Recent Comments

Prev  1644  1645  1646  1647  1648  1649  1650  1651  1652  1653  1654  1655  1656  1657  1658  1659  Next

Comments 82551 to 82600:

82551. Tom Curtis at 01:33 AM on 15 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       jonnicol @66, I have commented about the tropospheric hotspot here.
82552. Tom Curtis at 01:32 AM on 15 June 2011
       Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
       jonicol from here, you question the relevance of the 2007 IPCC AR4 because it, apparently post dated the controversy. Will you also question Santer et al, 1996. Santer et al identify the tropospheric hotspot along with the cooling stratosphere as a signature of enhanced warming found in the models. However, Santer et al conclude by saying:

       "Although we have identified a component of the observational record that shows a statistically significant similarity with model predictions, we have not quantified the relative magnitude of natural and human-induced climate effects. This will require improved histories of radiative forcing due to natural and anthropogenic factors, and numerical experiments that better define an anthropogenic climate-change signal and the variability due to purely natural causes."

       So, although Santer et al identify the hotspot as a feature of the model, they explicitly refuse to identify it as a unique feature of greenhouse warming. Indeed, the IPCC AR4. As near as I can identify, then, the difference between Santer et al 1996 and the IPCC AR4 (2007) is not that the IPCC conceals mention of the hotspot because of empirical failure. On the contrary they give it due prominence. Rather, the difference is that in 1996 (and in the 2001 TAR) it was not known whether the hotspot would be an effect of solar warming; whereas in 2007 it was known that it would be - at least according to the models. But neither in 1996 nor in 2007 was the hotspot claimed as a unique feature of greenhouse warming. You claim in Quadrant that:

       "The one modern, definitive experiment, the search for the signature of the green house effect has failed totally. Projected confidently by the models, this “signature” was expected to be represented by an exceptional warming in the upper troposphere above the tropics. The experiments, carried out during twenty years of research supported by The Australian Green House Office as well as by many other well funded Atmospheric Science groups around the world, show that this signature does not exist. Where is the Enhanced Green House Effect? No one knows."

       That claim is now seen to be wrong on several counts. First and most importantly, the hot spot was never the "one modern definitive experiment" to establish that the greenhouse effect was responsible for most of the enhanced warming of the twentieth century. There were a variety of such "experiments". If you where ignorant of these "fingerprints", you had no basis to pretend to expertise by publishing the article, and if you where not ignorant of them, ... well, moderation policy forbids. But not only was the hotspot not just the one signature, it was not even a signature of greenhouse warming. On the contrary, it is a signature of the lapse rate feedback, and expected negative feedback on warming. Modifying the models so that they no longer predict the hotspot would have little consequence on their predictions of greenhouse warming, but it would certainly reduce their prediction of one of the ameliorating factors. Now, you may be able to find a scientific paper in which the hotspot is claimed to be a unique feature of a greenhouse warming - but I do not know of it. Nor has that been at any time the general view of the climate science community. Therefore, if you where an honourable man you would withdraw your Quadrant article because of a substantial, and fundamental factual error; and would post a retraction specifying that you has made an error and the nature of that error. I would certainly like to believe of you that you where honourable in that old fashioned way that thought truth was more important than reputation. We shall see. Finally, I draw your attention to Part 2 of the article above. As you can see, the existence of the tropospheric hotspot remains an open question, and has certainly not been decided one way or the other.
82553. Paul D at 01:31 AM on 15 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       I agree with Tom Curtis, in order to be credible CBDunkerson would need to account for all fingerprints, cherry picking a few to discredit something does not increase any ones knowledge. As it stands the enhanced green house effect is robust, to dislodge it you need something that could account for existing need fingerprints and more.
82554. DSL at 01:28 AM on 15 June 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       batvette, what Tom said. Further, just as there are different modes of production, there are different modes of consumption. The current mode in the US and other "developed" nations is consumption-as-an-economic-driver. In other words, increasing consumption is understood by economic managers (under the current mode) to be vital to the mode: consumption drives production, and production drives the generation of capital, and the generation of capital is, in this mode, synonymous with required "economic growth." Products need to be consumed or destroyed at an increasing rate, and so consumption and destruction are encouraged . . . strongly. The economy is no longer based on organic, unmanaged demand. Demand is now managed through a culture of consumption. Waste has not been a factor in the management of demand until recently. For 150 years, consumption-without-consequence has been central to the culture. Your response, "However this economy is highly dependent on consumption and the mantra of climate change is that we've got to stop consuming or we're committing a horrible sin," is an understandable expression of that culture. Has this economic mode and its culture been beneficial? Absolutely. Has it also been destructive? Absolutely. Is it in the immediate interests of those who are privileged by the mode to downplay the destruction and hype the benefit? Absolutely. I argue that smart people, even if they are privileged by the current mode, are able to shrug off the influence of the current mode and understand that other modes may be more personally and socially responsible in the long run and within the context of history. Someone once said that the current mode will allow us to fully develop the means of production, but the next mode will allow us to use those means responsibly. It's not that consumption needs to end. It's that the current mode of consumption that needs to end. It's happened before--just 300 years ago, roughly. I also find it interesting that you say "Most humans make their livelyhood engaged in one form of human industrial activity or another. Telling people they have to stop living, and it really is that brutally simple, to save the earth... how do you think they'll take that." Capitalists have been replacing people with machines for two hundred years--a kind of externalization (humanity as pollution). This replacement is a consequence of the same economic mode you seem to defend, done for the sake of more efficient production of capital. If people lose their livelihoods because we are transitioning to a more sustainable mode, should we not blame ourselves for allowing the unsustainable mode to support the growth of a long-term unsupportable population?
82555. Chris Colose at 01:21 AM on 15 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       CBDunckerson You're right that those two examples are not "greenhouse only" occurrences, and in fact polar amplification appears to be robust to not only a wide variety of forcings but a wide variety of toy modeling experiments (e.g. no high latitude ice cover, turning off evaporation feedbacks in the tropics, etc). I don't agree with Tom Curtis (#7) on this one, but I don't think amplification in the Arctic is as well understood as many people think.
82556. caerbannog at 01:17 AM on 15 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Just a rhetorical question here: Why do "skeptics" always choose the temperature data most compromised by "climategate" over the NOAA/NASA/RSS/UAH data to support their claim that the Earth has been cooling over the past decade? Like I said, a rhetorical question.
82557. Eric the Red at 01:17 AM on 15 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Sphaerica, Not sure what you mean. When have I ever said that temperatures were not rising? If you restrict your observations to record lows and highs, you may be missing the bigger picture. Are you implying that the influx of warm Atlantic waters does not impact Arctic sea ice? It sure sounds like it from your previous posts. I stand by my prediction that 2011 will not surpass the 2007 low. In fact, since sea ice is falling at a lower pace than last year, I suspect 2011 will not surpass 2010. If you believe that it will, please explain why.
82558. Bob Lacatena at 00:59 AM on 15 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       61, jnicol,

       As an aside, in my 35 years as a physicist...

       This statement is unsupported by your ignorance of the most rudimentary aspects of the science, as well as your seeming inability to research the obvious for yourself (which would save everyone a lot of trouble, since the answers that you need are very, very easily available to anyone with the background to which you lay claim). This could be a simple, emotional appeal to authority on your part. It's unclear from the context. In any event, this statement is evidence that you should have the tools to do a much, much, much better job of learning and understanding the material before speaking on it. This site, as well as others previously supplied to you, contain a wealth of information that would be of great benefit to you in your desire to actually understand the real science, rather then the dismally inadequate falsehoods upon which your current understanding is based. Please, make use of your 35 years of physics to actually learn the details and truth behind the science, and post questions rather than innuendo or repetition of ancient, thoroughly-debunked, false arguments. Please recognize that authoritatively repeating such falsehoods, even under the guise of asking for qualification and understanding, serves only to confuse and mislead more people. It's a useful thing for Exxon to do... for normal, everyday people, not so much. For them, it is directly contrary to their own self-interest. [If you had an actual, viable argument against the science that would be one thing, but repetition of the "hot spot" nonsense and other non-issues does not constitute fair and reasonable debate, it is instead just an act of terrorism, by wandering in and tossing doubt-grenades.]
82559. Tom Curtis at 00:40 AM on 15 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       CBDunkerson @4, non of the "fingerprints" are uniquely associated with a green house warming. What is uniquely associated with the greenhouse warming is the pattern of all the "fingerprints". Thus greater warming over land is a feature of any warming sourced through the atmosphere, whether greenhouse, solar, change in aerosol load or change in cloud cover, but it does rule out the surface warming as being a product of release of heat from the ocean. Greater warming at the poles is trickier. There is a subtle direct effect from greenhouse warming that warms the poles faster than the tropics. This is a consequence of the different balance between insolation and surface radiation at different latitudes: Clearly in increase in insolation will result in a greater increase in net radiation in the tropics than at the poles, because it increases the larger component of the energy budget. But likewise, a decrease in the rate at which surface radiation escapes to space will warm the poles more because that also increases the larger component of the energy budget at the poles (and the smaller at the tropics). This effect is not as strong as the different rate of warming for land and sea. Consequently, in the Northern Hemisphere, which gets progressively more land at higher latitudes until the Arctic circle is reached, this effect is reinforced. In the Southern Hemisphere, in contrast, there is progressively less land at higher latitudes until the Antarctic circle is reached, which counteracts this effect. If we reach an equilibrium temperature, temperature increases over land and sea will equalize, resulting in a stronger warming gradient in the Southern Hemisphere and a weaker gradient in the Northern Hemisphere. Finally, in the Northern Hemisphere the effect is significantly reinforced by Polar Amplification, ie, the increased summer melt of sea ice. This is a consequence of any warming, but will be slightly stronger for greenhouse warming because of the initially greater relative warming at the poles. Note that in Antarctica, the existence of a large ice covered continent surrounded by ocean prevents polar amplification, one of three features of Antarctica which make it highly unusual in terms of response to warming.
82560. Eric the Red at 00:37 AM on 15 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       adelady, CO2 concentrations do not fall before 200 ppm until the height of the ice age, when temperatures are lowest. According to the ice core data, the temperature (and CO2 concentrations) fall slowly until reaching their minimum, then rise rapidly into the interglacial. It is entirely possible that increasing CO2 levels will prevent the Milankovitch cycle from kicking in a new ice age. That would depend upon which is the greater forcing.
82561. Bob Lacatena at 00:22 AM on 15 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Jon Nicol, Thanks for posting on SkS. There are a few points I'd like to make concerning your comments.

       What I am looking for is something which spells out the physics of the atmosphere, the interactions between carbon dioxide, radiation and other molecules and how these cause the earth to become warmer as CO2 increases

       This is complex, and requires a serious investment of time, as well as multiple sources and avenues of education.

       Professor David Karoly recently gave a very good summary of the case made for...

       You can accept authority, or learn to understand it yourself. If you can't do the former, and commit to the latter, there's not reason to look at anything at all that is a "summary," no matter how good the presentation, or what point it is trying to make.

       ...the injection of an increased or new "forcing" into the models...

       Please avoid the use of quotes around particular words. It is frequently done by deniers, as a debate tactic, to imply disingenuous terms. I don't think that was your intent here, but forcing is a well defined and commonly used term in climate science, and as such does not need to be and should not be placed in quotations.

       ...assumed to come from...

       Not assumed. Logic and an understanding of radiative physics predicted the effect, which was then observed. Models added depth and details to the predictions. You do the science a serious disservice by implying that it is founded on whimsical assumptions when the stated ignorance of your own position (you said "What I am looking for is something which spells out the physics of the atmosphere...") does not qualify you to make such an assessment. Basically, it comes across as a cheap shot by someone who wants to deny the science.
       As Andy Pitman says, the assumption is based on the fact that carbon dioxide concentration is the only thing that has changed, so it is natural to point to carbon dioxide.This is about as wrong a statement as you can make about the science.First, as I explained, it is not an assumption. Secondly, it is not based on the premise that CO₂ concentration is the only thing that's changed. That statement is obviously false (lots of things are changing, and being measured and considered). The scientists are also not that trivially, childishly stupid. The understanding of the influence of CO₂ comes from a detailed study of molecular physics, logic, mathematical models, study of paleoclimate, laboratory experiments, real world observations, and complex computer models. To water this down to the idea that it's a trivial assumption, made merely because no one bothered to think of anything else, is patently absurd.

       ...it would only take one paper to prove that I was wrong...

       Yes. On one thing. Climate science today is a complex tapestry of thousands of ideas, observations, inferences and theories. To disprove climate science and current theory, one cannot simply grab one thread and expect the entire tapestry to unravel. A single paper may disprove a single aspect of the science, and in fact that happens frequently. That's how science advances. But the implication that someone is going to find a magic bullet that in one sweeping motion dissolves that tapestry into nothing is rather simplistically foolish. Deniers like Lindzen and others attempt to do so frequently, and always utterly fail, because climate science is not one, simple, single thread.

       ...the absence, after 25 years of dedicated searching by a large number of internationally distributed groups including in Australia, of any evidence of the "Green House Signature"...

       This is patently false. Look at the cooling stratosphere, as well as the change in winter and evening temperatures, both indicators of warming from GHG forcing. There are other clues, but you have to take the time to learn the science, instead of listening to what really is complete and utter denial trash (like the "hotspot" argument, which is such a joke that it's laughable).

       ...such was their confidence in its existence...

       This sounds like a pitiful debate tactic. Were you there? Is this how they reacted? Have you read the papers themselves? Do you have any idea what you're talking about, or are you just throwing fun phrases around? Is the idea to learn science, or to take potshots in an effort to trivialize and diminish the science, without really saying anything of substance?

       Statements... do nothing to clarify the science

       Yes, they do, because they help to dispel ridiculous myths that, as you can see from your own repeated misconceptions, the unwary can easily fall for. At the same time, your repetition of many long debunked arguments, ones that you could easily have found the answers to on this site, before you posted, further highlights the need to repeatedly attack those falsehoods, because for everyone who understands the truth, there are dozens like you, who don't understand, heard it once, believe it without thinking, and then spread it around as if it were true.
82562. adelady at 00:20 AM on 15 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       Eric the Red "We have a million years of data showing that we will eventually enter another ice age. Unless something drastic occurs that alters that cycle. If we look at everybody's favourite animation, the Time History of CO2, we notice something. The only time ice ages have done their thing effectively is when CO2 concentrations have been below 200ppm. Unless we do some compensatory drastic thing, CO2 concentration won't be anywhere nearly low enough by the time the Milankovitch cycle should be kicking in for an ice age. And have a look at this item. http://www.skepticalscience.com/upcoming-ice-age-postponed-indefinitely.html
82563. KR at 00:13 AM on 15 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Re my previous post - My apologies, jonicol, the multiple contradictions in a single article were from Carter's Quandrant article, not yours. My mistake. My statements about the inherent biases in data and articles from advocacy groups, however, stand. And those have to be taken into account when evaluating what's presented.
82564. Tor B at 00:10 AM on 15 June 2011
       It's cooling
       A casual review of daily averages of high-arctic (80-90 N) air temperatures over the 50-year record suggests that summer temperatures in this particular region of the Earth have decreased a smidgen over time, according to archived data at DMI’s Centre for Ocean and Ice . A discussion on Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice Blog has brought forward a couple of possible explanations for this which sound quite plausible to me, but I have no expertise in this area. Do you know of any published discernment on this?
82565. Kevin C at 00:06 AM on 15 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Albatross @61: Thanks, and also for answering my unasked question 'was Phil Jones using OLS or GLS?'! I need to learn R, and I guess answering the question 'does it make much difference' will be one of my early projects.
82566. KR at 00:03 AM on 15 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       jonicol - "With regard to my being chairman of the scientific advisory group for the Australian Climate Science Coalition, I have difficulty in understnading the relevance of this in a scientific discussion." Well, Jon, the Australian Climate Science Coalition, which shares a postal address and some staff with the Australian Environment Foundation, is an advocacy group funded by the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing Melbourne think tank. References and links here. Your articles repeat numerous 'skeptic' memes and incorrect statements, and you have managed (as pointed out) to contradict yourself multiple times within a single document. This is not surprising coming from an advocacy group, as it is the purpose of such groups to selectively push for their political or economic position. But that very nature makes the 'science' coming from an advocacy position more than a bit fishy. Note that I am not making any accusations of deception - it's just that advocacy groups such as yours have a tendency towards confirmation bias and one-sided presentations due to the orientations of the individuals and organizations. I find that important when evaluating the data presented - it's the elephant in the room.
82567. snapple at 23:54 PM on 14 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Until the "Climategate" scandal, I chuckled like a middle-schooler when witty, sarcastic global warming denialists on the blogs mocked "Al Bore" for being a fat, hypocritical moneybags. I didn't want to believe in the "inconvenient truth" of global warming. I was in denial. Still, I was kind of worried in the back of my mind that global warming might be true. "Climategate" forced me to face my denialism. I read those e-mails and the nasty and mocking commentary about them, and then I read what the scientists actually were saying in their own words. I think Phil Jones's infamous BBC interview shows how consciously dishonest these few denialist scientists and loud-mouthed journalists are. They knew that ordinary people wouldn't understand what statistical significance means. The denialists are the cherry-pickers. Once I saw that the Republican Party was spreading these (-Snip-), I became a Democrat. When the Republican politicians come to my door or call on the phone for my vote, I tell them that the Republicans deny climate change so I won't be voting for them any more. I tell them that I believe the National Academy, the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the CIA, the EPA, NASA, NOAA, OSHA, the Pentagon, and Al Gore. If I can read both sides and figure it out, the Republican politicians can too. They are just paid (-Snip-) who don't care about the truth at all. Climategate made me pay attention to climate change, and I learned that it's not the climate scientists who are trying to trick us. Al Gore is probably not a bore. He can't possibly be as boring as some of those conspiracists on Faux News like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. I don't believe them at all any more. Every day they repeat the same conspiracy theories over and over and over and over! It is so boring! They are so self-righteous! And there is never any news! Al Gore is trying to learn about climate change and share what he is learning with the rest of us. That's what leaders do. I'm sure he makes some mistakes when he tries to translate what the scientists say into layman's terms; but I don't think he is lying to me like Senator Inhofe, Joe Barton, Attorney General Cuccinelli, James Delingpole, Anthony Watts, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck.
       Response:

       [DB] Thank you for taking the time to share with us.  Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself.  Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.

       Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

82568. Eric the Red at 23:50 PM on 14 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       I will help out here. Much of the focus related to "cooling" in the next 20 years comes from presentations like Latif and Easterbrook with regards to the multidecadal oscillation. http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/ps3_latif_slide10.jpg While the long term trend will remain positive, the oscillation (as some claim) has resulted in two periods of overshooting the trend (1930s and 1990s). The "cooling" or "lack of warming," as other have referred to it, would bring us back down to the long term trend (probably undershoot like 40 years ago). Anothers similar forecast: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/globalcool7.gif A comparison between decadal oscillation (Orssengo) and exponential rise (Broberg) shows that either model has a correlation of 0.89 depending on the coefficients: http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/lines-sines-and-curve-fitting-9-girma/ We have a million years of data showing that we will eventually enter another ice age. Unless something drastic occurs that alters that cycle.
       Response:

       [DB] We can also choose to believe the physics of greenhouse gases, which tell us (all other forcings remaining unchanged) that if we keep CO2 concentrations above 350 PPM we will never have another ice age again.

       "At the end of the last snowball Earth, the sun's brightness was within 6% of its present value.  There will never be another snowball Earth, because the sun continues to get hotter.  In fact, with humans on the planet, there will never be another ice age."

       ~James Hansen, Storms Of My Grandchildren, p. 229.

82569. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 23:41 PM on 14 June 2011
       Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
       Carter et al has had a number of articles in Quadrant lately. They are all full of nonsense - even to anyone who knows nothing about climate, provided they read critically. He even postulates in the same article that a) it's warming; b) it's not warming; c:) it's cooling; d) we don't know if it's warming or cooling. I think he's completely lost his marbles. (Does anyone still read Quadrant?)
82570. les at 23:41 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       69 Ken... "I do not profess enough knowledge of that particular thermodynamnic topic to offer an opinion." fair enough, I do, so let me help you out: a/ Gilbert posted only one response which only highlighted his errors - hardly "entered the discussion". b/ one of his errors was textbook differential calculus, nothing to do with thermodynamics. c/ Only Bryan is pretending the issue is basic textbook thermodynamics (an opinion you have offered!) - which only tries to distract from the core errors in the Gilbert paper; but no substantial error is found with the SoD analysis. So, the SoD 'robust discussion' substantiates KLs view. HTH
82571. Albatross at 23:39 PM on 14 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Kevin C @57, A valid point, I think, but when one is deliberately cherry picking.....I think that is really the crux of this matter and the role in this fiasco of Lindzen in knowingly acting to deceive and/or confuse. To answer your question I used exactly the same data and technique (OLS) that Jones did to be faithful to his statements and analysis.
82572. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:36 PM on 14 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       All at once - not as a comment. In addition, many "simplifications" in one place, as many do not want to comment ... Two examples: For increases in solar radiation, we would expect to see warming of the stratosphere rather than the observed cooling trend. Significant warming - at least quaternary - have never been caused by changes in the TSI. For example, Milankovic cycles is a change of place and time to provide solar radiation energy. Natural warming is always an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been identified through its isotopic signature as being fossil fuel in origin. Former natural warming have the same "isotopic signature" as the present - see here.
82573. Tor B at 23:34 PM on 14 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       "Case closed" (which I've come to understand is true) and "practically certain" (from the final section above) sound like contradictory statements to a denier. (I work with deniers; hear their easy dismissal of the scientific evidence, and anger when supporting evidence is offered.) I read the concluding section to mean: using numerous practical objective measures, the case for AGW is closed. Deniers I know would read into these final words: scientists are not yet certain (case closed: AGW isn’t real!). As I’ve read in comments on various AGW-accepting blogs (and observed in a few AGW-denying blogs), deniers will do everything they can to twist the language we use to psychological maintain their 'moral' and 'virtuous' position.
82574. Ken Lambert at 23:30 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       scaddenp #48 "KL - read the Gilbert paper and tell me E&E is not a joke. Anything published there will make no contribution to science so the purpose of anyone publishing there is political." scaddenup - I went to the SOD site and there is a robust discussion going on. Gilbert himself has entered the discussion and defended his paper and so have others. It appears that they are arguing basic textbook stuff extrapolated to the climate science area. I do not profess enough knowledge of that particular thermodynamnic topic to offer an opinion.
82575. CBDunkerson at 23:29 PM on 14 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       Two of the 'fingerprints' listed as "uniquely associated" with greenhouse warming are things this site hasn't identified as such previously; * greater warming in polar regions than tropical regions * greater warming over the continents than the oceans Do we know the scientific basis for these? Arctic amplification would obviously take place with any sort of global warming. Thus, I'd expect to see greater warming at the poles UNLESS the particular cause of warming was itself concentrated in the tropics... perhaps an orbital shift where more sunlight was hitting the mid-latitudes at the same time that total irradiance was increasing? Or is this really "uniquely" tied to enhanced greenhouse warming in some way? The greater warming over land bit seems intended to counter a suggestion that warming is being caused by heat escaping the oceans (as explained in subsequent paragraphs). It certainly disproves that assertion (as does the simple fact that the oceans are ALSO warming), but are there no other factors which could warm land faster than ocean? Indeed, what is it about greenhouse warming which causes land to warm faster?
82576. John Russell at 23:24 PM on 14 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Dikran writes: "With the approach Jones took, he made the point to those willing to listen and he stayed clean." Yes, but when it comes to climate change, the rest of us need the experts to make the point in a 'clean way' to those not willing to listen, too. What you say Dikran, is a bit like the chap who steps out onto a pedestrian crossing and then when he's run down says, "but it was my right of way!". No point in being screwed over while being right; better to avoid being screwed over in the first place. The trick is use a bit of pragmatism and use language cleverly while remaining honest. That's something that comes easier to some people than to others -- but with practice most people can get a lot better at it. My point is that it's quite possible to phrase an honest answer in a way that makes it difficult to be twisted. And to Badgersouth, who suggested this critiquing of Jones' interview on a public comment thread to be 'unseemly and unwise'; I think you misunderstand. This is not about blaming Phil Jones -- it's about learning from events and improving the way climate change is explained to the general public in the face of a dishonest opposition. I'm quite confident Phil Jones would agree.
82577. Gwinnevere at 23:01 PM on 14 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       Oh dear, John. (Your website is indeed a WorldCenter — thank you). You just hit the spot of it all (How do we know it’s us?) — but there is still a (much) more simple »summing of the proof» (still me though, with a minimum of ingredients, not nearly as sophisticated as yours, however nevertheless in purpose to kill ALL opposition against AGW so we can start DO the cure) that MAY convince even the most »stoned» of any skeptic or denier, just watch this — especially this one in light from the article’s text ”That continued rapid increases in greenhouse gases will cause rapid future warming is irrefutable”: With EXACTLY the same PREDICTIVE POWER as the (dotted) periods shown as, illustrated by already familiar established sources (compiled here for a collected illustration) in, http://www.universumshistoria.se/AAAPictures/AGW1.htm — the measured NASA temperature curve we refer to as the only prevailing proof of Global Warming (GW): industrial fossil carbon emissions during the 20th century (questioned by skeptics and deniers) + natural sea variations (not exactly known due to great and diverse difficulties on global averages) — the pronounced temperature raising intervals in 1910-1940 and 1972-2005*, the latter named »The Great Pacific Climate Shift», see Page 1 bottom of http://icecap.us/docs/change/OceanMultidecadalCyclesTemps.pdf will be followed by a third steep raise about 2038-2070 — unless some radical change will come (about right NOW), nothing said about additional effects. No theory. Just an equivalent. The measured NASA-temperature global warming curve (the bare proof of GW) may have ANY (at least) two EQUAL components (as in 3 = 2+1, just pick any). But only components corresponding to known phenomena will satisfy an equivalent definition (EQUAL to the measure — no need for a theory any longer). ”Case closed” would just be the term. — The Sun does not cooperate with the Industrial Fossil-Carbon emissivity, at least not as I have experienced, and neither does the Sun drill holes in the ground in general to look for gasoline to fire up on the surface to get the bananas home. The only known fit, hence, IS the 20th century industry + natural sea variations. (Otherwise you have to kill me). — Fossil fuel to feed the human natural evolution of technology (market, world-trade) was a mistake. Yes. But also: We cannot stop human evolution (technology, the energy-curve feeding the hard facts of scientific improvement); — Nature (she made humans though, and must not deceive us now when we need her the most) MIGHT have a solution for us other than gasoline to get it home. Might. That is, obviously, our next problem to solve (and it seems nuclear power is NOT the practical alternative, although it is technically already in action). (I mean, the several spread out fine-detailed already established AGW-proofs in themselves are perfectly OK — but in lack of a collecting general [more simple to the eye] illustration, the details have a tendency of diverging on the blow of argument). wkg/Gwinnevere
82578. jonicol at 23:00 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Tom Curtis, Thank you for taking the time to respond and for the curtesy of reminding me that I had made reference to the "Climate Group". In that remark, I was not meaning that the climatologists have not presented any evidence demonstrating, at least from the perspective of modelling, that carbon dioxide causes global warming. I was referring to others, principally some politicians and journalists, who make claim that the consensus indicates that “the science is settled” and talk about numbers of scientists rather than quality of research. In an earlier comment I made reference to David Karoly's and Andy Pitman's explanations which I accept are valid demonstrations that carbon dioxide could be the cause of the observed global warming. I do not question the measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations nor the measured temperatures of the globe by both ground based thermometric processes, including the adjustments made for the paucity of sites, the absence of sites in mountainous and polar regions. What ever doubts I might have about some of these measurements and adjustments, I am quite happy to accept them at face value exactly as presented. I am happy to accept also that carbon dioxide absorbs the infra red radiation in its main bands at 2.7, 4.3, 10.6 and 14.7 microns. One can easily calculate that figure within the main, most obvious portions of these bands, finding the total radiation is very roughly of the order of 25% (from memory) of the radiation from the earth's surface, which itself accounts for at least 20% of the energy lost to the atmosphere, the remaining 80% being transferred by means of vaporisation at the surface of the oceans (Total about 60%) and from the contact/wind cooling at the air-earth interface. I accept that without question because these are not difficult calculations and simply verify the work of others - meteorologists, IPCC, CSIRO etc. [snipped portion about tropospheric hot spot, which belongs on a different thread to which you have been pointed] With regard to my being chairman of the scientific advisory group for the Australian Climate Science Coalition, I have difficulty in understnading the relevance of this in a scientific discussion. However, I am interested, along with others in that group, in determining the best possible understanding of global warming and in particular, the most accurate analysis of the behaviour of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, by considering among other things, the spectral characteristics of that and other atmospheric gases. Surely the most important aspect of this discussion is to discover the underlying behaviour of a green house gas and the influence of natural climate variation which has to be understood before one can quantify the effect of CO2.
82579. JMurphy at 22:18 PM on 14 June 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       batvette wrote : "I stand by my points, however, which are: Michael Mann's sole review was an internal one by the entity who he is a part of and represents, who have every reason to not allow any possible misconduct taint their reputation, and... If any malfeasance or impropriety has happened and it is systemic and not isolated, this is a serious matter as the livelyhoods of many millions of people are adversely affected by even voluntary conservation of various resources." How can you stand by points which have no validity or basis in fact or reality ? In fact, you should withdraw those accusations or you will show yourself as someone who would rather ignore the evidence (as has already been pointed out to you admirably by many others here), in order to purvey disinformation. Which is it to be ?
82580. Tom Curtis at 22:08 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Eric the Red @64, if that is what jonicol meant, then the claim is still without substance. Of course, I am not certain to whom he refers when he says "climate group", and it may refer to some obscure group of which his claims are true. But then his claims are irrelevant in that some very non-obscure groups have provided or reported on copious evidence both for the existence of AGW, and for the existence of the consensus.
82581. Paul D at 21:30 PM on 14 June 2011
       The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
       The more evidence gathered, the more virulent and vicious the deniers, backed into a corner, fight.
82582. Eric the Red at 21:24 PM on 14 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       Sphaerica, I will agree with you on this one. The changes in the Arctic are both more rapid and greater than changes elseware. This will make for an excellent barometer.
82583. Eric the Red at 21:10 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Tom, I think that jonicol was stating that the "climate group" had not provided any evidence of a "consensus." At least, that is how I interpreting his comment.
82584. les at 21:09 PM on 14 June 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       37 - batvette 1/ No one said you weren't allowed your opinion. In saying that you are playing the Martyr; just as cheap a trick as saying "it's common sense" when it isn't. 2/ I see you have not provided evidence to backed up your assertions that "People aren't going to the movies, they rethink that trip on summer vacation." due to climate change. nor that AGW is "one of if not the primary factors why our economy is in such trouble?" 3/ IMHO (note, it is my opinion, not "common sense") not all environmental management policies require making consumption a "sin" (another cheap trick, using the word "sin"). Smart consumption, low/zero carbon technologies, recycling etc. all provide environments for new industries, innovation, services etc. As such it's completely in scope for AGW amelioration to provide a huge economics boost... indeed this is how many industries are treating it. There are lots of economics and social factors... non of which are "common sense"!
82585. skywatcher at 20:36 PM on 14 June 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       Well said Tom. Batvette, you've managed without evidence to continue unfounded accusations agains Mann and Penn State, and imply some kind of global conspiracy. Apart from the multiple independent inquiries that exonerated the science of all involved, many of which were not internal, nobody has quite explained how the global conspiracy would work, given the tens of thousands of researchers in a multitude of field who have findings perfectly consistent with, and in many cases distinctly driven by, the increase in GHGs. The economic argument is ridiculous though, and I'm sure you know it. When the motor car was invented around the turn of the 20th Century, eventually putting a vast number of horse stables, farriers, saddle manufacturers etc out of business, did the economy go into meltdown? No, it moved onto the new technology with vast numbers of new jobs in car manufacture, maintenance, road building, infrastructure etc. Why do you think that a transition to a low-carbon economy is a bad idea, with a high proportion of renewable energy on the grid, and the development and production of many new technologies and products, and all the supply chain infrastructure that goes with the development? The old industries may die (or at least eventually become greatly reduced in their influence, like horses today), but the new industries will provide just as much opportunity for employment in R&D, manufacturing and maintenance as their predecessors. The only people who would think otherwise might be the employees and acolytes of the old industries that are under threat from the new.
82586. Tom Curtis at 20:17 PM on 14 June 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       batvette @36, 1) I note that you now call your very inflammatory comment that:

       "... people are going bankrupt and putting their babies to sleep at night with empty tummies"

       was simply a "rhetorical claim". As is plain on reading that "rhetorical claim", it is presented in the present tense as something that was actually, currently happening. There where no markers in the comment that it was intended as rhetorical. Your new claim that the comment was "rhetorical" and that therefore it can require no justification completely vindicates my suspicion that "You think the way to debate is to simply make up 'facts' that suite your case." Indeed, it now turns out that your finding that suspicion offensive was itself rhetorical in that you were merely being suspected of doing what you in fact did do. 2) I further note that you have nothing to add in defence of your criticism of the Penn State inquiry into Michael Mann. You now know that Penn State did exactly what their regulations required them to do, and that it is standard practise in Universities, at least in Australia and the United States. You further know that the critical stage of the inquiry was conducted by five senior academics with no faculty ties to Michael Mann, and who therefore would not have has their faculties reputation damaged by an adverse finding against Michael Mann. This knowledge has not changed your position in the slightest. It should also be noted that you have not raised one iota of evidence to suggest Mann should not have been exonerated. So, in the end, your opinion that there is a reasonable perception of a cover-up is based solely on your opinion that there is a reasonable perception of a cover up, an opinion which does not adjust in the light of new evidence. Given points (1) and (2), let me assure you it is not just with me that you have no credibility. However, there is still your little scare campaign against letting people know the truth about global warming. Apparently, according to you, it is unacceptable to tell people about the truth of global warming because "...scaring people and making them feel guilt that every bit of fossil fuel they consume imperils the planet." Well, first let me say, If we do nothing about global warming, they should be scared, and they should be guilty. The risks of inaction regarding global warming run from massive economic losses and the deaths of hundreds of thousands at the low end of the scale to the deaths of billions at the high end. (I do not include the physically possible, but equally and very low probability scenarios of little net harm and the extinction of all life on Earth.) But the proponents of informed debate on global warming do not advocate doing nothing. They advocate taking concrete action on global warming which will reduce the harm to minimal levels. What is more, with few exceptions they advocate doing so in ways that will not wind back consumerism one iota. Green Peace may be running an anti-consumerist scare campaign based on global warming, but nobody on this forum is to my knowledge (although some would see winding back consumerism as beneficial). Personally, I am on record as objecting to methods of combating global warming that do wind back consumerism, because they will not work. Not only will they not work, but they will delay the taking of effective action, and the longer that is delayed, the more costly it will be. So it turns out that all that remains of your position if we remove the rhetorical factoids, and dogmatic opinion is simply a straw man, and an inflammatory straw man at that.
82587. adelady at 19:33 PM on 14 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       DSL 'two boots to the head' - never forget the sacred mantra of property values. When people start realising that the value of their prized McMansion is declining relative to all the others with PV they'll be lining up to get in on the act. It's already happened in my family, with the older generation living in a retirement village. Don't want to leave you with property less valuable than all the others round here - was what my mum said.
82588. adelady at 19:28 PM on 14 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       batvette Because most countries just sat on their hands and waited for someone else to get the ball rolling. Kyoto was, like many international agreements, fine in theory but patchy in practice.
82589. Dikran Marsupial at 19:15 PM on 14 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       CLimateWatcher Your post merely demonstrates that you don't know what a null hypothesis is. Secondly if the observed trends are within the stated uncertainty of the projections, that means that the projections are as accurate as they claimed to be.
82590. Tom Curtis at 19:13 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       jonicol @60 the claim that the "climate group" do not provide any substantial evidence is straight forwardly false. Nor is it a falsehood that could be believed by anyone who has made a serious attempt to understand the evidence for global warming, as for example, by reading the IPCC reports and referenced papers. By publishing an an article in Quadrant, as also by taking a position as Chairman of the Australian Climate Science Coalition you have set yourself up as an expert on climate change. Despite that your writings are littered with errors and you plainly do not understand the underlying physics. You repeat egregious errors with no apparent attempt at fact checking. For example, you could have fact checked your claim that the "tropospheric hotspot" is a "signature" of global warming by reading that part of the IPCC AR4 which deals with spatial variability in forcings, ie, section 9.2.2. There you will find not a single claim of that nature, although the difference between solar and greenhouse warming in their effects on the stratosphere is clearly mentioned. Given that, why, I wonder, have you identified as a "signature" of greenhouse warming something the IPCC does not so identify, but fail to identify as a "signature" something they clearly do mention? Einstein may have boasted that it only takes one paper to show the was wrong. In your case it takes not even that, but only simple editorial fact checking.
82591. Dikran Marsupial at 19:12 PM on 14 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Philippe Chantreau sadly this is nothing new I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.George Bernard Shaw With the approach Jones took, he made the point to those willing to listen and he stayed clean.
82592. JMurphy at 19:07 PM on 14 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       cloa513 wrote : "Its going to get colder for 20 years just like in 1930-70 period (then they thought we heading for an ice age)." Four questions : 1) When do you believe it is going to start getting colder ? Please discuss this further here. 2) What scientific evidence do you base that on ? Please discuss further as above. 3) Which 20 years in the (40 year) 1930-70 period are you referring to ? Please discuss further as above. 4) Who do you think "thought we heading for an ice age" ? Please discuss his point further here.
82593. adelady at 18:58 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       jn "A hundred papers may show that I am right. Only one paper is required to show that I am wrong." This is often cited - and it's right in a limited sense. Someone could conceivably (just barely) come up with a physically coherent scenario where CO2 (and other GHGs) in the upper atmosphere had different radiative properties from CO2 (and other GHGs) at ground level or in lasers or whatever. Fine, one paper. But not nearly enough. Now we need a few extras to back this up. One on how the satellites got the LW absorption observations wrong. One on how everyone across the world has mistakenly recorded LW returning to the surface. A dozen on how the temperature record is wrong in some mysterious way(s). One on how, why, when glaciers and icesheets and Arctic sea ice are melting without heat input. A score on how plants and animals are not changing their breeding seasons. Or..... another landmark paper showing that there is some previously unknown forcing driving temperature changes in the oceans and the atmosphere that, mysteriously, exactly parallels what we would expect from GHG forcing.
82594. batvette at 18:55 PM on 14 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       So I gotta ask, if a carbon tax/cap and trade scheme is supposed to fight global warming... why is it that since Kyoto was introduced in 1998, global GGE have soared in the 13 years since? Can you explain why it doesn't simply cause industry and capital to flock to non-annex 1 nations, and increase industrialization of larger population masses? (preempting the expected, US being non signatory is obviously not a factor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_emissions_China_USA_1990-2006.svg )
82595. cloa513 at 18:48 PM on 14 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       Of course it will be hotter in 20 years- the multidecadal oscillation will kick in. Its going to get colder for 20 years just like in 1930-70 period (then they thought we heading for an ice age).
       Response:

       [DB] Both of these claims have been thoroughly researched and debunked.  Any interested parties should go to:

       It's a natural cycle

       Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

82596. batvette at 18:35 PM on 14 June 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       Les I'm not denying that many factors contribute to our bad economy. However this economy is highly dependent on consumption and the mantra of climate change is that we've got to stop consuming or we're committing a horrible sin. If anyone wishes to argue this doesn't affect the economy they can go right ahead, in my opinion this is highly disingenuous. I would assume I am allowed an opinion.
82597. jonicol at 18:04 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Adelady, I would agree with you totally in your remarks on Gerlich and Tscheuschner. I do not know how such a simplistic paper got into the "peer eviewed" literature which everyone clamours for these days. As an aside, in my 35 years as a physicist, most of my colleagues in any field and scientists generally were happy to read unpublished internal research group reports,and would often challenge much more harshly peer reviewed articles even in what were considered top journals. Everyone had a sufficient grip of the science to make their own judgments. I believe that still persists in most other sciences except climate science, for some unknown reason, where anything which is written and not "peer reviewed" is criticised for that alone, without any scientifically based criticism seen as being necessary to refute what has been presented.
82598. jonicol at 17:49 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       KR I would have to say that the ultimate in "Argument from Authority" is the claim by the climate group who keep reminding us of the "consensis" on climate change without providing any substantial evidence beyond that claim. Not everyone is so confident, but one is mindful of Einstin's oft quoted comment. A hundred papers may show that I am right. Only one paper is required to show that I am wrong.
82599. Kevin C at 16:52 PM on 14 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Albatross: Is that an ordinary least squares calculation? If so, caution is required. OLS isn't generally applicable to time-series data because of the correlations. IIUC the slope should be OK but the uncertainty will be underestimated. You need general least squares, and feed it some estimate of the covariance matrix (banded diagonal based on autocorrelation will probably do - or maybe detrend first - I'm out of my depth). If this is a GLS calculation, then you're way ahead of me, but hopefully this warning will be useful to others!
82600. Bern at 16:37 PM on 14 June 2011
       Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
       I'd guess the Akerman article is this one. It contains a reference to the Carter article in Quadrant. I saw this article cross-posted on ClimateSpectator earlier today. As of now, the comments include the myths "97% of CO2 is natural emissions", "only a tiny % of the atmosphere", "it's natural", and "it's just a theory". I did my best to rebut them, and so did several other posters (which was good to see - many early postings on that site had a barrage of denier comments)

Prev  1644  1645  1646  1647  1648  1649  1650  1651  1652  1653  1654  1655  1656  1657  1658  1659  Next