Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 Next
Comments 82301 to 82350:
-
Michele at 01:42 AM on 18 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Patrick, you are right, I have some language issue because I am frequently using it only for a short time. Conversely, my concepts are very precise. I introduced ε to take into account the undeniable fact that the planet’s surface “encounters some difficulties/resistances to radiate to space”, that’s, the fact that the whole system surface-atmosphere emits to space less than the sole surface would do. I simply note the fact without doing any hypotheses on what occurs “to radiation” within the troposphere and so my first equation is perfectly correct. Really, I solely forgot to specify that I was assuming a unitary emission for the tropopause though it was implicit because the brightness temperature obtained by satellite measurements equals that of the vertical profiles obtained using the weather balloons. The formula you propose is heavily affected by a your personal point of view (isothermal troposphere and sole radiative heat transfer). Notice, I’d say “your personal uncorrected …” but, so doing, I’d expressed a too factious opinion rather than a skeptical opinion. In any case, it would be more correct to take into account all the known forms of heat transfer: conduction-diffusion, convection, radiation. I never described the tropopause and the mesopause as “surfaces” And I wouldn’t do it because they are two region of the atmosphere as large as the troposphere or, also, larger than it. Apropos, I would like to ask a very important question. Why and how a very large and isothermal atmospheric region, heated at its opposite edges and emitting uniformly is it able to transfer within it the heat maintaining constant its temperature? The tropopause and the mesopause behave as an evaporator-emitter and, for Earth, the stratopause behaves as a condenser-absorber. In this case we have always that the emission/absorption, as the evaporation/condensation, takes place at constant pressure and constant temperature, except the fact that now we have to do with the photonic pressure rather than with the molecular pressure. Again, why and how? As far as I know, I have not answers. Yet, I feel it is important to answer this question. -
kevin s at 01:37 AM on 18 June 2011Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
I want to echo and amplify Tom P and DSL. Peer review is: 1) definitely *not* about whether the conclusions the authors draw about their results are correct 2) not really about whether their results themselves are correct either; more about weeding out the obvious mistakes 3) no guarantee that the procedures and analysis are even valid. Again, the process should filter out obvious severe problems, but reviewers can and do approve papers for publication when they suspect the methods are problematic--but promising for the science in some way. For example the analysis may seem innovative even if currently flawed. If the flaws are suspected rather than demonstrable, or otherwise not something feasibly addressed through revision, the reviewer may recommend publishing the paper as a conversation-starter, rather than simply rejecting it. Future refinements may address the perceived problems. I think Kevin C's "junk filter" is even better than "gatekeeper." But even that doesn't seem to quite capture it for me. Peer review keeps out stuff that appears to have no hope of adding value to the scientific discourse. Sometimes even things that reviewers can tell are probably wrong...are still *interesting*. -
Alexandre at 01:36 AM on 18 June 2011Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
The "skeptic" paper that did get submitted to peer-review is an even better way to show the lack of substance of their claims. They should do that more often. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:33 AM on 18 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
MoreCarbonOK I have only made a brief review of this thread, but I think you will find that I said your analysis was "statistically nonsense" (i.e. from a statistical point of view it made no sense). It was you that transposed that into "ridiculous" in this post, AFAICS I said no such thing. I could be wrong of course, but if not, perhaps you should apologise for your calumny? ;o) I also said your approach was a recipe for cherry picking (whether deliberate or inadvertant), not that you had cherry picked. If you pick sites at random and get a result that suits your argument, but don't test that your result is robust to that random selection, how do you know you did not inadvertantly cherry pick (you can't). The point in engaging in discusion with me on the defficiencies of your statistical methodologu is exactly the point in scientists engaging with the criticism they recieve of their papers from the reviewers. Generally it improves the standard of their work. I certainly take that view of the referees reviews of my work and I don't take it personally or refuse to listen to them. If I disagree, I explain why. If I can't convincingly explain why, that would be a good indicator that they were right and I was wrong. P.S. I expect the moderators will delete your post and my reply as they are both off-topic, but do read the last paragraph, it is sound advice. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:26 AM on 18 June 2011CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
16, Henry (sorry, I mean MoreCarbonOK), I followed your link... another flawed, falsehood laden bit of misdirection, I'm afraid. But please take your logic here through to its inevitable conclusion, something you clearly think "the IPCC and all those more beautiful learned people" were unable or unwilling to do, but you have the insight and courage to dare to try. Plants absorb sunlight (heat) and CO2 and convert the two into sugar (too bad all those so called scientists haven't figured this out, but you have). What happens next? Where does the heat that these plants have gratefully protected us from wind up? How is this magical floral cooling not merely initiated, but maintained? Please, teach us. We want to learn. To other readers: Please, please, please do follow all of Henry's links and see what he has to say. Learn to recognize and distinguish real science from "close enough, looks good to me if I just stop thinking here" no-where-near-science. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:16 AM on 18 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
41, MoreCarbonOk, Followed your link. The logic there was as bizarre and incomplete as it was wrong. People need to base their own decision making capabilities on something with considerably more substance and less hand-waving than Henry's pool table (such as, among dozens of other fallacies, the completely unexplained and unsupported assertion of the a priori condition that greenhouse gas warming must operate by increasing minimum observed temperatures more than maximums). Henry should stick to playing games, because real science is beyond him. In the future, just as someone who is sharing this site with you, I'd ask that you limit the links you provide to substantive, reasonable and defensible science, rather than quite frankly weird, simplistic posts by Galilean-blog-science-wannabes. -
MoreCarbonOK at 01:14 AM on 18 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Henry@Dikran & moderators You will remember that Dikran thought that my scientific method is rediculous...I have replied to that accusation and I have not received an apology from him. So what would be the point in further engaging with him? Anyway, you now also stated that I cherry picked my stations. I did nothing of the sort. Why would I lie or cherry pick? To fool myself? My honesty and honorability speaks for itself. http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/all-henrys-posts-together This is just a hobby of mine and I just thought I would help you by letting you have a look at what I found on my table. there is no global warming due to an increase in GHG's. Just get that ....Moderator Response: (DB) We do indeed get that you somehow feel extrapolating non-official regional data via questionable statistical methodology and using that to hand-wave away net warming measured globally during a time of flat forcings (other than the rapidly rising levels of CO2). Yes, we get that. You are very mistaken, however. -
ranyl at 01:05 AM on 18 June 2011CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
No Ice then either and having a white ocean go black is surely going to increase the climate sensitivity a little further. From Pliocene data 350ppm by 2100 means ~2C by 2100 and to get to 350ppm by 2100 means no CO2 emissions from 2017 and then some major carbon sequestration. So what will happen above 2C? Maybe its time everyone who actual feels global warming is real to stop using CO2 themselves!!!? -
Bob Lacatena at 00:55 AM on 18 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
45, Ken, Too much hand waving. Do (and present) the math, explain your reasoning in detail, and demonstrate your point (as Feulner & Rahmstorf have done). Without that, it's all conjecture and opinion. It's you claiming that Feulner & Rahmstorf are wrong, and you're right, without actually doing anything to demonstrate that you have anything of serious substance beyond a strong opinion that says they're wrong and you're right. -
michael sweet at 00:42 AM on 18 June 2011Speaking science to climate policy
Ken, Many arguments that are consistent with the first law are incorrect, there are many other issues that have to be considered. I am not sure what you are confusing, you are not being clear on your problem. Increased energy absorption does cause temperature rise. The heat capacity of the ocean (which is what relates to the thermal inertia) means that it absorbs heat from the atmosphere and cools the atmosphere down. This heat is then mixed around the ocean. The ocean will absorb heat as long as it is not in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Search ocean heat content for discussion of this heat. Your statement "Ocean thermal inertia can only redistribute heat" is incorrect. Thermal inertia and heat distribution are different issues. This has been extensively discussed on Skeptical Science before. Please read the citation I provided to you above and use the search function if you are still confused. It is not my responsiblity to spoon feed you information that is readily available. If you have a question about the thermal inertia of the ocean post it on a more suitable thread. The aerosol forcing has been a critical hole in the information to determine the forcings of Global climate change for decades. If one satelite did not make orbit another should have been launched. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:36 AM on 18 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Ken Lambert wrote: "Which also applies to the sum of the other radiative forcings causing temperature rise in the climate system." yes, radiative forcing due to CO2 is rising. If it were merely raised from its pre-industrial level and then held constant, that would also mean "the extra energy added is the area under the forcing curve above the starting level", but it wouldn't cause temperatures to continually rise would it? CO2 radiative forcing is no different from solar forcing in that respect. -
Tom Curtis at 00:34 AM on 18 June 2011Speaking science to climate policy
Ken Lambert @16, China's efforts to reduce air pollution, and as a result, aerosol production have only recently started. The first five year plan to reduce aerosols began in 2008, so from 2001 to 2008, the increase in coal consumption probably maps very closely to increased aerosol production. These twin images from NASA will help put China's emissions into context. The first shows the average aerosol optical depth over the period 2000-2007. The second shows the 2007 anomaly with respect to that average.
-
Ken Lambert at 00:30 AM on 18 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
KR #44 "A step rise in TSI (all other things remaining equal) will cause a rise in temperature and hence TOA radiation until the imbalance is addressed - at which point there is no continuing change in temperature or energy in the climate system, as it has reached a new equilibrium." Which also applies to the sum of the other radiative forcings causing temperature rise in the climate system. You still are not grasping the fact that if the TSI rises and remains at an elevated level - not necessarily 'rising in TSI' - then the extra energy added is the area under the forcing curve above the starting level. "The data shown in the graph Albatross posted clearly demonstrates that something other than TSI is in play, due to the divergence of the TSI and temperature trends - and that something else is primarily GHG's." No it does not. The integral wrt time of the TSI above the start level will be a rising curve roughly tracking the temperature curve. -
Ken Lambert at 00:11 AM on 18 June 2011Speaking science to climate policy
Michael Sweet #13 "Your argument that "Ocean thermal inertia can only redistribute heat" is simply incorrect. You have been on this site long enough to have read this material, what are you trying to show with such a naive argument?" Why it my argument incorrect? It is consistent with the first law, and does not confuse temperature rise with increased energy absorption. -
KR at 00:04 AM on 18 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Ken Lambert - "The point is that a constant elevated TSI above an 'equilibrium' value will equate to a linearly increasing amount of energy as measured by the area under the forcing curve." Certainly, if the sun were constantly rising in TSI, perhaps on it's way to a red giant status, that would be true. It is not - why is this relevant to a discussion of a finite drop in TSI in a Grand Minimum? A step rise in TSI (all other things remaining equal) will cause a rise in temperature and hence TOA radiation until the imbalance is addressed - at which point there is no continuing change in temperature or energy in the climate system, as it has reached a new equilibrium. The data shown in the graph Albatross posted clearly demonstrates that something other than TSI is in play, due to the divergence of the TSI and temperature trends - and that something else is primarily GHG's. As Tom Curtis pointed out, your statements in this regard are far more topical on the Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming or It's the sun threads. -
Ken Lambert at 00:04 AM on 18 June 2011Speaking science to climate policy
Tom Curtis #11 Your coal use chart is a useful illustration Tom, but not the full story of Aerosols. While coal consumption by China has risen sharply in the last 10 years, so has the building of cleaner plant - the whole of Australia's coal fired electricity capacity every year for the next 10 years is planned. Closing of China's older dirtier plant is also happening as PM Gillard is wont to tell us (which of course is less than half the story). So what we really need is a global chart of Aerosol releases into the atmosphere. I will look around for one. -
DSL at 23:49 PM on 17 June 2011Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
Tom C: "One nice thing about the peer review system is that in, in order to be published you just have to convince three to five people who have the knowledge and skills to assess your argument that your argument is worth considering. You don't have to convince them that you are right; only that the case you make is cogent enough to be worth further thought." That can't be said enough. Part of my work is in peer review, though in a slightly different context. Peer review should be a part of any publication process. Peer reviewers should work with the advancement of knowledge in mind. That's all easily said. It is not easily done. For example, there are a number of areas of study where knowledge is saturated within self-imposed bounds, yet publication is still necessary in order to remain competitive in the job market. The journals in these areas (to some degree the bound-setters) become complicit with the interests of the desperate researchers, and they allow all sorts of esoterica and bizarre speculation to enter the larger conversation. It's only bizarre to outsiders, though. There is no mechanical, objective test for the validity and usefulness of a study (beyond the initial check for proper math) other than time, the scientific method, and the social production of science. Good, objective (within human limits) peer review puts an arm around an idea and introduces it to the public. Without peer review, ideas would stumble into the conversation, and we'd spend half our time picking them up off the ground and brushing the dirt off (and dealing with the subsequent psychological issues of having stumbled in public--something with which posters on this website have no experience (snort)). -
les at 23:49 PM on 17 June 2011CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
16 Mr OK "What everyone forgot is that carbon dioxide also takes part in the life cycle." Seriously? Gosh that's big news. Is this the outcome from one of Steve Mcintyre's analysis?!? -
MoreCarbonOK at 23:35 PM on 17 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
Robert Murphy, what is your point? Am I not allowed to make the same post at different discussions if it is on tpoic?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please do not make duplicate posts. If you have made a post on one thread that you feel is relevant to another, then do feel free to post a message on that thread directing readers to the original post. -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:25 PM on 17 June 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Eric (skeptic) An engineer (I started out as an electronic engineer myself) ought to approve of the kind of models used in carbon cycle modelling (lots of differential equations). They are really "white box" models rather than "black box". They are called box models only because each carbon reservoir is modelled as a box with fluxes between boxes defined by the known physics. The "one box" I mentioned earlier is the simplest, with just one box representing the atmosphere, but to get a more realistic estimate of the adjustment time you need to model the other reservoirs (and their feedbacks) in detail (which leads to the long tail on the adjustment). Fascinating subject. -
Rob Painting at 23:18 PM on 17 June 2011CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
Tony, that may be the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum. Not something I've read much about. -
Papy at 23:03 PM on 17 June 2011Speaking science to climate policy
#13 "Hansen has been calling for a satelite to measure aerosol contributions since at least 1990 and estimates in the paper I linked at 7 that such a mission would cost only $100,000,000. For various political reasons it has never been launched." Wasn't it the mission of the crashed Glory satellite though ? -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:59 PM on 17 June 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I understand impulse response times from engineering, but in engineering one does not generally black box the system being studied and just measure current and voltage. However the CO2 system should be treatable as a passive system to a point (extreme warming may turn it into an active system) -
MoreCarbonOK at 22:55 PM on 17 June 2011CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
Ja, but exactly how much is the cooling caused by CO2? What everyone forgot is that carbon dioxide also takes part in the life cycle. CO2 is taken up by the plants and the trees who then take warmth from their surroundings to grow. That is what you call an endothermic reaction. I noticed this when I happened to enter a forest at dawn = you could clearly feel that the forest was cooler and that it was taking energy from its surroundings. I mean did you ever see a forrest grow where it is very cold? Up until now, nobody, including the IPCC and all those more beautiful learned people, could put a figure to the cooling caused by the CO2 in this way. In fact, they had all forgotten about it. There are more issues like that. http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok -
Tony Noerpel at 22:50 PM on 17 June 2011CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
Rob Thanks. I was not referring to the figure in your post. The 44 Mya spike reference comes form a paper by Hansen and Sato [1] and I don't know if it has been published yet, but Hansen has used similar figures in several of his papers. All of Hansen's stuff is available on his web site. I appologize for making you do extra work but I assume you are more familiar with Hansen's work than I am. As I look at the figure, the spike may be closer to 42 Mya. Anyway, this more recent spike actually looks stronger than PETM and I'd always been curious about it. Again appologies for the confusion. Tony [1] James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato, Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, New York -
Robert Murphy at 22:46 PM on 17 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
You completely ignored my question. Why did you write the same exact post on two threads? -
MoreCarbonOK at 22:40 PM on 17 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
Henry@Robert 1) in the case of the confidence interval: the question whether the warming is significant on a 1%, 2.5 % 5% or or 10% is irrelevant. We know warming ihas happened. The question is: is it natural or is it man made? 2) in this case here: you want to close a case without having seen any actual data? -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:37 PM on 17 June 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Eric (skeptic) The constant airborne fraction (45%) is essentially due to the fact that anthropogenic emissions are rising approximately exponentially. This result is easily reproduced by a one-box model of the carbon cycle (I am working on an article on this topic). That means if anthropogenic emissions are cut then the airborne fraction will be no longer constant. IIRC a simple one-box model of the carbon cycle gives an adjustment of about 74 years once you take that into account. There is nothing spurious about the 500+ year time scale. The carbon cycle can only be approximated very roughly by simple models such as yours. There are other reasonably well understood physical reasons (e.g. slow transfer of carbon between the surface and deep ocean) that make the simple model give unrealistically low estimates. If you want to look more deeply into these issues, I can recommend David Archer's primer on the carbon cycle, reviewed here However, your calculation is still much more accurate that Essenhigh's, as you obviously understand the difference between residence time and adjustment time. Also, CO2 levels falling about halfway back to pre-indiustrial levels in about 50 years is pretty much the mainstream view
(posted by Daniel earlier in the thread)
-
jatufin at 22:33 PM on 17 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
How about: "Of course yes! What would you except from so short period? We use much longer time frames -- 30 years or so -- to be sure a trend we see is real. Still... Even the warming we've witnessed during the last 15 years only, it is almost there. Only haircut, two or three percentage points, short from being statistically significant." -
Rob Painting at 22:30 PM on 17 June 2011CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
Tony - they are the Eocene hyperthermals (although I don't see where you get 44 mya in the figures above). They seem to be driven by orbital changes . See the hyper-link above for Dickens 2009 and also: Sexton 2011 Galeotti 2010 -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:28 PM on 17 June 2011CO2 has a short residence time
I noticed this thread was referenced in the new "CO2 rising faster than PETM" thread. I wrote a spreadsheet that I just made publicly accessible (forgot to do that above). I used the published figures for CO2 added the atmosphere 1750-2008. Then I assumed an expoential decay. Nature absorbs about 1/2 of our added amount each year and since that is a consistent result year after year, an exponential decay back to preindustrial is a reasonable assumption. Based on the rise to 2008, the lambda is 4.25 (I also assume lambda is constant when it seems likely to rise with CO2 concentration). The half life of CO2 (time to return 1/2 way back to preindustrial) is 48 years. An argument that the "lifetime" of CO2 is 500 years or more is ill-defined and somewhat spurious. Yes, it would take that long to get all the way back to preindustrial, but getting half way back in 50 years is more meaningful. The document link is here: http://public.iwork.com/document/?a=p1415598010&d=CO2growth.numbers -
Robert Murphy at 22:26 PM on 17 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
MoreCarbon, you wrote the same exact post here Is there a reason you are posting the same thing on multiple threads? -
MoreCarbonOK at 22:16 PM on 17 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
case closed? From the results at randomly chosen weather stations it would appear that there is no warming caused by a green house effect: For the record and for those interested: http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming (-Snip-)Response:[DB] If you've made a point before and it's also on-topic here, then provide a link to that point. We're more than capable of following links. The rest of your comment here is nothing more than pointlessly arguing cherry-pick fallacies (i.e., since cherries are red apples can not also be red).
-
Tony Noerpel at 21:55 PM on 17 June 2011CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
There is another temperature spike in the middle of the Eocene around 44 Mya. Has this been studied as much as the PETM? Any information on it? thanks Tony -
Kevin C at 21:23 PM on 17 June 2011Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
Good discussion - I like the term 'gate keeper' (I've tended to use 'junk filter') and especially 'peer response'. CBDunkerson@13:Thus, passing peer-review is USUALLY enough to identify something as valid science, but there are occasional mistakes and a few cases of outright fraud... but those quickly fall by the wayside while valid papers are referenced and built upon in further research.
Ah, now I think you've just picked out something particularly important. There are two separate questions we can ask about a paper: 1. Is it valid science? 2. Is it right? A paper may be neither, it may be valid science but wrong, or it may be valid science and right. (I suppose you can also have a paper that is right but not valid science, if it is right by chance.) The journal peer review process should certainly pick out invalid science, but will also pick out some egrariously wrong science as well. As for what gets published, I guess one of the key questions in determining to what extent we can rely on a paper simply because it is peer reviewed is what proportion of peer reviewed papers are valid science but wrong. I would like to suggest that the proportion is significant, even in real jornals and in articles from reputable authors. One piece of evidence for this lies in the fact that many papers cite at least one previous work in order to disagree with it. Does this invalidate science? No, one way science progresses through a conversation between papers in which the errors are gradually weeded out. But does mean that being peer-reviewed is not a sufficient reason on its own to trust a paper. That's where Adelady's peer-response metric fits in. -
Eric the Red at 21:18 PM on 17 June 2011Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
Overall, peer-review is a good process to evaluate the merits of a paper. However, it should not be idolized as a grand metric differentiating between acceptable and non-acceptable work. Peer-review is just that, a review by your peers. Most times "correct" papers get published, other times not. After all, if your peers are doing similar work, they may see similar results. Sometimes articles appear in scientific journals or magazines which contain preliminary results which the researcher deems significant enough to portray to others. Oftentimes, this will lead to a research report submitted at a later date. That does not automatic relegate the original article to an invalid state, but rather has not gone through the peer-review process to check for potential errors. Since peer-review is a human process, it is governered by human limitations. Consequently, the reputation(s) of the author(s) does influence the process. The biases of the reviewers can also play a role. Papers are occassional pased through to fill session in conferences, and later published with the proceedings. Having taken part in peer-review from both sides, I can see many of the advantages and disadvantages, and that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. I will reiterate that it is a good process to determine the merits of research, but not the endall barometer. -
BillyJoe at 21:06 PM on 17 June 2011Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
DB,thanks for the links. -
CBDunkerson at 21:02 PM on 17 June 2011Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
Generally speaking, only peer-reviewed papers are cited in the scientific literature. Thus, IMO the primary way that peer-review impacts the progress of science is by determining which materials make it into the ongoing 'discussion' and which do not. That said, if utter garbage is let through a fake 'peer-review' process (E&E anyone?) the scientific community will just reject it in the wider 'peer-review' that is ongoing research. Thus, passing peer-review is USUALLY enough to identify something as valid science, but there are occasional mistakes and a few cases of outright fraud... but those quickly fall by the wayside while valid papers are referenced and built upon in further research. -
Eric the Red at 20:53 PM on 17 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
Yes, the net effect over time of the PDO is zero. However, that does not mean that the PDO has not affected the observed weather during the past century. What you call noise, has been observed as an oscillation with an amplitude of about 0.4C - that is a lot of noise. Removing this "noise" from the temperature observations results in a very linear temperature increase of 0.6C / century since 1880 - basically the entire thermometer data record. While that does not prove that the PDO is responsible for the noise, there is much understanding to explain the observed effect. Is it optimistic or simply realistic to attempt to identify and correlate all the factors affecting our climate? The climate models are constantly being redefined to incorporate new information. If the PDO was the cause of the cooling in the mid 20th century, and the cause of the recent temperature observations, then it should be incorporated into the models. It will change the end result if the observed warming was partially due to the PDO in one of two ways: either the temperature time lag is longer than proposed, or the climate sensitivity is too high.Moderator Response: It is past time to move this discussion of PDO to the thread "It’s Pacific Decadal Oscillation." Further comments on that topic on this thread will be deleted. -
Robert Murphy at 20:36 PM on 17 June 2011Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
Doesn't the link from RealClimate show the projected CO2 for 2010 was 392ppmv? And wasn't the actual level in 2010 389ppmv? It's a minor point, but it looks like you have that reversed on your chart. -
michael sweet at 19:56 PM on 17 June 2011Speaking science to climate policy
Correction: the Bush Administration actually removed "to understand and defend our home planet." from the NASA mission statement, not "protect" the home planet. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:54 PM on 17 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Henry@Dikran "I don't need a comment from you." s/need/want/ If you can't take on board constructive criticism, your analysis will continue to be meaningless. Not engaging with technical criticism of ones scientific position is denialism. Your perogative of course. -
MoreCarbonOK at 19:44 PM on 17 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Henry@TomCurtis The average temperatures for the daily mean, maxima and minima and other weather data for Brisbane are given at the end of each month of the year from 1976 to 2011 at this site: http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Brisbane_Airport_M_O/945780.htm For the record and for those interested: As it stands at the moment (on my pool table), http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming it appears that maxima, means and minima have risen in a ratio of about 4:2:1 over the past 4 decades. For the time being, my conclusion is therefore that the warming is natural because it is the maxima that pushed up the average temps and minima. I think if I could get these results, anyone else should be able to get the same, as long as they play the game according to the rules: i.e. 1) randomly 2) balanced, ::::NH versus SH Namely the funny thing is that I observed now is that the warming is not at all the same in the SH (where I started playing) and the NH. Why that is I don’t know> perhaps it could be because there is much less landmass in the SH? But why would that make a difference? Anyway, whatever the reasons, I now have to carefully look at my table again, to balance it, i.e the same amount of stations NH and SH + approx. same NH latitudes and SH latitudes. Not an easy task for one and only person….with only a limited amount of hobby time and that is: yours truthfully Henry Henry@Dikran I don't need a comment from you.Response:[DB] "Henry@Dikran
I don't need a comment from you."If you do not wish others to respond to comments you post here then don't post here. Either way, try to exercise more civility. Politeness goes a long way towards establishing credibility.
-
Dan Olner at 19:33 PM on 17 June 2011Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
"I'm wary of idolising peer-review as the metric of truth." Agreed: this article asserts, it doesn't explain. To anyone who'd never heard of peer-review, what would they think? Sounds like appeal to authority (your peers, in fact!) What I'd like to read: an explanation of how the peer review process manages to (over time) produce a good approximation to knowledge. On the face of it, there's no reason to suspect it would: peer review has to exist in a system that incentivises those peers to *want* to tear down any mistakes they find. It's quite possible to imagine `peer review' that does nothing of the sort - and indeed journals exist where that's the case. So what distinguishes good from bad peer review? Is it actually anything to do with `peer review' itself, or is it to do with the structure of the disciplines they're embedded in? Or what? -
michael sweet at 19:24 PM on 17 June 2011Speaking science to climate policy
Ken, I suggest you read the linked paper. Hansen has been calling for a satelite to measure aerosol contributions since at least 1990 and estimates in the paper I linked at 7 that such a mission would cost only $100,000,000. For various political reasons it has never been launched. (The Bush adminsitration removed "protect the home planet" from the NASA mission statement, but Clinton did not launch it either). Tom's graph indicates that your description of a lag between when the West (partially) cleaned up their aerosols and when China started emitting large amounts correlated with the temperature rise you described. Perhaps if you read the background you would see that this is a coherent narative. This is a critical issue since if in fact aerosols have hidden 1C of warming we are in for a big shock when China cleans up its act, as it eventually must. The ocean's thermal inertia holds back the temperature over the ocean and nearby land. A quick type of "ocean thermal inertia" in the search function yields Has Earth warmed as much as expected? which describes how the ocean holds back the temperature of the Earth in the first section labeled "Thermal Inertia". The search has a large number of additional hits. Your argument that "Ocean thermal inertia can only redistribute heat" is simply incorrect. You have been on this site long enough to have read this material, what are you trying to show with such a naive argument? -
bartverheggen at 19:00 PM on 17 June 2011Speaking science to climate policy
Tropospheric aerosols have a lifetime of several days or weeks (dependent on their size). In sharp contrast to the lifetime of greenhouse gases, ranging from 12 years (methane), via nitrous oxide (120 years) to CO2 (100's to 10(0),000's of years). Stratospheric aerosols (e.g. as a consequence of large Tropical volcanic eruptions, but also in-situ formation) have a lifetime of a couple of years. See also this background on atmospheric aerosols that I wrote on my blog. -
michael sweet at 18:52 PM on 17 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
DB: Neven's name is spelled wrong twice in the last paragraph, can you change to Neven from Nevin? Please delete this post. -
Bern at 18:35 PM on 17 June 2011Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
Kevin C: I think adelady has it right - peer review is a gate-keeping exercise, that is less about establishing whether a paper is *correct*, as establishing whether it is obviously *incorrect* - in which case, it doesn't get published until the obvious errors are fixed. Less obvious errors will usually end up with comments, letters, or further papers being published to point them out - sometimes by the original authors. As I understand it, though, it takes more than errors to prompt an actual retraction. I've been responding to some comments on the cross-post of this at ClimateSpectator. I've seen the "it's water vapour" one again, and "Phil Jones conspired to block critics' papers", and "it's not warming", and "sea levels aren't rising", and "CO2 is plant food". On a related thread on BusinessSpectator, I even had someone tell me that a 1.5% annual increase in evaporation & precipitation was a slow-down of the hydrological cycle... (I had to read that one three times to check I hadn't misunderstood!) -
MartinS at 18:27 PM on 17 June 2011CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
@idunno: CH4 reacts rapidly to CO2 (oxidation with OH). Possibly the oxidation happend already in the sea water or later in the atmosphere (CH4 has a short lifetime compared to CO2). The CH4/CO2 differentation is important to explain the negative carbon isotope excurison. CH4 has an extremly negative deltaC13 ratio of about -50 per mille, therefore you need less CH4 than CO2 to explain the excursion. -
scaddenp at 18:24 PM on 17 June 2011CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
okatiniko - different carbon characteristics. d13C ratio is way depressed for PETM.
Prev 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 Next
