informed on a subject, and do not intend to become so, the only rational choice is to accept on authority the consensus opinion of the people who are most informed, and who have studied the issue most closely. Recently Lord Monckton described this as a "fascist point of view", but to me it is just common sense. So common that we govern our lives by it for almost every major decision, whether that be what medicines to take, and when, or what foods to consider safe. In fact, for all their posturing, the so-called "climate skeptics" recognise that this is rational approach. They recognise it by continuously portraying the actual scientific consensus as being smaller than it is; as being perhaps a small majority at most rather than the over whelming majority that it is; and portraying there numbers as being much larger than they actually are by misleading comparisons. They compare, for example, the total number of scientists involved in the IPCC (which they drastically and deceitfully understate) with a list of "scientists" by which they mean anyone with a medical or engineering degree a if that where the appropriate comparison. In fact, comparing like with like, deniers make up around 3% of actively publishing (and hence researching) scientists of any type, and just 1% of actively publishing climate scientists. But they want you to ignore the reasoning and evidence that has raised acceptance of AGW among climate scientists from around 40% two decades ago to around 97% today. The argument from consensus points out that ignoring that evidence is not a reasonable thing to do. So, while I definitely encourage anyone interested to become genuinely familiar with the science of climate change (which is fascinating in its own right), if you are not willing to do so, don't be conned into accepting a false authority by inaccurate comparisons with Galileo. * Lord Monckton actually begins his seminars by saying he will not ask anyone to accept anything on authority. He then proceeds to tell whopper after whopper secure in the knowledge that most of his audience won't check. In other words, he is banking on their accepting his authority, and the disclaimer is a sham. This is a common tactic among deniers, and is equivalent to the "cockroach trap" mail order scam. In that scam a cockroach trap is advertised with a money back guarantee. It turns out the "trap" is just two bricks and instructions to bang them together with the cockroach between. The business is legit in that the money is give back to those who apply, but the scammers make a fortune because most people don't make the effort.
81115. Chemware at 13:07 PM on 27 June 2011
       The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
       We need new laws to deal with this deliberate mis-reporting, and with climate change denial in general. Just as marketers are not allowed to lie in their advertisements, media needs to be held to the same standard. Alternatively, I can see the day coming when denial of climate change is just as serious a crime as holocaust denial is in some countries today.
81116. KR at 12:59 PM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       Camburn - Scafetta has previously published papers of, well, questionable value on this subject, and in his 2009 paper has failed to provide enough information for replication and testing. In particular, Scafetta seems to attribute all climate changes to TSI, neglecting land use changes, internal variation, and volcanic activity. This 'single cause' approach is inherently flawed (see CO2 is not the only driver of climate). I cannot take Scafetta seriously until he improves his game considerably - and your consideration of that as a source indicates that you're not checking them very carefully. --- As to climate estimates - checking the IPCC, the likely range (>60%) is within 2C to 4.5C per CO2 doubling, with much less certainty on the upper end of the range. There is estimated to be <10% chance of it being below 1.5C. You seem to keep betting on the low end - the odds are against you.
81117. Camburn at 12:52 PM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       KR: Even with present papers there is a large range of uncertainty. From less than 1 to more than 4.
81118. Camburn at 12:47 PM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       KR: And then we have this. A paper that discusses the range of different TSI measurements in the present and its potential effects on climate. The TSI undertainty is not insignificant and has a large bearing on understanding. This is crucial to modeling etc. Scafetta
81119. Chemware at 12:42 PM on 27 June 2011
       A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
       One aspect of climate change denial that has not been commented on as yet is that of psychological projection: projection ... is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. I, and most others here, have observed that many climate change deniers project their own disowned attributes, feelings, and thoughts onto those who disagree with them, and accuse climate scientists of their very own mis-deeds and mis-behaviors. For example:
       • Conspiracy by climate scientists - see Merchants of Doubt to find where the real conspiracy originates;
       • Scientific fraud - witness the assaults on Prof Mann, compare them to reality, then make a further comparison to the outlandish claims by "skeptics" such as Monckton, Christie and Lindzen;
       • Perversion of the peer review process by scientists - in contrast see how deniers actually did get Willie Soon's paper published;
       • Suppression of dissent - well, just try to disagree with anything the Australian writes, post on a denier blog, or Alan Jones "interview" with David Karoly
       • abusive language and threats - yet see what deniers can dish up instead.
       It would be interesting to have some comment from trained and experienced psychologists on this aspect of climate change denial.
81120. KR at 12:41 PM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       Camburn At the core, your issue appears to be confusing the fact that "There are uncertainties of some level in all things" with "We cannot be certain about anything". This is an error. As an example, Barton Paul Levenson has assembled a list of historic climate sensitivity measurements. Examining this list, the uncertainties in sensitivity have decreased as our knowledge increases: The more we learn, the less uncertain we are. There's no justification for claiming otherwise.
81121. Camburn at 12:35 PM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       Sphaerica: I have read Dr. Svalsgaards upcoming paper. He is so pre-eminent in his field that what he authors will for sure be robust. As far as Bertrand, I got the reference from this site from a link you posted for me to read. It was referenced by the author of the thread how do the volcanoes drive climate. I do not dismiss the science that already exists. I examine the papers, in fact I have purchased papers just to read them if I feel they are credible. I have read the 2007 IPCC report from cover to cover. Not the political one, but the WG report. Peer review is peer review. Some poor papers get through it, some good papers don't survive it. Just because a paper is peer reviewed does not make it credible. It is the aftermath, once one can view the source codes and supporting documents, that makes it credible. I will use TSI as an example. There are many peer reviewed papers that show different levels of TSI. This is one of the reasons that Dr. Svalgaard started looking for other proxies to form a credible record. We shall see how it stands the test of time. I don't make up data. I posted the source. Woodfortrees.org is a most wonderful site that allows one to do analysis.
81122. KR at 12:02 PM on 27 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       SEAN O'FARRELL - Thanks, that gives me some much appreciated context. okatiniko - You are not discussing science. At all. Looking at a few of your past comments, you are pumping out disinformation, ideas that have been disproved fully a thousand times (DFATT), and not critically reading any of the references provided. That, in my view, makes you a troll. I will not respond in detail to any more comments of yours unless they have significant scientific content. Although I might decry bad posts a bit...
81123. Bob Lacatena at 11:30 AM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       43, Camburn, No, you're trying to pretend that such uncertainty exists everywhere, by claiming that you personally believe nothing.
81124. Bob Lacatena at 11:29 AM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       42, Camburn, The work you are posting about (yet without providing links to the sources, so that your statements can be confirmed) appears to contradict existing work. Good. That means that science is advancing, and that peer review works, and that denial BS about peer review stifling contrarian research is poppycock. At the same time, no one paper is going to instantly overturn all of climate science. A paper by Svalgaard updating the TSI record will do nothing more than just that, and is likely to be disputed at least by some, but if it is correct, then good. A paper by Bertrand attempting to refute the explanation behind all observed early 20th century warming will have a very long way to go to be able to make that claim in one single paper. And what does he provide as an alternate cause for that warming? I'm afraid that "mysterious random natural variation" doesn't cut it. Still, it is convenient for you to argue from papers that have not yet been published. I find it curious that you put so much weight behind as yet unpublished works, and yet until this point have so gleefully dismissed the science which already exists. Doesn't this strike you as somewhat... arbitrary? As far as your made up data on the rate of warming... thanks, I'll trust someone else.
81125. Camburn at 11:26 AM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       Sphaerica: The topic of this thread is the uncertainty in global warming science. I am trying to show why they exist.
81126. Tom Curtis at 11:25 AM on 27 June 2011
       There is no consensus
       mik_rosser @355: Peer Review: The process of peer review if properly adhered to means that every paper published in a scientific journal has been read carefully by at least two people reasonably expert in the field, who have been able to convince a third person who is capable of understanding the argument (the editor) that: a) It contains no obvious errors; and that b) It is written well enough that somebody who wants to could reproduce the procedures and analysis used; and that c) It takes proper account of relevant scientific literature. The process is onerous, but it sets a very low bar. It requires you to convince just three people who know what they are talking about that the paper is not an obvious blunder. That does not show that the paper is not false, or that it is worthwhile or anything like that. Only that it probably does not contain an obvious blunder. The peer review process does not always work, either because reviewers miss obvious blunders (they are human and do make mistakes), or more frequently, because people with bizzare theories game the system by approaching an editor known to by sympathetic to their cause, who will shepherd the paper through to publication without proper peer review. Even creationist papers have been shepherded through in that way, and several "climate skeptic papers" which were obviously flawed have been shepherded through that way. In addition, a large number of papers, some by "skeptics", but many not, have been published which simply do not have the implications "skeptics" attach to them. In many cases, the supposed implications as stated by "skeptics" are directly contradicted by the paper itself, and a large number of scientists have complained about misrepresentation of their papers by "skeptics". Consequently I would take Poptech's list with a very large grain of salt. Because of this tendency of so-called "skeptics" to outright misrepresent the nature of research, many defenders of climate science including myself think a more appropriate label for them is "AGW deniers", in that they are not behaving skeptically, and because they are denying the descriptor of "skeptical" to the many climate scientists who do behave skeptically. However, the crucial point about peer reviewed publication is that it is just a first hurdle for science, and a very low one. It is, however, one that "skeptic's" arguments repeatedly come a cropper on. The simple test of convincing just three reasonably informed people that your argument does not contain obvious blunders is too difficult a challenge for most "skeptics" to meet. As a result they take their arguments to the internet, and to conventions organised by conservative think tanks, and to talk back radio shows. In other words, being unable to persuade even a few well informed people trained in scientific analysis, they take their arguments to people who are neither well informed, nor trained in scientific analysis. That shows clearly their agenda. If their agenda was the advance of knowledge, there would be no substitute for convincing the scientific community. I know of a number of controversial theories which do no have a scientific consensus, but whose adherents repeatedly try to break through the peer reviewed barrier and to convince scientists. That is because they believe their theory is true, and that truth matters. Consequently they think their theory can, and should face the most rigorous test possible. In contrast, AGW deniers have no such confidence or belief. What is important to them is not the truth of their theories, but the political effect of wide spread acceptance of their theories. They are playing a political game - not doing science. It is for that reason that (with rare exceptions) they give an uncritical pass to the egregious lies of some of their number, while straining at fleas in actual climate science. Finally, peer reviewed publication is just the first hurdle of peer review. After publication, papers are read by a very large number of scientists who can analyse the arguments and decide whether they are good, and well supported by evidence; largely irrelevant; or outright bad. The outright bad, ie, almost certainly false papers attract a small number of citations as scientist publish refutations. The irrelevant papers attract almost no citations as people ignore the paper. The good papers attract a large number of citations as people repeatedly reference the result in their own papers. Initial peer review is only a test to see if the paper contains an obvious blunder; citations are the true mark of a worthwhile paper. In that are, "skeptic papers" fare very poorly.
81127. Norman at 11:11 AM on 27 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       KR @ 234 I found your fisrt link very interesting and useful. The other two I am not sure how they will help in answering the question. Does Wamrer air in winter lead to heavier snowfalls. I am looking for data similar to the one I posted for Omaha Nebraska. I could then build a regional basis to see if the point brought up is actually evidence based or a guess on minunderstanding of what causes snow events in the US. Do you know how Munich Re uses available data to build their charts? In your link Munich Re: "There are at present insufficient data on many weather risks and regions to permit statistically backed assertions regarding the link with climate change. However, there is evidence that, as a result of warming, events associated with severe windstorms, such as thunderstorms, hail and cloudbursts, have become more frequent in parts of the USA, southwest Germany and other regions." Ok what evidence do they have that as a result of warming, there are more severe thunderstorms. They are like a "black box" to me. They get information and build graphs but I have no clue what is their data source. All the peer-reviewed material provided on this web page go to great lengths to explain how they collected their data. If they use a proxy they explain why they think it is valid and they give the data they are using.
81128. boba10960 at 11:02 AM on 27 June 2011
       A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
       Posts like this are extremely valuable. As readers of SkepticalScience know, peer review isn't perfect, but it's the best mechanism available to ensure that the truth is eventually reached. However, the public at large is unaware of this. Worse, the deniers would have the public believe otherwise. For the past two weeks The Week That Was (newsletter of the Science and Environmental Policy Project) has been critical of the peer review process as applied to climate change research. First (19 June) they invoked a conspiracy to prevent Richard Lindzen from publishing his recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). Then (26 June) they implied a flawed process allowed a paper on sea level rise to be published in PNAS. TWTW goes on to state: "As William Gray suggested in his article carried in TWTW last week, the internet blogs provide a more rigorous analysis of questionable climate science studies than the "peer review" process does." As astonishing as that seems, many citizens simply don't know how ridiculous it is to claim that blogs provide a more rigorous analysis of science than does the peer review process. This is why I want to thank Stephan Lewandowsky, as well as everyone associated with SkepticalScience, for all that they are doing to inform the public about how to discriminate between reliable versus unreliable information as well as more generally about climate change.
81129. adelady at 10:57 AM on 27 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       "long hours of sunshine." And remember there are many structures with extensive roofs which use little or no power for their own purposes for long periods. We don't have to rely entirely on domestic, commercial or industrial roofs for a plentiful supply of power from PV. Schools, sports stadiums, churches and other community facilities have lengthy periods unoccupied or with little demand for the amount of power their large roofs can generate. Schools in particular reduce or cease their own power demand in the late afternoon which precisely matches increasing demand for domestic activities. Even if feed-in tariffs reduce substantially, such organisations could make a reasonable income from power generation as well as cutting their own consumption from the grid.
81130. SEAN O at 10:50 AM on 27 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       KR 122, Spherica 124, I don't think Okamito would accept anything from Tamino, he's been over there spreading the same mishmash he is here. Check out Tamino's response at http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/sea-ice-3-d/#comment-51844.
81131. Camburn at 10:41 AM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       Sphaerica: Advances in science happen all the time. One of the advances is in how TSI flucuates. The paper that Dr. Svalgaard authored confirmed this. His credentials are impecable. His findings do not confirm a variability in TSI in the early-mid 1900's large enough to account for the increase in temperature. I posted the source for my data concerning rate of warming. I will leave it for the interested to confirm their own opinion. It would seem Bertrand's research on solar agrees with Dr. Svalgaard. "Bertrand was investigating the effect of solar and volcanic influence on climate and concluded "these are clearly not sufficient to explain the observed 20th century warming and more specifically the warming trend which started at the beginning of the 1970s".
81132. Riduna at 10:33 AM on 27 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       @ Okatiniko I am surprised that no one has raised with you the demonstrated prospects of heat storage associated with solar thermal. Tower power involves concentration of sunlight on a central point where it heats water producing steam used to generate electricity and a substance able to store heat, such as salt. Molten salt is able to retain sufficient heat to produce sufficient steam to produce electricity when sunlight is not available, making it possible to generate 24/7. The problem with solar thermal is not inability to produce base load electricity but to do so at a cost which is comparable with that produced from burning coal. The gap between the two will of course be narrowed by putting a price on carbon emissions and, over time, improving heat storage. Even so, there is some risk associated with solar thermal capacity to produce base load energy over a period of several days of cloud. Hence the need for gas fired back-up or improved storage. In the case of PVC’s, the situation is very different. No sunshine, no electricity. With PVC’s there is a need for greater efficiency in converting solar energy into electricity. While improvements in this area are being made, base load can not be achieved without development of storage capacity which, as pointed out by Adalady @ 30, is being made. Rather than endless and not well informed debate on technological solutions which exists now, it might be more fruitful to consider likely developments which will facilitate significant reduction in use of fossil fuels over the next decade or so. I think those developments will be made and that by 2050 solar will be the source of base load electricity particularly for countries which have long hours of sunshine.
81133. Bob Lacatena at 10:29 AM on 27 June 2011
       There is no consensus
       354, RickG, You can find climate scientists that believe that smoking does not cause cancer, and that the theory of evolution is false, so I imagine you can certainly find a few that will even claim that there is no consensus. But let me get this straight... their argument is that there is no consensus on climate change, because there is no 100% consensus on whether or not there is a consensus on climate change? Do they drink from the "Drink Me" bottle or eat the "Eat Me" cake, or both, in their special little wonderland?
81134. Bob Lacatena at 10:25 AM on 27 June 2011
       There is no consensus
       355, mik_rosser, [snipped uncalled-for harsh reply] For information, just use the search function on this site. Searches for the following will give you more than enough ammunition to thoroughly refute each of those 1,000 times over (not to mention this very post on the consensus): climategate peer review pop tech
81135. Bob Lacatena at 10:18 AM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       39, Camburn, For the record, however, anyone can address your nonsense by looking on this very site at: It's the Sun! (clearly outlines the increase in solar activity in the first half of this century which contributed to warming in that period, and the leveling off after 1950 which fails to account for recent warming). How do volcanoes drive climate (clearly outlines the cooling caused by large volcanic activity prior to 1920, and the dearth of volcanic eruptions that contributed to warming between 1920 and 1950). Rate of warming this century (clearly demonstrates that warming in the early half of this century is not comparable in rate to recent warming). How sensitive is our climate (clearly outlines the logic pointing to the high probability of a climate sensitivity of at least 3C.) Simpler version on climate sensitivity Really, Camburn, with as little as you understand, and admit to misunderstanding, I would think that you would spend more time studying and learning, and less time promoting the same old stale, foolish and thoroughly debunked arguments. Readers, beware of the oft repeated nonsense. Don't take your information from blog comments. Get it from better sources.
81136. Bob Lacatena at 10:06 AM on 27 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       122, KR, Thanks. I was looking all over for that post of Tamino's to give to okatiniko, and couldn't remember the name with which to find it. Typing "show me what I want" into Google never seems to actually work. And they call that a "search engine."
81137. mik_rosser at 09:56 AM on 27 June 2011
       There is no consensus
       Hey everyone, A climate skeptic sent me to these websites as proof that climate change is not happening and there is no scientific consensus. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/30/that-wobbly-foundation-peer-reviewed-research/ http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html http://noconsensus.org/what-is-consensus.php Help me in arguing back? Cheers, Michael.
81138. Philippe Chantreau at 09:31 AM on 27 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       "I never stated that, so I cannot retract it" It was formulated in a much more convoluted way but that's exactly what your post 107 says. Infact, kudos to Les for cutting through the word salad and summarizing it in clear language.
81139. Bob Lacatena at 09:31 AM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       39, Camburn, Your posts are full of misinformation, and off topic, and should be deleted from this thread. It does not exist for you to promote your nonsense. If you wish, find another thread and re-post there.
81140. KR at 09:26 AM on 27 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       okatiniko You might want to look at some of the 'hockey sticks' shown on Tamino's recent Five Year post. The majority of proxies cover multiple years per sample (foraminifera ratios, ice cores, isotope measures), and simply don't show the last few years because of insufficient range of time. Of course, the fact that the proxies are calibrated against the instrumental temperature record over the period of overlap, and that the instrumental record is very redundant and accurate, means that the instrumental record is the data of choice in the last 50-100 years. As to the 'random noise generating hockey sticks', you might want to look at peer reviewed refutations of McIntyre's work, such as Rutherford 2004, an extended discussion of the errors in the work, a letter to PNAS by Mann et al highlighting issues, and perhaps the most damning of all, an examination of the Mcintyre code that reveals a filtering function that selected 100 runs out of 10,000 on the basis of similarity to Mann's work, and from which a hand-picked subset of a dozen or so brought were forward as their objections/matchs. Pick the physically based process of choice and a graph of a key indicator - I'm willing to bet that running random combinations of weighted red noise 10,000 times, then selecting the best matching 0.1%, will yield surprising similarity. But that is in no way an argument against the physical process.
81141. Camburn at 09:15 AM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       KR: Where did I assert that the physics of co2 is not known? I think you have missed some of my posts. I agree 100% that a doubling from 280 to 560, all other things constant, will result in 1.3C warming. 30 years. From 1917-1944 we had a warming of 1.2C From 1980-1998 we had a warming of 1.3C Source Hadcrut variable adjusted global mean. The rate of warming is the same now as it was in the early-mid 1900's. According to the soon to be published paper by co-author Dr. Svalgaard, TSI has varied very little in the 1900's. So TSI is not the reason for the rise in the early-mid 1900's, just as it is not the reason for the drop of the LIA. climate models. We know that there are climate models with a prediction of 1.7 on the low end and climate models with a prediction of over 6C on the high end. Yes, there are variations on the amount of co2 emissions within these models, but co2 is not the only variant. As far as feedbacks and forcings, the variability within the literature and the models speaks for itself does it not?
81142. CBDunkerson at 08:46 AM on 27 June 2011
       The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
       "But their free ride has come to an end, as the next few weeks on The Conversation will continue to show." Anyone know what this refers to? I've long wondered what we can do to hold deniers in politics and the media accountable... but when Monckton can walk into the U.S. Congress and flat out lie (and claiming that the temperature projection which he made up came from the IPCC was a flat out lie) without being charged for it you have to wonder if the people funding this effort don't have the power to prevent any consequences. Scientists standing up and calling out their colleagues and the deniers in politics is all well and good, but given that the deniers have already been making false denunciations of the same kind for years now it seems inevitable that they will respond by ratcheting up those attacks. Meanwhile half a dozen climate researchers are being 'investigated' by partisan hacks who accuse them of fraud and misappropriation of funds without any evidence whatsoever and then use freedom of information laws to demand e-mails in hopes of finding more quotations they can misrepresent as they did with 'Climategate'. What can really be done to hold deniers to account for what they are doing?
81143. Bob Lacatena at 08:40 AM on 27 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       120, okatiniko, Which of these hockey sticks do you refute? Or perhaps Arctic sea ice extent? Or perhaps Greenland ice mass?
81144. KR at 08:26 AM on 27 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Norman I would suggest the data sets available here, here, or here, among others, as global precipitation information. I'll note that finding these records from NOAA and NASA took roughly 3 minutes of Google time. And as I said earlier, you have not justified any issues with the data from Munich Re, who accumulate extreme weather information as part of their normal business cycle: “It’s as if the weather machine had changed up a gear. Unless binding carbon reduction targets stay on the agenda, future generations will bear the consequences.” "...it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change"
81145. KR at 08:12 AM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       Camburn 1. This site is using AGW as a tool to promote alternative energy. So to say no one is a bit deceptive? Ah, the familiar sound of conspiracy theories... better meds are suggested, as this cannot be taken seriously. 2. I understand the physics very well concerning co2. IF co2 was the only greenhouse gas it would be a slam dunk. It isn't. Evidently you don't. The physics of CO2 and it's effect on the greenhouse effect are a Type A kind of knowledge; your assertions otherwise indicate that you need to work on your physics. 3. Sphaerica: Your 1st description of a driver is correct. Then you understand that sometimes things act as feedbacks, and at other times (like now) when changed independently of temperature, they act as forcings? Like anthropogenic CO2? 4. KR: I can only suggest that you do a 100 year mean....then look at temperature within that mean. Over a 100 year mean, the temperature has risen. Over a 30 year mean, the temperature has risen much faster, and out of sync with natural forcings. Hence the 'unnatural' forcing of CO2 is responsible for that. And 30 years is plenty of time for the trend to emerge from noise and internal variation. 5. Mysterious unkown cycles. Ya betcha. There are hints of these that are being uncovered. That is why they are uknown, and mysterious. "Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens. 'Nuf said. 6. Our understanding of the co2 effect on climate is not really that good. That is why there is such a variation in the outcomes of climate models. Really. Seriously. You want to produce some references that demonstrate that unsupported statement? --- So - assertions that well known physics such as CO2 and IR effects are not actually known, misunderstandings of feedback/forcings, evident lack of knowledge of statistics, assertions of 'cycles' without any evidence thereof (especially evidence that stands up to a statistical analysis), and more claims that we don't know anything. Denial, Camburn, this is all just denial.
81146. okatiniko at 07:52 AM on 27 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       119 : I never stated that, so I cannot retract it. I said you can generate hockey stick shapes even with random pseudo-proxies, so the amount of loss of variance with real proxies is questionable, and I won't retract it. Proxies are just inaccurate indicators, and they are even unable to show any modern unusual increase of anything after 1970 - unless you give me a reference proving the opposite.
81147. Bob Lacatena at 07:51 AM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       33, Camburn,

       Our understanding of the effect of co2 on climate is not really good. I will stand by that statement.

       So you stand by a subjective and quite honestly indefensible claim. But we are wandering far off-topic. Dr. Franzen's post discusses how to discuss climate science with deniers, based on their level of acceptance of the science, as usefully divided by Dr. Franzen into Type A, Type B, and Type C. You refute all three types in various ways, so discussion with you is pointless, because your positions are unscientific and based purely on your own subjective perspective, rather than any factual basis. As such, there is no argument that you cannot refute by simply beginning any sentence with the magic words "I believe..."
81148. Bob Lacatena at 07:47 AM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       32, Camburn, I don't need a list of more papers. I need to understand how two studies that discuss the "F10 Flux" in any way affect climate, which is to say, they are interesting studies of the mechanics and machinations of the sun, but that does not of itself require or even imply that such issues have anything to do with climate. The sun is the source of energy in the climate system, but it is also a fairly constant source of that energy. To claim otherwise, you must produce the proof which has been woefully absent to date and does not yet exist that in anyway clearly describes a mechanism and demonstrates some correlation between the behaviors being discussed and climate. Without this, cries of "F10 Flux Sun Magnetism Cosmic Ray Brouhaha" are nothing more than hand-waving distractions.
81149. Bob Lacatena at 07:41 AM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       31, Camburn,

       This has not been demonstrated in any study from paelo literature that I have read.

       Any? Any? Are you serious? This is quite simply an unbelievable statement. Start here. You can also look here for more. If you want to argue that there is a chance that climate sensitivity is low because some studies show it (low meaning 2˚C), that's one thing, but to actually say that you've never seen any? That's quite a statement to make.
81150. MattJ at 07:36 AM on 27 June 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       @camburn, #33 You may "stand by" that, but like with Luther's infamous "hier steh ich", you take your stand in an ill-advised fashion. For the truth is simply not on your side. Our understanding of the effect of CO2 on climate is good enough to know: we must cut back drastically and immediately on CO2 emissions, without increasing other GHGs, to prevent unmitigated disaster. It is already too late to prevent disaster, we are going to go through a stressful time worse than any since the Black Death, but it will be much, much worse if we don't cut back now.

Prev  1615  1616  1617  1618  1619  1620  1621  1622  1623  1624  1625  1626  1627  1628  1629  1630  Next