Recent Comments

Prev  1640  1641  1642  1643  1644  1645  1646  1647  1648  1649  1650  1651  1652  1653  1654  1655  Next

Comments 82351 to 82400:

82351. Chris McGrath at 12:48 PM on 16 June 2011
       Speaking science to climate policy
       Does anyone know the source of Risbey's reference to "a total global carbon emission allocation of between about 800 and 1000Gt carbon" and that "we have already emitted about 550Gt, leaving perhaps another 250–450Gt". Meinshausen et al (2009) “Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C” Nature 458:1158-1162 stated that, "Limiting cumulative CO2 emissions over 2000–50 to 1,000 Gt CO2 yields a 25% probability of warming exceeding 2 6C—and a limit of 1,440 Gt CO2 yields a 50% probability—given a representative estimate of the distribution of climate system properties." Meinshausen et al's figures are in CO2 while Risbey appears to be using carbon-only figures (Nb. We can convert from carbon to CO2 by multiplying by 44/12). Meinshausen et al are also talking about emissions between 2000-2050 while Risbey does not define the time interval so it appears he may be speaking about emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution. Can anyone clarify these figures?
82352. Eric the Red at 12:46 PM on 16 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       Curious why John thinks that the solar minimum (if it were to occur) would have such a slight effect on temperatures, when NASA (and others) have shown a much higher temperature decrease during the Maunder minimum.
       Response:

       [DB] Where was the anthopogenic CO2 spike comparable to that of the modern era during the Maunder Minimum?

82353. Bob Lacatena at 12:41 PM on 16 June 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       171, RW1, Look. Your comments contain nothing of substance other than to deride Dessler without foundation. He did a study and found that the net change in cloud feedback was positive, which supports the contention of many, many current climate scientists. Make a point and support it, or stop commenting. If you have a valid mechanism by which this may not be so, submit it and support it. If you have data that refutes Dessler's claim, submit it and support it. If all you have to say is "Negative could feedback! Negative cloud feedback! Dessler must be wrong!" then you're wasting everyone's time.
       Response:

       [DB] Agreed.  No one wishes to waste their time by dialoguing with RW1 due to his unwillingness to learn and to properly support a position.

82354. Camburn at 12:41 PM on 16 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       The flaw in the Fuelner paper is that he is concentrating on TSI, rather than the other items that the sun provides that affect climate. From Earth Shine, it is known that the albedo of earth has increased as of late. Global cloud cover has increased by approx 4%, and the jet streams have moved markedly south in the NH for this time of year. Dr. Svelsgaard will be having a paper published in the near future that shows the variation in TSI to be extremely small in the past 1,000 years. So, now that we know that TSI is relatively constant, it is very apparant that the other forces from the sun require careful scrutiny and study. Early results from CERN are showing that Dr. Svensmark is correct about gamma rays and clouds. Earth shine would seem to confirm this.
82355. RW1 at 12:38 PM on 16 June 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       Sphaerica (RE: 170) "Believing that you can out-think them when you can't even get a decent grasp on Trenberth's energy budget diagram..." Find the appropriate thread and I'll be happy to discuss/debate Trenberth's energy budget with you or anyone. Every time I've tried, my posts seem to end up getting deleted for being off topic. Moderators, is there a thread where we can discuss this? If not, can you start one?
82356. RW1 at 12:29 PM on 16 June 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       Sphaerica (RE: 170), "The mechanisms have been explained to you several times. Clouds are not a uniform, one dimensional entity for which more clouds = more of the same. A large number of factors come in to play." I've never claimed clouds are uniform or a one dimensional entity. "Your simplistic view that net cloud impact on temperatures is normally mildly negative, and therefore any increase in clouds due to warming must be comparably more negative, is inadequate." A -20 W/m^2 net effect is not "mildy negative" - it is very strongly negative (or strongly cooling). In the absence of specifically identified and corroborated physical mechanisms to the contrary, this is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Ultimately, Dessler doesn't have it.
82357. Bob Lacatena at 11:34 AM on 16 June 2011
       It's the sun
       832, Tom Curtis, You win the Comments-Rebuttal-Of-The-Month Award!!! [Darn. I wish I'd worked that one through. Very nice job, and a lesson for anyone who has fallen for any such similar denial nonsense. Just playing with numbers is a parlor game, not science. Casual readers should note that the basic problem with Stockwell's analysis was the creation of an arbitrary mathematical mechanism -- the accumulation of solar input -- without any corresponding physical mechanism to justify the assumption. He picked it just because it fit the data, and didn't take the thought process any further. As Tom demonstrated, the missing physical mechanism that justifies the mathematical trick to demonstrate the incline does exist, but sadly, for Stockwell, it's called the Greenhouse Gas Effect.]
82358. jonicol at 11:29 AM on 16 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       KR You may already have seen this article at http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/atmospheric-temperature-structure-2-stratospheric-cooling/ with some RSS charts showing the cooling you are talking about.
82359. Bob Lacatena at 11:20 AM on 16 June 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       168, RW1, No single paper needs to cover everything, all at once, to completely define something. He doesn't "admit" (and yes, I noticed your cleverly pejorative word choice) that he doesn't cover mechanisms, he simply "tells" you as much. You shouldn't have needed to bother him and ask such an obvious thing, which you would certainly have clearly known if you comprehended the paper. That said, I don't care how many times you've read the paper, you don't seem to be able to comprehend it or, rather, you don't seem to be able to separate what you believe (without adequate logic or evidence) from what current science says. The mechanisms have been explained to you several times. Clouds are not a uniform, one dimensional entity for which more clouds = more of the same. A large number of factors come in to play.
       • Are there more clouds at night, where their albedo is irrelevant?
       • Are there more clouds at the poles or northern hemisphere in winter, where they merely shield reflective snow and ice, and so the difference in albedo is nil, while their radiative warming effects are increased?
       • Are the clouds that form high altitude clouds of ice, that are pretty much transparent to visible light, but still have a strong GHG effect?
       • Do the excess clouds form over or under existing cloud layers, again having little net effect on albedo, but definitely adding their radiative effects?
       Your simplistic view that net cloud impact on temperatures is normally mildly negative, and therefore any increase in clouds due to warming must be comparably more negative, is inadequate. I think you'd be well served to study the topic more before commenting further. I also think you'd be better served by demonstrating some respect (not merely in the words you post, but in your attitude) to the men and women that are actively engaged in studying the science. Believing that you can out-think them when you can't even get a decent grasp on Trenberth's energy budget diagram is just a little bit of a Dunning-Kruger.
82360. jonicol at 11:05 AM on 16 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Thanks KR. That is a good clear article and explains the absorption processes logically. I will be following other material on matters alluded to there including David Archer's paper. I have also read your other suggestions you gave me in 52 KR which were also interesting and helpful. Cheers.
82361. RW1 at 10:55 AM on 16 June 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       KR (RE: 166), "Keep in mind that while specific humidity (total amount of H2O) in the atmosphere may be rising with temperature, relative humidity (relative to the total amount air can hold at any temperature) may remain steady or even decrease. So - steady or decreasing clouds with rising temperatures, neutral or positive feedback to warming." This really doesn't make sense. The fundamental problem is that clouds are controlling the water vapor concentration in a highly dynamic manner. The evaporated water vapor condenses in the atmosphere to form clouds, and then the formed clouds precipitate out the water from the atmosphere. As the clouds form and remain in the atmosphere, they reflect more solar energy away because the clouds are more reflective than the surface beneath them. This is why the net measured effect of clouds is to cool rather than to warm. Dessler's analysis is essentially claiming that all of the sudden the incremental effect of clouds on the next little bit of warming will be the warm rather than cool.
82362. Eric (skeptic) at 10:44 AM on 16 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       Interesting paper (on french web site). I was wondering what the downward blip was and it is apparently one or more volcanoes which can coincide with solar minima (reference was made to this paper http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/claussenmartin/publications/bauer_al_1000_grl_03.pdf)
       Response: The downward blips over the 21st Century are volcanic eruptions randomly distributed (matching similar eruptions in the 20th Century). This was necessary to avoid artificial drift of the model from an unnatural lack of volcanic forcing.
82363. RW1 at 10:31 AM on 16 June 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       Sphaerica (RE: 167), "Your overly simplistic model of the system completely fails. It doesn't properly consider how clouds form, it doesn't understand that clouds do not need to decrease to provide a positive feedback, it doesn't account for the many varieties, locations (in space, meaning 3 dimensions, and time) of clouds, it fails on many, many other levels. At the same time, your interpretation of Dessler 2010 is flawed. You should probably read the paper several more times before commenting on it again." I have read the paper multiple times. I even emailed Dessler for clarification on a few things. He admits outright that his analysis doesn't analyze any mechanisms, just data. That the net effect of clouds is to cool by 20 W/m^2 would have to be explained. Just claiming the derivative to changes in surface temperature is positive, as Dessler does, even though the net entire effect is to cool is not good enough.
82364. Tom Curtis at 10:08 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Charlie A @135, I am very far from expert on statistics, so I would appreciate somebody who is expert either confirming, or correcting the following (Hint: Dikran). However, it appears to me that your statement about that:

       "The time series shows autocorrelation (i.e. residuals are not white), so the uncertainty bands should be expanded. But he does not do so."

       is incorrect. Specifically, the time series does show autocorrelation, but the error bars show measurement error, which would be white noise. Consequently, the effect of auto-correlation in the series would be to reduce the expected error rather than increase it in that nearby terms would provide some (very limited) information about the probable values of their neighbours.
82365. Tom Curtis at 09:48 AM on 16 June 2011
       It's the sun
       Tor B @826, Stockwell provides very little information to provide a counter analysis. The majority of the information comes from this diagram: As you can see, he plots temperature against the cumulative solar forcing. The only way that can be appropriate is if there has been no increase in Outgoing Longwave Radiation to dissipate the increased incoming solar energy, thus allowing it to accumulate. As a rise in temperature will result in a rise in OLR all else being equal, he leaves entirely unexplained why OLR has not increased over the period, and why it did increase in previous centuries, thus allowing the solar forcing to dissipate and temperatures to not rise as they have in the twentieth century. What Stockwell needs, therefore, is a mechanism that provides a near linear reduction in OLR over time. (Care to guess where this is going?) Oddly, and obviously, there is a known mechanism which has been increasingly been reducing the OLR over the course of this century. It is the increase in the Greenhouse Effect due to increased anthropogenic emissions of Greenhouse Gasses. Indeed, the increased forcing (reduction in OLR for a given surface temperature) has risen approximately linearly over the last half of the twentieth century: Further, it turns out that using a linear increase in anthropogenic forcings plus solar forcings, plus volcanic forcings plus the MEI (an index of the El Nino Southern Oscillation), an even better correlation with temperatures can be found than that found by Stockwell: So it turns out that the evidence Stockwell has uncovered is in fact evidence of an increasing anthropogenic forcing - he is just not good enough an analyst to realise it.
82366. LazyTeenager at 08:30 AM on 16 June 2011
       The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
       The thing which struck me about Steve Goddard's venus article on WUWT (its all due to pressure not CO2) is that he used the diifferential form of the formula for variation of temperature with height. The normal formula would have had an integration constant T0. This means he managed to neglect/ignore/hide an important variable that in effect describes the overall the temperature of the atmosphere.
82367. Charlie A at 08:02 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       @Rob Honeycutt --- "Tamino skin this cat quite differently and comes up with statistical significance from 1995-2009" He didn't find statistical significance in either HadCRUT3 or HadCRUT3v. To quote Tamino "[Response: Only by removing the influence of exogenous factors (el Nino, volcanic, solar) can you show statistical significance post-1995.]" The "Tamino" series starts of with the HadCRUT3v, which Phil Jones himself says has artifacts from the gridding method that makes HadCRUT3 the recommended data for time series analysis. Tamino then applies his own recipe of modification to remove such things as solar influence. Then he does an analysis. The analysis is interesting, but doesn't support Phil Jones's statement.
       Moderator Response: (DB) Actually, Tamino's analysis showed that the warming since 2000 and earlier was statistically significant.
82368. scaddenp at 07:55 AM on 16 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric(sk) - still interested in the questions of resolving conflict of rights and legal responsibility.
82369. Bob Lacatena at 07:52 AM on 16 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       42, Eric the Red, You are taking an alchemists approach to climate science. You are treating all of the components as great mysteries of the aether and phlogiston, with the idea that if you can just tease out all of the variables -- not by understanding the mechanics through constructing simple, logical laws and then clearly predicting the impacts, but rather merely through observation, correlation and inference -- then you'll eventually have enough information to prove to yourself that the one variable that is derived from and defined by mechanistic understanding, and which has all along predicted observed events, is in fact the major and almost only cause of the trend. But in the meantime, do you counsel that we should wait and see (what, 30 years?), to be sure the PDO isn't some magical perpetual motion machine that is somehow adding energy to the system with no source to propel it?
82370. Paul Magnus at 07:49 AM on 16 June 2011
       Speaking science to climate policy
       totally agree!
82371. scaddenp at 07:48 AM on 16 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       ChrisG - "If the source of the extra C in the past was methane from permafrost or clathrate, then the 13C / 12C ratio would be the same as fossil fuels." No they are not. Clathrate methane appears to be predominately from microbial activity with d13 between -40 and -100, average ~60-65. FF is closer to plant with d13 around ~-30. This has been used as evidence against clathrates being big players in events like YD based on ice core methane. However, I am watching for more results from these studies, as well as ongoing work d13 in the PETM where clathrates are thought to be significant.
82372. scaddenp at 07:35 AM on 16 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       For consideration of what would happen if sun went into deep minimum, see Feulner and Rahmstorf 2010. Quick answer - by 2100, only a small temperature decrease compared to standard SRES scenarios.
82373. Rob Honeycutt at 07:34 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Charlie... Boy-o-boy did I have a knockdown drag out with Lubos Motl not long after the Phil Jones interview over whether anything less than 95% was real or not. Motl was absolutely adamant than anything less than 95% statistical significance, in fact, did not exist. Regarding Lucia... The old saying is, "There's more than one way to skin a cat." Tamino skin this cat quite differently and comes up with statistical significance from 1995-2009.
82374. Tom Dayton at 07:27 AM on 16 June 2011
       It's the sun
       Stockwell's "work" sounds like the same-old-same-old overfitting of a curve with a whole bunch of parameters.
82375. Charlie A at 06:50 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       This whole topic is a tempest in a teapot. It is strange, though, that Phil Jones uses suspect statistics to make the claim that the warming is now statistically significant at 95% confidence level. The HadCRUT3v (variance adjusted version) is not recommended for this sort of analysis. The time series shows autocorrelation (i.e. residuals are not white), so the uncertainty bands should be expanded. But he does not do so. Lucia's Blackboard has a more statistically accurate analysis of whether Phil Jone's statement is accurate. Note that she is consistent in widening the uncertainty bands ..... she also routinely goes through the different possible versions of uncertainty bands in here monthly comparison of GISS and HADCRUT3 vs the IPCC AR4 projections. In those cases, the widened uncertainty bands is the only thing that keeps GISS trendline from being statistically different than the IPCC projection. 93% vs 94% vs 95% confidence factor isn't all that relevant and more likely than not, Phil Jones statement will be statistically valid in the next year or two. The "since 1995" is a cherry-picked starting point in the first place. But it is silly of him, however, to make this technically incorrect claim.
82376. Charlie A at 06:41 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       @#95 MoreCarbonOK "I only later picked up on a trend of no warming in the SH and more warming in the NH. You tell me why. Anyone?" The land trends are higher than the sea surface trends. SH has higher percentage of ocean, therefore is expected to have a lower trend. Land trends are higher than sea surface trends because the heat capacity of land is lower than water.
82377. Daniel Bailey at 06:36 AM on 16 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       @ pbjamm I believe RSVP was sincere in his question. 394 relative to 350 is bad. 394 relative to the historical interglacial max of 298.7 is bad. Obviously yet another monthly increase is bad. Hence his question. I had hoped that May would show a tapering of the increase.
82378. Daniel Bailey at 06:34 AM on 16 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       That's a good question, RSVP. May is usually the month where the seasonal peak is reached. Most years have 7 or 8 months of rise before the trees in the NH grow enough for their CO2 uptake to quell the rise and then start their seasonal drawdown of atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The fear is that enough environmental damage caused by the droughts in the Amazon, Australia, Texas & elsewhere could cause those areas to go from sinks to sources. One of the ways that could manifest itself is in the Mauna Loa monthly data. Instead of having years with 7 or 8 months of increases, we may start seeing years with 8 or 9 months of increases. I need not connect the dots for what that might imply (with the annual rates of increases themselves increasing).
82379. pbjamm at 06:33 AM on 16 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       RSVP@32 Having trouble parsing this question. "...if 394 ppm is a detriment on its own right..." Is it? I am pretty sure that the concern over CO2 concentrations has nothing to do with fear of suffocation and everything to do with climate change.
82380. RSVP at 06:24 AM on 16 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       Daniel Bailey 31 Why exactly a concern for global warming when the change of global CO2 ppm is already bad enough? In other words, if 394 ppm is a detriment on its own right, what does correlating this to climate change bring to table?
82381. Daniel Bailey at 06:22 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       @ Dikran I think we're in close agreement here. No matter the answer Jones gave, it was going to be spun out of context. My point I was trying to make (poorly) was that in not addressing the framing of the question immediately, anything that followed would be playing into the hands of the denialarati. That was the fallacy (perhaps there's a better word?). Thus, following a normal scientific response to a question given, the outcome had a predictable end. (It was essentially one of those "So, how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?" questions)
82382. michael sweet at 05:37 AM on 16 June 2011
       Speaking science to climate policy
       The aerosols are Hansen's Faustian Bargian. Hansen estimates the forcing as -1.3 W/m2. According to Bart's 0.8 C/W/m2 @3, that is over 1C of committed warming in addition to what is in the pipeline due to ocean thermal inertia. As dmccubbi says, they have a residence time of only a few days or weeks. They are continually renewed (they are one of the major components of the asian brown cloud and acid rain in the US Northeast). When they are cleaned up (eventually they must be cleaned up) the climate forcing will immediately increase. The bargain is that the aerosol pollution today will keep temperatures from rising untill the aerosols are no longer released. This committed warming is hidden for the present.
82383. Albatross at 05:37 AM on 16 June 2011
       It's the sun
       Sigh, Let Tamino know...probably another crank paper that needs to be refuted.
82384. Bob Lacatena at 05:32 AM on 16 June 2011
       It's the sun
       826, Tor B, Until his work is published in its entirety, and available to all, it is only so much blather, and very unlikely to undergo scrutiny, since no one else to date has been able to accomplish what he claims, and quite to the contrary, a number of existing studies demonstrate the opposite. [See the #2 denial argument, It's the Sun.] At this point, all you can do is to claim that he claims that he's submitted the masterful diagnosis which overturns all of modern climate science. Forgive me if I don't sit up too straight in my chair. At the same time, he will also need to explain other things, like why CO₂ is not causing any warming (considering that the mechanism is very well understood, and it would be a huge surprise if that mechanism is totally and completely misunderstood by all atmospheric physicists around the globe). Sorry, but your post is only so much "trust me, I know a guy who knows the truth, just wait" hand waving, and as such is a wholly inappropriate claim to make.
82385. Rob Honeycutt at 05:19 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       JMurphy... You're right. They absolutely would have spun the whole thing the way they wanted regardless of what Jones said. But, by opening his answer with the word "yes" he basically loaded their weapons for them.
82386. Dikran Marsupial at 05:08 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Daniel, the question isn't a fallacy, it is actually a perfectly reasonable question, it is the implicit conclusion that global warming is not happening that is a fallacy, but that was unsaid and was made afterwards by the "skeptic" media.
82387. Riccardo at 05:00 AM on 16 June 2011
       It's the sun
       Thanks DB. Actually there's not much there either, only a figure more. Assuming that it can not simply be "solar forcing integration", we need to know more about his model before commenting. And sure I'd not be thrilled by a "mathurbation".
82388. shoyemore at 04:49 AM on 16 June 2011
       The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
       This is good. Best explanation I have seen of pressure broadening, whic is important to explain why band saturation is not occurring for CO2 absorption wavelengths.
82389. Utahn at 04:48 AM on 16 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Probably too late for this thread but thought I'd post anyways: Norman: "How many consensus views in the Medical field have been overturned? Consensus views of 'experts' in their field have been overturned and wrong." I'm in that field, and I think it's actually not that often that true consensus views get overturned. A bigger problem is that a few hypothesis-generating retrospective papers come out suggesting some effect of a medication or intervention and the media overhype the results. Then later more scientifically valid prospective papers overturn what was never really a "scientific" consensus (estrogen for heart attack prevention is an example that comes to mind). Anyways, back on topic, I think we don't often discuss in the context of the psychology of denial, the prerequisite that that which is being denied must be so disturbing as to threaten a core belief or understanding. In the medical field you may often come across a patient who denies that they have hypertension because it is a threat to their core perception that they are "healthy" or "not the kind of person who needs medication". In cancer patients, denial of a potentially fatal cancer may occur due to the threat to our belief we are "healthy", but also because of the threat to our belief that we will not die. Often these forms of denial come in the form of minimizing the threat, as the evidence of a problem may be too obvious to deny. I think because we don't like to talk about politics, we often don't discuss the core beliefs threatened by climate change. In my opinion and in that of many others, this threatened core belief usually centers around a strong faith in the free market. But other threatened beliefs I think can also be involved "I'm not a polluter" being one. I hope these underlying threatened core beliefs that lead to denial are addressed in John's book that I plan to read, because I know that without addressing these in the medical field, denial is pretty hard to beat...
82390. dmccubbi at 04:46 AM on 16 June 2011
       Speaking science to climate policy
       The residence time for aerosols depends, I think, on where the aerosols are located. Sulfates from volcanic eruptions can end up in the stratosphere, and stay there for a few months or years. Aersols from non-volcanic sources (dust, sulfates, nitrates, organic aerosols, black carbon, etc) stay in the lower atmosphere on the order of days.
82391. JMurphy at 04:26 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       I think Phil Jones gave an answer which was correct, easily understandable and honest. The fact that those in denial used a version of his answer to try to claim things that Phil Jones did not mean or say ("Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate Scientist Admits" from FOX NEWS, and "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995" from the DAILY MAIL - both headlines are demonstrably false), simply shows how despicable and dishonest they are. No matter how Jones had answered, his words would still have been twisted and abused. Don't have a go at Jones for being naive, credulous or whatever - his answer would never have been perfect enough to have disallowed its use as propaganda by those who thrive on disinformation. Have a go at those who misuse and misinform.
82392. Riccardo at 04:11 AM on 16 June 2011
       It's the sun
       I don't know what's going around the intertubes, I couldn't find the paper. Maybe people is talking about nothing. We'll see.
       Response:

       [DB] Try Stockwell's blog here.

82393. Rob Honeycutt at 04:05 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       To back up Daniel here... This is all just the nature of language and communication. How we structure our language is part of everyday life for all of us. Politicians use techniques to dodge questions in order to not answer them. I think what Daniel, Dana and I are suggesting is it's important to dodge the "trap" when a question is structured in a way that's intended for such a purpose. But also, follow that with a full and complete answer to the question. Phil Jones could clearly have answered the question in full without falling for the trap. I think Dr. Jones' Achilles heel is that he so much of a scientist that he answered the question in a manner, as Dana suggested, that addressed a scientific audience. Any scientist listening to his words knew exactly what he meant. The general public did not. And that was the trap.
82394. KR at 03:54 AM on 16 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       Karamanski - Lower temperature ranges in the tropics (warm all year around) mean that any increase in average temperature will exceed the ranges faster than will happen at the poles. Arctic summer temperatures are somewhere around −10 to +10°C (20°C range). Fiji, on the other hand, has a temperature range of about 27 to 31°C (4°C range). So a 2°C rise in temperature in Fiji will make averages exceed current maxes, while it would take at least ~5°C for that to happen in the Arctic. The tropics don't heat as fast as the poles, but they don't have to for average temperatures to exceed all extremes. And tropical biota are much less adapted to temperature changes - this is going to be a serious stress on the tropical biosphere.
82395. Tor B at 03:50 AM on 16 June 2011
       It's the sun
       I read the following from comment #997 in Jeff Master’s blog today. I expect that someone with knowledge will have to pick his writing apart, as an article is making the rounds on the intertubes, apparantly based on Stockwell's writing. What follows is comment #997: Another blow to the AGW theory... Dr. David Stockwell who has a PhD in Environmental Sciences submitted a recent paper, that shows that solar activity alone, could explain Global Warming. I believe that GCC has more of an impact than the sun, but it's interesting nonetheless. Quote: Finally, my hibernation of the last 6 months is coming to an end, with the formal submission to a journal yesterday of the fruits of my labor. The main points: 1. solar forcing is time-integrated and not direct, 2. accumulation of the 0.1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance in the 20th century explains global warming, 3. there is a credible explanation for global warming that does not involve increases in human emissions of greenhouse gasses. Figure: Cumulative solar irradiance (blue) and volcanic forcing (red) is highly correlated with HadCRU global temperature and explains the trend in temperature since 1950. The direct solar irradiance (orange) is uncorrelated with temperature. There are a lot of other points about the model that no doubt I will get into in time. For the moment, here is the Conclusion. Contrary to the consensus view, the historic temperature record displays high sensitivity to solar variations when related by slow equilibration dynamics. A range of results suggest that incorrect specification of the relationship between forcings and temperature may be at the heart of previous studies finding low correlations of solar variation to temperature. The accumulation model is a credible alternative mechanism for explaining both paleoclimatic temperature variability and present-day warming without recourse to increases in heat-trapping gases produced by human activities. The grounds on which a solar explanation for late 20th century warming is dismissed should be reconsidered.
82396. Daniel Bailey at 03:50 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       @ Dikran: I'm not advocating to speak as a politician, but to first establish control of the narrative, then expose the question for the fallacy it is and to then give the actual answer with appropriate context to make it a teaching moment. But the initial sentence used is key, as it sets the stage for establishing control of the narrative to be played out. That initial response by Jones is the area of opportunity to seize control of a bad situation and to establish a more appropriate response. A good defense is to establish a counteroffensive which also dictates the terms of the engagement. Answering the question without reframing it is to engage at a disadvantage: the battle may ultimately be won but the campaign itself is lost.
82397. Dikran Marsupial at 03:30 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Philippe Chantreau IMHO that is exactly why few people would trust a politician further than they could throw them, the last thing scientists should do is follow in their footsteps!
82398. Philippe Chantreau at 03:27 AM on 16 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Right Daniel, that's exactly what politicians do. Politicians have been exposed over the years to lots of actually good journalism, faced with questions to which they did not have a good answer, or no answer at all. They learned these methods to cope with it and come out at the end saying many words that add up to no meaning. It is rather ironic that now these methods should be used by honest people having to answer dishonest questions, but perhaps scientists should start familiarizing themselves with it, less their words be bent in endless twists of deception.
82399. Tom Curtis at 03:22 AM on 16 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       Karaminski @43, see my final paragraph in 6 above.
82400. Albatross at 03:05 AM on 16 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       For those discussing the expected impact of a solar min on global temperature, please continue the discussion here ("What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?").

Prev  1640  1641  1642  1643  1644  1645  1646  1647  1648  1649  1650  1651  1652  1653  1654  1655  Next