Recent Comments

Prev  1631  1632  1633  1634  1635  1636  1637  1638  1639  1640  1641  1642  1643  1644  1645  1646  Next

Comments 81901 to 81950:

81901. Camburn at 06:22 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Oh yes, I am sure the WMO knows more about La Nina and its affects on the US than NOAA does. (NOAA predicts that the affects of the La Nina will continue into Oct/Nov for my area).
81902. Camburn at 06:20 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Albatross: My cognitive abililty is quit good. I do not miss the point at all. I look at historical events verses recent events and can see no change in intensity nor pattern. What you call a strawman arguement happened. Both on the Mississippi and in Rusia during the time frame indicated. This thread is about AGW and extreme events. As of yet, which is readily admited by the authors of the papers posted is that their is not a correlation between the two. I can tell that you are totally missing the point over and over again. Charlie A posted from the Univiversity of Florida. I am sure their work is sound concerning hurricane intensity and quantity. It looks like you are dismissing this work because it does not agree with your perception.
81903. Albatross at 06:13 AM on 21 June 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Eric, Re the estimate of climate sensitivity, you say "One or two papers" Oh good grief. Come on that is a very, very weak argument, you have to do better than that if you wish to make a compelling case. BPL provides a summary of 61 papers (between 1896 and 2006) that calculate estimates of climate sensitivity. It is by no means comprehensive or up to date, but is shows your statement to be demonstrably wrong. FWIW, the mean is of the 61 papers is ~+2.9 C (plus/minus one sigma 1.4 to 3.9 C)and the median is ~+2.6 C, compare that with the best estimate of +3 C reported in the IPCC AR4. And that is for doubling, we will very likely treble CO2 if we continue with BAU.
81904. Albatross at 05:58 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Camburn @65, "The link you posted to river trends is really about worthless" I see, but a glib dismissal of the science is not convincing, not scientific and neither is referring us to an anonymous poster on another thread--science is not overturned that easily. Unbelievable that you unquestioningly and uncritically and unskeptically accept what Charlie A writes on the internet versus a paper published in a journal. Please stop this nonsense. From Min et al. (2011, Nature): "Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas. These results are based on a comparison of observed and multi-model simulated changes in extreme precipitation over the latter half of the twentieth century analysed with an optimal fingerprinting technique. Changes in extreme precipitation projected by models, and thus the impacts of future changes in extreme precipitation, may be underestimated because models seem to underestimate the observed increase in heavy precipitation with warming." The you make this truly bizarre, but telling, statement: "People are suggesting extreme events are a somewhat recent occurance? How about the floods of the Mississippi River in the 1920's? The recent floods did not break those records. Or the heat waves and fires in Russia when Tchaivosky was creating beautiful music." A beautiful strawman argument,and quite offensive to the informed reader. In fact, it is quite disingenuous. You continue to miss the point--your behaviour and reaction to scientific evidence that does not support your opinion is really starting to look like cognitive dissonance on your part. You just keep repeating the same mantra, over and over again-- that does not make your opinions correct. Please read my post @64 again. Also read the comment @68,and the posts @104 and @105.
81905. Albatross at 05:52 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Camburn @20, "1. There is an 8-12 month lag time for the effects of La Nina and what precip and temp will do." and the very next post Camburn @21 "The effects from the current La Nina cycle will prevail for another 4-6 months in the USA." Make up your mind. Now what do the experts say? From the very first paragraph of Trenberth et al. (2002): "Following an El Nino the global surface air temperature typically warms up by perhaps 0.1C with a lag of ~6 months [Newell and Weare, 1976; Pan and Oort, 1983; Jones, 1989; Wigley, 2000]. In an exceptional event such as the 1997–1998 El Nino the amount exceeds 0.2C. Christy and McNider [1994] and Angell [2000] show that the entire troposphere warms up with an overall lag of 5–6 months, but the lag is slightly less in the tropics and is greater at higher latitudes" Trenberth (2002) found lag of 3 months: "The lag of global mean temperatures behind N3.4 is 3 months, somewhat less than found in previous studies. In part, this probably relates mostly to the key ENSO index used...." From a WMO release on 23 May 2011: "However, climate conditions over the next 1 to 2 months may continue to be La Nina-like for some regions, because the atmospheric aspects of the event may decay more slowly than the cool tropical Pacific waters, particularly for this La Niña in which the atmospheric indicators have maintained considerably greater strength than the oceanic ones." Are you going to admit error, or do the leading scientists and WMO have that wrong too Camburn? Either that or you now need to argue your opinions with Polyak et al., Trenberth and the WMO.
81906. Albatross at 05:44 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Camburn @65, You need to actually read the literature provided to you. And you choose to miss the point of the Arctic paleo study. From Polyak et al. (2010): "Nevertheless, episodes of considerably reduced sea ice or even seasonally ice-free conditions occurred during warmer periods linked to orbital variations. The last low-ice event related to orbital forcing (high insolation) was in the early Holocene, after which the northern high latitudes cooled overall, with some superimposed shorter-term (multidecadal to millennial-scale) and lower-magnitude variability. The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities." From an interview with Polyak: "The paleo data we have so far is very scant, so we can’t know for sure when the Arctic was ice free in the summer last time. To be conservative, the closest candidate is the early Holocene (roughly ~10 kyr ago), when the insolation in the Arctic was high due to the beneficial orbital configuration; however, the more data I see, the stronger is my impression that there was not that little ice at that time. The next best (actually, better) candidate is the Last Interglacial, about 125kyr ago, again due to orbitally-driven high insolation: the ice was likely very low, but we can’t say whether it was completely ice free in summer or not. There are also a few other major interglacials, which may have had a similar picture, in particular Marine Isotopic Stage 11, about 450 kyr ago. In any case we are talking about very rare events controlled by a forcing very different from today. If none of those intervals was really ice free, then a million year assessment would be correct." From SkepticalScience, "In sum, although natural factors have always influenced the state of Arctic sea ice, research strongly suggests that today's decline is driven by the novel influence of anthropogenic CO2 we've added to the atmosphere and thus is unique in Earth's history." From the first line of the abstract in the paper you provided @65 regarding impacts of changes for one small portion of the Canadian Arctic (not the whole Arctic, or the globe). You insist on missing the point, and miss the point of relatively large amplitude local changes versus changes over much larger regions and/or global changes. I do not know how to communicate this fact to you. Maybe you should engage Polyak and argue with them? I do not suspect that doing so would go well for you though.
81907. KR at 05:35 AM on 21 June 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Eric the Red - Here's the search I mentioned in my previous post. I believe this an adequate response to your statement of "premises based on one or two papers".
81908. KR at 05:31 AM on 21 June 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Eric the Red - In regards to this particular issue, climate sensitivity, it's not "one or two papers". The Climate sensitivity is low thread contains a dozen representative papers alone. See also the IPCC report at this link, additional information here, with specifically observational work described here. A Google Scholar search on "climate sensitivity estimate", limited to just the last 10 years, no patents, and {Biology, life sciences, environmental sciences / Chemistry and materials science / Physics, astronomy, planetary science} only (as a reasonable set of restrictions), gives ~68,400 matches. Out of that list I believe there are perhaps a couple of dozen papers that claim sensitivities below 1.5C/doubling of CO2, most of which have already been refuted. You appear not to be looking at the considerable body of evidence. Even beyond that, the limits of uncertainty on sensitivity, while broad, have serious implications at both extremes.
81909. KR at 05:15 AM on 21 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       Eric the Red: "I have seen that happen repeatedly here." "Oftentimes the websites do misrepresent the paper." Do you have examples from this site? If so, please cite them.
81910. Bob Lacatena at 05:14 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       103, Camburn, Just to clarify, because I know you are quite capable of missing my point... I do not deny that the climate has changed in the past, by very, very small degrees if by "we" you mean during the last thousand years of civilization, or by larger degrees if by "we" you mean during the existence of homo sapiens as a species, or by even larger degrees if by "we" you mean "the denizens of the planet," spanning back to the earliest creepy crawlies that grew in the oceans. What is categorically false are the unspoken implications of your statement that climate change is either impossible to predict (or in this case prevent), or that it is harmless (given the countless mass extinctions and dead civilizations that have resulted from past climate change). So when I say that your statement is singularly false and overly simplistic, this is what I mean.
81911. DSL at 04:55 AM on 21 June 2011
       It's not bad
       The IPSO report is out today here. Bad news: "the world's ocean is at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history."
81912. Rob Honeycutt at 04:22 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Camburn @ 103... We all know that climate has changed in the past. No one ever contradicts this. If climate had changed little in the past then there would be little chance that we could change it today. The central issue is how we are changing climate today. [Source] When I see this diagram of the CO2 record then I become very concerned about the stage we are setting for ourselves. I also think there is a fundamental misunderstanding that goes on with regards to extreme weather events. What we're looking at today is likely the result of adding just 4% more moisture to the climate system. It's looking pretty clear that even this small amount is resulting in changes in extreme weather events. Not yet outside the realm of what has likely been experienced in the past 10,000 years... but getting there. The question becomes, if this is what we get from 4%, what will we be seeing when we've added 40% more moisture to the climate system? It's my understanding that this is the problem we face. Is that extreme climate (extreme relative to today) something never on this planet? Probably not. But probably unseen for many many millions of years. Certainly unseen by any species existing today. Certainly unseen by human civilization.
81913. Bob Lacatena at 04:09 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       103, Camburn,

       We have always had climate change...

       This is a singularly false and overly simplistic statement, one which begs to ignore problems and science, rather than face them. Surely you have something more substantive and meaningful to offer the world than the modern equivalent of "if man had been meant to fly, God would have given him wings!"
81914. Eric the Red at 03:48 AM on 21 June 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       KR, I know that I have the reputation of being the "no problem guy" just because I do not hold many of the positions as being very solid. Just because I stick to the notion that all these scenarios are probably (not just possible), is no reason to think that I do not believe the science. I will not accept or dismiss premises based on one or two papers, especially when those papers are written by people whose sole purpose is to promote their hypotheses. When the data becomes convincing, then I will join in. I have a particularly disdain for models (some based on personal biases dealing with modelers in the past) that cannot be verified with data. Remember, there is a big difference between evidence in support of a theory, and evidence that confirms a theory. Currently, we have a a lot of evidence in support of AGW, however, many scientists are extrapolating well beyond the limits of the data, and scientists will tell you that is introduces a large amount of uncertainty.
81915. Camburn at 03:35 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Sphaerica: "I think it's so obvious that no one would argue that we've had extreme weather events before climate change." We have always had climate change, so it is impossible to establish a cut off of when the climate all of a sudden became static.
81916. Eric the Red at 03:19 AM on 21 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       CB, Oftentimes the websites do misrepresent the paper. However, the link to the paper is still valid. Whatever the website says about the paper does not change the original work.
       Response:

       [DB] We're still waiting on those examples you mentioned from this site...

81917. CBDunkerson at 03:13 AM on 21 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       Eric the Red wrote: "I have seen that happen repeatedly here." Excellent. Then it should be easy to cite examples from this very site. I do note that you have changed from saying that people dismiss the scientific papers to dismissing descriptions of them on particular websites... which is a very different thing. You also discount the apparently stated reason ("misuse of the author's work") in favor of your own interpretation ("just because it is referenced on a particular website"). Have you actually looked to verify that those websites AREN'T misrepresenting the scientific paper(s)?
81918. Albatross at 03:11 AM on 21 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       Eric @9, "I thought was an excellent analogy put forth by Mark.." Actually is was a lousy "analogy", because it does not fairly represent what actually happened in this case. It was an analogy designed to appeal to people's emotion, and it was not based in the facts at hand, so it was an unrealistic comparison. Additionally, even though it was a hypothetical scenario(compared to the reality of what has transpired) it sadly worked beautifully at inciting the masses, just read the comment thread, it work beautifully. That is very poor journalism. So is making serious accusations, running an article with a misleading and pejorative headline before actually fact checking. Ironically, those are tactics well used by the likes of McIntyre-- make loud pronouncements of wrong doing or allegations of nefarious goings on, which are then happily amplified in the echo chamber (i.e., internet) and then refuse to concede or correct errors when pointed out to you. Actually this is very much an example of Lynas, McI et al falsely accusing others of exactly what you are doing, in this case propaganda, appealing to emotion and not correcting mistakes. The sad part is that this has now, thanks to Lynas and Watts and Curry and Romm jumping on board degenerated into a mud fight, with one objective only-- to score points, and in the case of the "skeptics" to further their agenda against the IPCC and scientists. And for the record, I am OK with FF groups being involved in the IPCC, so long as they are not there to obfuscate, delay and be obstructionist. I believe that they can and must make a positive contribution to the process. So Mark's analogy fails again... Lynas needs to come clean as to the real reason for his "outrage", is it really the exclusion of nuclear. I suspect that we will never know. Now with that all said, the IPCC have to get much, much better at media and public relations. Because it they screw that up, the science underpinning AGW also suffers (it is amazing how easily conflate adaptation and mitigation with the core science). Wholly unacceptable. The problem is that to do so governments need to spend more money on the IPCC. I think most people perceive them as a huge organization with unlimited resources, when in reality they are really run by a skeleton staff, and the reports are written and reviewed by scientists who volunteer their time. And unfortunately, from time-to-time the fact that they lack resources and experience in PR and media relations (unlike the denial spin ma and disinformation machine)shows.
81919. Bob Lacatena at 03:10 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       101, Eric the Red, Certainly I'd agree. I don't think anyone would try to claim or even for a moment think that climate change is the only factor that influences extreme weather events. I think it's so obvious that no one would argue that we've had extreme weather events before climate change. The problem at hand is in figuring out how much of today's and tomorrow's extreme events are attributable to climate change, and to try to predict which will worsen in strength or frequency. And doing so requires studying both climate and weather, and using critical thinking of the factors involved to try to unravel things and arrive at the truth (ah, the true fun in science!).
81920. KR at 02:56 AM on 21 June 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Eric the Red - There's certainly room for discussion on climate sensitivity, as the data doesn't impose terribly tight boundaries on it. However, those boundaries range from no less than 1.5C per doubling of CO2 (very solid boundary) to 5+C per doubling (less solid, it could be higher). So the limits run from bad to extremely bad in terms of consequences to us, with a consensus view of 3C. Even the lowest reasonable numbers for sensitivity are going to cause us a lot of trouble. Your decrying of consensus gives the appearance of wanting to claim that climate change won't be a problem. If that's not your opinion, my apologies. But that's certainly how you are coming across in these discussions.
81921. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 02:49 AM on 21 June 2011
       Introducing the Skeptical Science team
       Thank you John and everyone. Your site gets better day by day and I'm very grateful for the way you keep on top of all the latest attempts at fudging and misleading people. (I often post on another site and try to keep people honest. Yours is the site I refer to most often, because it's just the right pitch for the audience where I post most often). I have learnt so much about climate from trying to explain climate science to other people and especially from the research I've had to do to counter deniers' waffle. This site of yours has been enormously helpful in that regard.
81922. JMurphy at 02:38 AM on 21 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       Eric the Red wrote : "What happens next is that someone will reference the paper from that site (oftentimes because they do not have access to the original work, or refuse to pay), and be accused of misuse of the author's work because it was referenced from a site which they oppose." Some examples would be nice. Not more of your suspicions, is it ?
81923. Eric the Red at 02:34 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       OK, with one caveat: where you say consistent, I would add but not exclusive.
81924. Eric the Red at 02:30 AM on 21 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       CB, It happens all the time. Denier sites reference alarmist papers and alarmist sites reference denier papers. Mostly to do just as you propose. Most of the time, the sites will reference the original work. What happens next is that someone will reference the paper from that site (oftentimes because they do not have access to the original work, or refuse to pay), and be accused of misuse of the author's work because it was referenced from a site which they oppose. I have seen that happen repeatedly here.
81925. Eric the Red at 02:23 AM on 21 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       I am curious as to what you think are the core areas. I agree about the physics concerning the relationship between CO2 and temperature. I agree that warming temperatures will result in higher water vapor. After that, I will admit that I do not agree with many of the other feedbacks (I may not disagree with them, but have not found enough evidence to allow for an agreement). Yes, I will admit that I do not agree that the evidence is as strong as you do.
81926. Michele at 02:17 AM on 21 June 2011
       The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
       Let’s maintain apart the radiative transfer trying to explain the behavior of the atmosphere only from a point of view of the thermo kinetics and fluid dynamics. Of course if this wouldn’t be sufficient then we will see what to do. Viewing the Earth’s and Venus’ temperature profiles ”(see here for example)” we read that there are some convective layers (the troposphere and the mesosphere for Earth, the sole troposphere for Venus) where the atmospheric gases rise by buoyancy. The spectra of brightness temperature ”(see here for example)” point up that the minimal values of the temperatures, which occur at the top of the convective layers having their bottom closer to ground, are due to CO2 (By the way, notice that Earth without oxygen would be Venus-like also if its pressure is circa one hundredth). Really, we can think the CO2 molecules behave as heat engines which, colliding with the surrounding molecules, absorb thermal energy from them, and transform it to EM energy. The thermal energy density (J/m³) of the rising air particles changes continuously according to δT/δz and, above all, their EM energy density (J/m³) varies according to T³δT/δz. Both the gradients are negative because the continuous growth of the geo-gravitational energy that phagocytizes them. So, the rising CO2 molecules never are in LTE, the thermal energy (needed to excite them until the resonance) is used for other different purposes (the rising of the entire air particle), and there can’t occur any radiative emission. In other words, the gases of the convecting troposphere rise until they aren’t trapped by the thermosphere and stratosphere, and they can emit heat radiation only at least at its top, within the isothermal layer above. It seem that the temperature profiles of the atmospheric gases are fully explained by the thermo kinetics and by fluid dynamics. The surface temperature is determined by the lapse rate and above all be the altitude where the rising air particles are stopped by the inverted slope due to the external radiative heating of a layer of the atmosphere above it. Of course, also the surface radiation around 15μm forces and excites the CO2 molecules which could scatter it. I think this isn’t the case, otherwise, the brightness temperature around 15μm should be higher. The CO2 fully wastes the EM energy to heat close the ground and this can be partially converted back and emitted to space only at the top of the first convective layer above the ground.
81927. dhogaza at 01:57 AM on 21 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       

       I do not think anyone could convince that greenpeace would be a reliable entity to reference about future energy, any more than Exxon would be, which I thought was an excellent analogy put forth by Mark.

       Not really. The paper involved was peer-reviewed, not part of the "grey literature" as claimed by Lynas (he actually pointed it that it's a peer-reviewed journal but, as arbiter of all that's Right and Good decided on his own authority that it's "grey", which is crap). The greenpeace employee was only one author of the paper. He was one of several lead authors for the IPCC chapter - another worked for a petroleum institute but Lynas and you haven't twisted your panties in a knot over that, strangely. There are people from Exxon and other fossil fuel companies and organizations involved in the IPCC process, and actually you don't see the reaction that would lend Lynas' analogy credibility ... And, of course, the IPCC report in question took four scenarios from the literature, ranging from the most optimistic (the one that so upset's McI and Lynas) to the most pessimistic. Lynas is most upset, it appears, because someone dared publish research that shows significant decarbonization that doesn't include his pet tech solution, nuclear power ...
81928. Bob Lacatena at 01:55 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       99, Eric the Red,

       It has always been clear. I am not having a hard time undersatanding you.

       Hmmm. I'm not sure why you previously said "You seem to be backpedalling rather rapidly. I have not been able to determine if you are making any correlation between temperature and snowfall at all." Oh, well. I apparently misunderstood you.

       I stated that snowfall in individual winters cannot be predicted based on global warming, but that several other factors are involved.

       Excellent. We agree on that point 100%. Many factors are involved, some of which will be greatly influenced by global warming, and so it is an important problem that must be studied, and deserves both attention and deep concern.

       I understand that you are relying more on models in your analyses, whereas I am using data.

       This is not the case at all, and I have no idea where you got this idea (unless by "models" you mean "an understanding of the mechanics that define the system"). I never once used the word "models," or referenced them in any way. I merely feel that the scatter shot way in which you are trying to use the data combined with an overly simplistic "model" of the system is incorrect.

       Granted, we do not have any data at temperatures of 2-3C higher than today, so a comparison cannot be made between the two.

       Excellent. Then you will agree that an evaluation of what will happen based merely on what has happened to date is not feasible. Which leaves us to instead try to understand the system in detail, and to avoid trying to draw inferences from an overly simplistic approach to the problem. So, in the end, you agree with all of my points, that observations to date are no security against precipitation changes and extreme weather events, that increased snowfall in winter is not of itself a contradiction in climate theory, and that an increase in both droughts and extreme precipitation in different areas, or even the same area, at different times of year (be it spring, summer, fall or winter) are consistent with climate change. Now we can move on.
81929. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 01:53 AM on 21 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       Having worked among scientists for quite some time I know it takes a lot to get them to take collective action. Something weird is going on in society these days. It's as if people are oblivious to the world we live in - the natural world and the scientific advances that have made modern living possible. I bet a lot of the anti-science crowd take their vitamins and blood pressure pills every morning, pick up their mobile phone, log into their computer - check their mining and pharma shares, listen to the radio - for the world news (arriving via satellite or undersea fibre optic cable) - and the local weather forecast (using satellites), get their pasteurised milk - from the refrigerator, cook an egg in a teflon pan, jump in their car, and don't even think of the irony of their contempt for science. There have always been people who are afraid of knowledge and learning, mostly those who've never tried it. I applaud the action scientists are taking. I am hopeful it will make every one wake up a bit more and do their bit to stop anti-science in its tracks and make sure we lower carbon emissions enough soon enough.
81930. CBDunkerson at 01:52 AM on 21 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       Eric the Red wrote: "I have a similar problem with people who dismiss the merits of a scientific paper just because it is referenced on a particular website which they disdain." Frankly, that formulation seems implausible. Many of the worst denial sites reference valid peer-reviewed papers all the time... to deny them. I don't see people running around saying that suddenly makes those papers incorrect. In my experience, denial sites most commonly provide made up nonsense rather than material from scientific papers and thus it is indeed common for things appearing on these sites to be dismissed based on their track record. The few scientific papers touted on denial sites tend to be misrepresented or dismissed for being really really bad science, rather than because of where they were mentioned.
81931. Eric the Red at 01:47 AM on 21 June 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       KR, I am not arguing that the theory is invalid, but the details. Most scientists will argue that the feedbacks in AGW theory are the most critical, as the direct warming of a doubling of CO2 is only ~1C. That is where the bulk of the differences occur, and why such a wide range of scenarios exist. The problems with these surveys is that the arrive at a number; 80%, 90%, 98% believe that CO2 is responsible for the recent warming, but then tie that response to a particular statement about climate sensitivity, future warming, etc. In reality, these scientists believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it has caused an increase in global temperatures. However, there is a very wide range about what individual scientists believe will result from the increasxe in CO2. I do not believe these are the edges of the theory, but the crux of the argument. DO you feel differently?
81932. Bob Lacatena at 01:44 AM on 21 June 2011
       CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
       58, Arkadiusz, It's unclear if you have a particular point that you are trying to make, or if you are merely providing what you consider to be a variety of useful information on the subject. Without any dialogue to explain the segments that you choose to include, there's nothing coherent about the information. Could you state your point or purpose more directly?
81933. Eric the Red at 01:37 AM on 21 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       Tom, Agreed. I have a similar problem with people who dismiss the merits of a scientific paper just because it is referenced on a particular website which they disdain. I will admit that I am not particularly fond of greenpeace either, but is largely due to their tactics rather than their stances. I do not think anyone could convince that greenpeace would be a reliable entity to reference about future energy, any more than Exxon would be, which I thought was an excellent analogy put forth by Mark. I know some people do not like Lynas because of his unorthodox environmentalism, but sometimes I feel he says things that need to be said.
81934. KR at 01:26 AM on 21 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       Eric the Red - I have replied on the far more appropriate 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming. This discussion of consensus is very much off topic here on the Solar Minimum thread.
81935. KR at 01:24 AM on 21 June 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Eric the Red - Your arguments about 90 vs. 97 percent of actively publishing climate experts are really just dancing around the margins. The great majority of people who work in this field find that the evidence supports anthropogenic causes for recent warming, with solid evidence for the interactions of CO2 and consequences thereof. There are plenty of areas where there is active dissent over aspects of this (ocean heat content profiles, cloud feedback, pinning down the climate sensitivity, etc.), but the core of the theory is solidly supported. Pointing loudly to the edges of the theory where details are being argued does not invalidate the larger theory.
81936. Eric the Red at 01:24 AM on 21 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Sphaerica, It has always been clear. I am not having a hard time undersatanding you. We simply disagree. I stated that snowfall in individual winters cannot be predicted based on global warming, but that several other factors are involved. I do not know why you cannot get past that. I understand that you are relying more on models in your analyses, whereas I am using data. Granted, we do not have any data at temperatures of 2-3C higher than today, so a comparison cannot be made between the two. Models are a tool used to comprehend complex systems. However, that model must be able to reasonably correspond to the system data, otherwise it is as useful as a left-handed oil filter remover.
81937. Eric the Red at 01:13 AM on 21 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       I have read the survey many times, do not be so snide. If you have read it carfeully, you would see how ridiculous it is also. If you are going to quote 97%, then you better be ready to quote 96% believe the planet as warmed. Conversely, you can state your claim that 75 climatologists believe that humans are responsible. I suspect you do not use these numbers, because they would appear very low, whereas 97% sounds convincing. So, while 88% of climatologists believe that human activity is a significant contributor to changing temperatures, you continue to quote a cherry-picked higher value. The responders did not say they were actively publishing, nor did they respond how many papers they have written, that was added by the author. Nowhere in the survey does it ask to what extent the respondants though CO2 was responsible for rising temperatures, or about any other contributing factors. Although Anderegg was more direct in his question, and found that 90% support ACC (not 97%), his definition of someone being convinced or unconvinced based on signing a petition hardly qualifies as good surveying technique.
81938. Tom Curtis at 00:57 AM on 21 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       Eric the Red @7, I have read Lynas' ill informed rant. It turns out that he has a hate on for Greenpeace. Fair enough, I'm not that fond of them myself. What I don't accept, however, is that their scientific work should be rejected simply because I or anyone else dislike their politics. In this case the critique has been entirely centred on the fact of Greenpeace involvement (just one person) in an IPCC panel. It turns out that those aggrieved by this don't want to have anything to do with discussing the actual scientific merits of the report, or of the "controversial paper". So while in this case I agree with you that somebody is putting themselves above the science, it is those like Lynas and McIntyre who want to censure a report without discussing the merits, and who want to permanently disbar some people from scientific contribution because Lynas and McIntyre happen to dislike their politics.
81939. Tom Curtis at 00:50 AM on 21 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Eric the Red @99, science by press release would not be a problem at all if journalists would actually do the job they are supposed to. If, when they get a juicy quote from a scientist, they first checked what NOAA or the CSIRO or the IPCC AR4 say on the subject, and report the institutional view as the main body of scientific opinion, and the scientist with the juicy quote as being a scientist who disagreed, they would accurately inform rather than consistently misinforming the public. As to the 90%, I suspect 100% of climate scientists would for some aspect of the AR4 WG1 report, disagree with the likelihood assigned to the statement in the report. Indeed, for some aspects of the report, I can prove that in 2007 around 80% of climate scientists disagreed with the likelihood assigned. But the areas of substantial disagreement all come from topics in which WG1 assigned low likelihoods; and in the core areas where WG1 assigned high likelihoods, agreement among scientists is very high - exceeding 90% and approaching 100% for some issues. Further, there is a trend in the agreement among scientists. In 1996 just 60% of climate scientists thought that the Earth was warming, and 40% that humans were responsible. Now the figure is close to 97% for both issues. Where there have been significant advances in knowledge (which covers quite a few areas), agreement among climate scientists will, therefore, probably be greater in 2011 than in 2007 (the date of the last detailed survey). The problem for you is that you disagree in core areas - areas where climate scientists have almost universal agreement. Consequently the pattern of agreement and disagreement among scientists should be no consolation to you. On the contrary, that pattern shows that the scientists are actually following evidence rather than an agenda; and hence that where they almost universally agree the evidence is much stronger than you will give it credit for.
81940. Eric the Red at 00:46 AM on 21 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       Sometimes when scientists take to the streets they put themselves above the science. Mark Lynas as an interesting thread going about conflicts of interest: http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/questions-the-ipcc-must-now-urgently-answer/
81941. Tom Curtis at 00:21 AM on 21 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       Eric the Red @70:

       "Are you referring to the ridiculous Doran report, ..."

       In the Doran survey, 76 out of 79 actively publishing climate scientists indicated that they thought the Earth wasn't warming. 75 of 77 indicated that humans where responsible. So, contrary to your suggestion, there was no scientist who bizarrely believed both that the Earth was not warming, but that humans where responsible for the warming. Rather, two less scientists answered the second question, one from each opinion. This did not require deep analysis to discover. It only required looking at the actual data with an open mind. Perhaps next time you are inclined to take a cheap shot, you should try looking at the data instead of quoting statistic you plainly don't understand.
81942. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:07 AM on 21 June 2011
       CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
       „PETM changes in the carbon isotopic composition of carbonate”, and ”... carbon isotope excursion as recorded in marine organic matter ...” - may be saddled with significant error - incorrect ( Baczyński et al. 2011.). Dickens (2009) in his paper - quoted here - but interesting, writes: “A 2000 Gt input of carbon to the exogenic carbon cycle cannot explain the 6°C warming, unless earth surfaces temperatures increase by more than 5°C per doubling of pCO2 (Pagani et al., 2006a). Such climate sensitivity is more extreme than that in most climate models. Complicating matters, however, is the relative timing of environmental change and massive carbon addition at the start of the PETM. In several sediment sequences, changes in temperature and biota begin before the start of the CIE (Sluijs et al., 2007b). With available data, massive carbon addition during the PETM appears to have been a positive feedback to environmental change initiated by some process that remains highly speculative.” The most extensive - from this year - general study: The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: A Perturbation of Carbon Cycle, Climate, and Biosphere with Implications for the Future, McInerney and Wing, 2011.; have interesting conclusions: 5. Although there was a major extinction of benthic foraminifera, most groups of organisms did not suffer mass extinction. 7. Rapid morphological change occurred in bothmarine and terrestrial lineages, suggesting that organisms adjusted to climate change through evolution as well as dispersal and local extirpation. Where best understood, these evolutionary changes appear to be responses to nutrient and/or food limitation.
       Response:

       [DB] And your point is...?

81943. skywatcher at 00:06 AM on 21 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       You'll have to do a lot better than that Eric, you're still providing no evidence for your baseless claims in the first two paragraphs. The UHI canard has been shot down so much that surely you do not hold any serious sway by it anymore - see Menne et al 2010, or any temperature record that cannot be affected by UHI, like lower tropospheric temps or ocean temps. And no, I was referring to Anderegg et al 2010. Once again you're accusing climate scientists of thinking in a simple manner without providing any evidence that they do.
81944. JMurphy at 23:58 PM on 20 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Eric the Red wrote : "I would suspect that 90% of scientists could find some aspect of global warming to dispute, especially since many aspects have a wide range of results. I also feel that too many of this category are lumped in with the term denier, just because they dispute some aspect of AGW theory." Instead of relying on vague suspicions, could you back up that claim ? I presume it's based on something more tangible than suspicion ?
81945. Tom Curtis at 23:54 PM on 20 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Eric (skeptic) @96, the simplest method would be by using a decadal mean of proxies for sea surface temperature outside the central pacific region most strongly effected by ENSO.
81946. Eric the Red at 23:45 PM on 20 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       Sky, The other potential influence that has been repeatedly dismissed is the effect of land management; urbanization and deforestation. The IPCC did a very poor job of dismissing this aspect in teh AR4 report, and too many people are using their explanation to dismiss any consideration. While most scientists will agree that the UHI is real, they then try to diminish its effect on temperature with arcan reasoning. Granted scientists in different fields will attribute different levels of forcing to different agents, oftentimes attributing much higher values to those forcings which they are studying (the sun, oceans, cities, etc.). The same goes for those study CO2 effects on temperature. I am not referring to bloggers, but scientists. Are you referring to the ridiculous Doran report, where a higher number of a subset of climatologists (there is no evidence that they are "actively publishing") believed that humans have caused the warming than believed that the planet has actually warmed. Then again, maybe these are the climatologists who think the climate is simple.
81947. Tom Curtis at 23:29 PM on 20 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       ClimateWatcher @3 appears to make some bizarre assumptions. He describes science as an exercise in cold rationality. Personally, from what I know of the scientists that have impressed me most - Darwin, Einstein, and so on - it has been an exercise of passionate rationality, but never mind that. He also describes taking to the streets as an emotional exercise. Again I disagree. The protester in Egypt, despite the risks they took, where acting rationally and it was rationality that gave them reason to be their, even though it was emotion that gave them the courage to do so. So, like science, protesting can be an act of passionate rationality. But never mind that. What I object to is ClimateWatcher's assumption that a scientist is only ever a scientist. That is of course nonsense. Scientists are brothers and sisters, friends, and parents. Some are footballers, or debaters, or concert goers. Above all, they are citizens. And being a citizen must be a passionate thing, and a rational thing, if you are to truly be a citizen. Further, to the extent that ClimateWatcher allows that scientists are more than just automata in laboratories, he assumes that they cannot bring the rationality of their science into their public life. ClimateWatcher has to make these assumptions because if he did not, he would have to acknowledge that something is happening to make a large group of very intelligent, very rational people who are better informed on the topic than anyone else to become passionate as citizens about global warming. Because when scientists march, it is because their science is telling them something they cannot ignore as citizens. Something, indeed, that will be a matter of life and death for future generations. And who, in the world knows better than they?
81948. Eric the Red at 23:28 PM on 20 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Good post Tom, although I do not know how many others will get a chance to read it. The attribution of every little weather event (not to mentiona the Japaneses earthquake) to gloabl warming has been a very thorny issue. The media reporting is less the issue as is the statement by a reputable (?) scientist who made the claim. The media will always try to sensationalize anything to sell. These claims have gone beyond the media, as recent novels have used the "blame it on global warming excuse" to write off any unexplained event (i.e. J. K. Rowlings and Michael Scott). As far as the numbers go, I tend to dismiss anything that gives a specific number as it seems that anyone can claim to be a "climate scientist" these days. Then there is the question of exactly what is being disputed. I would suspect that 90% of scientists could find some aspect of global warming to dispute, especially since many aspects have a wide range of results. I also feel that too many of this category are lumped in with the term denier, just because they dispute some aspect of AGW theory.
81949. DSL at 23:23 PM on 20 June 2011
       When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
       CW, it's an exercise of political will, just as the social production of scientific knowledge is an exercise of political will. There's not much difference between writing on a blog and taking it to the streets. The action in the streets is just a different type of expression, a type designed to put human faces and figures on the act of solidarity. Your appearance on this blog is also an "emotional exercise." What's the point, after all? Note that you use the word "cold" with "rationality." The idea of "coldness" here is not simply "without emotion." Rather, its connotation is "with intentional disregard for the human condition." There is a suggestion of perverse pleasure in the disregard, as in "cold-blooded killer." Yet the social production of scientific knowledge is not an exercise in rationality--cold or otherwise. It certainly incorporates rationality, but what we choose to study, what we choose to focus on, what we choose to fund--those are questions that come from the answer to "What is important?" Upon what basis do you determine what is important? Propagation of the species? Whatever God(s) will? Social justice? Individual liberty? Why do we study global climate? If science were privatized, think about how science would change. How many areas of study would be abandoned? Parts of the scientific process (methodology/falsifiability, analysis) are intended to be strictly factual, but every scientific report begins with at least a hint of justification and ends with at least a hint of "this is why what we've done is important." Cold rationality . . . from a human? As someone once said of Ayn Rand, "she was perfectly rational, as long as you agreed with her understanding of the world."
81950. Bob Lacatena at 23:22 PM on 20 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       86, Eric the Red, You seem to have a hard time following what I'm saying, so let me try to break it down, and keep it simple. My most basic position, all along, is that the logic that you are trying to apply to the problem is over-simplified, and as such grossly flawed. You must look at the details (as I said, "the devil is in the details") and understand things at a deeper level. If you don't do this, then you will perceive self-contradictions in my position, because you are only understanding what you think, instead of what I am saying. Main Point [And I've stated this clearly several times now]: The impacts of climate change are complex and varied. You cannot use oversimplified logic to draw vast, sweeping, winner-take-all conclusions. Specifically: a) Just because global warming will increase the mean global temperature of the planet does not mean that all areas of the globe will experience warming at all times of the year. The specific example that I gave you from the NY Times article is a prime example of this, where a weakening of the polar vortex may allow the frequent intrusion of frigid air into the North American continent. For deniers, they must realize that evidence of cooling, even consistent cooling, or uneven warming, is not evidence against climate change. b)> Just because global warming will increase the overall moisture content of the atmosphere, this does not mean that every part of the globe must experience increased precipitation, year round. The specific example that I gave you of how Hadley Cells function to distribute moisture, and how they will be altered due to climate change, is a prime example of this, where an expansion of the Hadley Cells will widen arid areas, and move areas of major precipitation to new locales. Denier claims that major changes in precipitation patterns must mean more droughts or more storms, everywhere, year round, is clearly flawed logic and a simplistic distraction from the truth of the matter. c) Your presumption that increased temperatures must amount to less snowfall is similarly flawed. The temperatures will shorten the winter season, delaying the onset of meaningful snowfall, and quickening the onset of spring (and snow loss). This does not, however, preclude the possibility that there can actually be greater snow accumulations during the winter months, due to the increase in overall moisture content in the atmosphere. The specific example I gave you of the total snow extent in the northern hemisphere, from the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, is a prime example of this, where spring snow extent has decreased dramatically, while winter snow extent has shown a slight positive trend. d) Your attempts to prove that global warming will not affect winter snow accumulations is flawed in three respects. i) The first is that the time periods involved are too short, and cover to small a degree of warming to have any statistical significance relative to the idea of major climate change. ii) The second is that your studies all involve very specific locations. Trying to cobble together enough of these is much like the effort to define the MWP, but you're trying to do it with one here and one there. Unless you are ready to find hundreds of studies, and to "homogenize" them into something coherent, then it's a pointless effort. iii) The third and most important point is that we are talking about the effects on precipitation of a 3+˚C global mean temperature change. We have not yet seen enough of this change in climate to prove, one way or the other, what the total, global effects will be. No accumulation of papers that you can compile, covering the period from 1900-2000, is going to solidify your position on this (especially when many of those papers only run from about 1950-2000). Is this clear enough for you? Please try to read and comprehend this. There are no contradictions in my position. There is no backpedaling. The system is quite simply more complex than you seem willing to consider, and when you think that you see contradictions in my position, it is because your view of things is too simple. Dig deeper.

Prev  1631  1632  1633  1634  1635  1636  1637  1638  1639  1640  1641  1642  1643  1644  1645  1646  Next