Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 Next
Comments 82601 to 82650:
-
Albatross at 14:37 PM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Sphaerica @86, No worries. Thanks for the clarification, the apology was big of you. I do not know what the best way is to deal with these seemingly deliberate attempts to misinform, confuse and incite, the efforts to do so seem to be ramping up of late as SkS starts to become more widely recognized; SkS is also clearly perceived as a threat by people loyal to Christy and Lindzen and Spencer. They obviously do not like the harsh light of day being shone on their antics. Removing the "rot" (i.e., posts fitting your description) quickly would help, but I understand that doing so is not easy. So instead we have to rebut the falsehoods, and that is tedious, not to mention much more time consuming to set the record straight than it is for the aggressor to spread disinformation, and they know that. Oh well...we do our best. All the best mate. -
actually thoughtful at 14:34 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Going back to the original post - which includes a graph from CRU data and shows warming rate in degrees C/year - given that that number is always positive (I see the error bars drop negative, but the claimed number is positive), how can there have been a cooling trend? Wouldn't at least one year have to be below zero. I went and got myself confused. Clarification appreciated. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:35 PM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
80, Albatross, You may be right, in that my choice of analogy probably evoked the wrong image. I'll need to look for other, better words, though, because I've noticed a certain behavior of late. New visitors pop in, drop a rapid fire series of little comments containing known falsehoods (my "grenades"), and either quickly leave, or make no effort to defend them but simply repeat them, or move on to a new not-barrage of [substitute-other-word-for-grenades-here]. The way it is happening is bothersome, and the only thing that I can see that can be done is to quickly "defuse" these not-grenades by as quickly as possible by picking them out one by one and rebutting them. The thing is, so many of them aren't even remotely valid points (and are often so non-specific) that rebuttal is more tedious than anything else. Still, a random visitor that picks up on such a comment may walk away with the wrong impression (especially if they are the sort of person to read such a comment, and then uncritically stop there and decide that the entire post has been effectively rebuked). So, yes... apologies for the wrong choice of words and imagery. No apologies for identifying the behavior and calling it something... I just have to find something better to call it the next time that it happens. -
KR at 13:11 PM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jonicol - Given your knowledge of the connections, common PO box, phone number, and shared staff (Executive Director <> secretary, incidentally) with the AEF, your statement "The Australian Climate Science Coalition, though, is not in any way connected to the AEF or to the IPA." is, in fact, wholly untrue. Your denial of this connection is, quite frankly, a falsehood. The AEF is a lobbying front group for the IPA, and the Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC) appears to be a website and science group created for the purpose of presenting the views of the IPA/AEF to the world in a less visibly connected fashion - the purpose being to raise doubt about climate change and slow government actions thereof. The inclusion of Plimer, Carter, Evans, Archibald, and Kininmonth in the Scientific Advisory Panel only reinforce this - they are all well noted for promoting skeptical fallacies such as discussed on this website. The ACSC is an advocacy group, as I stated before - while I will not outright dismiss the data and opinions presented by such advocacy groups, I will take them with the appropriate grain of salt, much as I took anything presented by the "Tobacco Institute" or take those representing "Clean Coal". In regards to the science of CO2 physics, IR interactions, etc., I am (and I believe others are) more than willing to discuss those with you on a material and factual basis. At the very least such a discussion will be educational for all readers. To remain topical, I might suggest the CO2 effect is weak, CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration, CO2 only causes 35% of global warming threads, or others as appropriate (see the Search link at the top of the page). -
scaddenp at 13:02 PM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Both websites list Max Rheese as Executive director rather than secretary. Strange. However, I am happy to discuss science. -
jonicol at 12:22 PM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
KR Yes, we do indeed share secretarial services in Max Rheese with the AEF, and he is a very good secretary. He continues to refer all correspondence to me which I deal with, without any reference to Max unless it involves material for posting on our website which is maintanined by a paid, totally independent, as far as I am aware, web master. I am sorry if you feel I had deceived you and yes I should have mentioned that connection but believed it to be of no consequence. I am not asking for any of your affiliations as it is of no concern to me. I accept that you have a very different approach to the science of global warming, your being dependent on broad spectrum of evidence and models, whereas I am trying to focus my attention on only one, I guess very narrow, aspect , that of the characterisitics and behaviour of carbon dioxide in the air. I don't mind if you say I am wrong, I expect that. What I would also like to know is why I am wrong. I had come here comparatively recently to try to make some contact with people whose views would be different from mine and to discuss the science of global warming in an atmosphere of recognition of each others case. An old fashioned way I admit. I had also seen at the top of this box a reference to "Political, off-topic or ad...." which I hadn't before interpreted as meaning one could not present scientific ideas which differed from the mainstream. For that I am sorry, particularly to Sphaerica who seems to be very upset by my careless comments, and KR at 81 also. -
Rovinpiper at 11:58 AM on 15 June 2011Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
How has this typo survived? Paragraph 2, sentence 2 shouldn't "...brief warm period 8,200 years ago..." be "...brief cool period 8,200 years ago...", or am I just losing it?Moderator Response: You are misreading the graphic. It shows a brief cool period just prior to 8,000 years ago, followed by a brief warm period about 8,200 years ago. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:34 AM on 15 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
DSL, thanks for your thoughtful response (#57). I must point out in response that capital is most useful and grows when it is invested, accumulation of capital for only consumption purposes is not unusual but is useless and counterproductive for that individual. BIll Gates, as one example, is not a mere accumulator of capital, but a shrewd businessman who reinvested nearly all the capital that he had and then ended up with a lot more falling into his lap. But his investment could have gone the other way. I realize that has nothing to do with CC mitigation, but need to point out my alternative view of what capitalism is. Its history has some activities not considered moral today as you point out. I probably should not have used the ill-defined term wealth, but pointed out that particular amount of savings beyond immediate needs and long term savings can be spent on environment improvements and CC mitigation if one chooses to. If those savings aren't available they cannot be spent. It may well be that CC mitigation is an urgent need for Haitian farmers, but their worst problems often come from the weaker type of tropical storm that just sits and dumps rain as opposed to the hypothesized stronger (but perhaps fewer) storms. The question of costs is important for them as the rest of us. Better erosion control is vital with or without CC. Their extra money whether from reduced demands for physical labor (thanks to capitalism) or from capitalism itself, helps. It is a very valid point that I manage my land according to my best interests. Some of mine are stabilizing the slope (being on an outside curve on the river means constant natural erosion), promoting native plants and wildlife (mild competition with friends who do the same), but also putting in a supply of wood for the winter, converting an area from almost useless fire hazard cedar to hardwood and native understory, and a little bit of gardening/farming. Some of the latter could conflict with the broader environmental good at least in the short run. I could also sell and let the next guy clear cut But I recognize the need for local environmental protection that dovetails with CC mitigation. I could probably afford the luxury of an electric car (with my present commute) if it were reasonable and had other benefits (not having to fill it up with gas). I already bought 4 decent sized solar panels in 2004 and have about 300 pounds of lead batteries in the crawl space and that was simply as a hobby. I did a lot of work with south facing windows and black paint including a solar-driven solar heat collector mounted on the foundation. There are probably a few other things I don't remember at the moment. But the point is that all this was possible because I had the extra money to spend on it and would not have been without it. -
David Horton at 11:34 AM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
The frightening thing, the really frightening thing, is that the responses on the web site for this include the same rabid denier responses from the usual run of far-right ideologues (American and home grown) and amateur nutters. You would think a site like this, and a letter like this, would remain free of this rubbish, but there seems to be a collective, perhaps unconscious, decision, that any time scientists actually refer to the science of climate change they will be blanketed by this garbage. -
Bern at 11:31 AM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
Badgersouth, I suspect the signatories decided to take action now because the climate debate is heating up (pun not intended) here in Australia. We're possibly with days or weeks of the government announcing the introductory price they are going to put on carbon in upcoming legislation. The opposition and many business groups are going ballistic, spreading FUD like it's going out of style. Many of their arguments are core denier arguments, that it's not happening, it's not us, or it's not bad. I'm glad that some scientists are attempting to spread the message about the science. Hopefully they'll get at least a little media coverage. Related to dana's comment above - yes, it pulls no punches, but it needs to be aggressive to get any media attention. If it comes out as a 'smackdown' of the anti brigade, it might get good coverage. Yes, it would alienate the hardcore deniers, but they were never going to be convinced anyway. The mainstream might sit up & take notice, however, and it is they who need to be convinced. -
adelady at 11:29 AM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
"Why did the signatories decide to take collective action now? " Because they're scientists. They've always operated on the belief that other people will see the evidence and look at the analysis and reasoning of scientists and come to similar conclusions. What do they get instead? Rampant denialists raging across talkback radio - which everyone expects, but also expects to die down when the shockjocks move on to a new target. Instead of the public discourse moving towards more acceptance of increasingly convincing evidence, they find themselves, their colleagues and their families subjected to more hate mail and worse. Fed up. That would be why. -
Tom Curtis at 11:21 AM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Dikran Marsupial @66, with respect, Jones could have answered along the lines of:"The Earth has warmed by 0.12 degrees since 1995 which in global terms is certainly a significant increase, but it does not quite meet the statisticians test for statistical significance. That is more because of the short interval being considered than the size of the increase. The rise from 1994, for example, does meet the test for statistical significance. Of course, whether the rise meets a statistical test makes no difference to it impact on melting ice sheets, and increased range of tropical diseases."
Had he done so, misrepresenting the answer would have required far more selectivity in quotation, and the misrepresentation would have been significantly more transparent to those seeing the full quote. On the other hand, people seeking to misrepresent an opinion will do so no matter how selective they need to be. Further, even pausing to think is not always a wise strategy. Such pauses can be, and have been left in the edit to create the impression that the interviewee is speechless, or unwilling to answer the question (as happened to Richard Dawkins on one occasion). -
Tom Curtis at 11:03 AM on 15 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
chris @22, I think the question of whether the Greenland ice sheet can survive at current CO2 levels and insolation and whether at current CO2 levels changes in insolation due to the Milankovitch cycles could trigger an ice age are distinct. Although NH insolation is approaching its minimum for the current cycle, it can be reduced to much lower levels (and will in the next cycle), so that even with current CO2 levels a glaciation may still be triggered. With regard to the Greenland Ice sheet, significant parts of the ice sheet survived the Eemian interglacial. Given that, it is certainly possible that significant parts of the ice sheet would survive if CO2 levels were maintained at 400 ppm, at least for the next few thousand years. That is still consistent with a very substantive melt of the GIS and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet leading to sea level rises of the order of 8 meters over the coming centuries. -
John Hartz at 10:45 AM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
@John Cook Suggest that you add "of Australia" to the title of this post and provide an introductory "set-up" paragraph. Many SkS readers do not reside in Australia and are not on top of what is happening "Down Under" re the politics of climate change. Also explain what the "The Conversation" is. -
John Hartz at 10:38 AM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
Why did the signatories decide to take collective action now? -
Bern at 09:53 AM on 15 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Thanks for the article, Chris - I haven't had a chance to read it in detail, but a quick perusal answered a few questions I had. I especially like the graph of emitted IR from Venus - it tells quite a story! -
KR at 09:28 AM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Moderators - Apologies for the heavy HTML 'shouting' in my previous post. I'm just a bit ticked/appalled at such a transparent falsehood, especially when it can be so easily checked. -
KR at 09:22 AM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jonicol - "The Australian Climate Science Coalition, though, is not in any way connected to the AEF or to the IPA." OK, I'm going to have to call "bull exudation" on that, John. Australian Environment Foundation PO Box 274 DEAKIN WEST ACT 2600 Australia Telephone Max Rheese on 03 5762 6883 Australian Climate Science Coalition PO Box 274 Deakin West ACT 2600 Australia Max Rheese Executive Director Phone: 03 5762 6883 You share a PO box and phone number with the AEF? Both organizations have Max Rheese as the Executive Director and primary contact? And you claim they are not connected??? Pull the other one, John, it's got bells on... You represent an advocacy group directly tied to the AEF, which was created and funded by the IPA. Moderators - I hate to say it, but this post is either flatly deceptive, or the product of someone who doesn't know the very organization he calls home. -
Albatross at 09:22 AM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
With all due respect Sphaerica, and with an understanding of your frustration having to deal with repeat obfuscators, I do not think using words like 'grenades" and terrorism" are productive or advised. -
John Russell at 08:56 AM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
@Dikran - 66: I suggested one possible defensive form Dr Jones' answer could have taken, back on comment 32. I'm not a scientist, but I'll bet there are a dozen of your colleagues on here who could produce any number of honest replies to that question that would have been much more difficult for those in denial to exploit. Maybe they would like to take that as a challenge if you like: what would have been a better, but equally honest answer from Phil Jones? The key point is not to start by saying you agree. That's a very simple rule when answering questions that can be considered hostile and you'll hear politicians using that technique all the time. Protecting your answer against misuse might be gamesmanship, but it's not dishonest. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:15 AM on 15 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
31, Eric The Red, You grossly misrepresented Latif and Keenlyside's work, you were wrong, and it represents a huge mistake on your part. Admit it, and move on. Trying to argue your position is evidence of nothing but total and complete denial on your part, and nothing more. -
scaddenp at 08:02 AM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
KL - thanks for pointing that out! Hugely entertaining. I can't wait for Gilbert's next post. Grab a textbook and follow it through. -
CBDunkerson at 07:55 AM on 15 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
Great discussion folks. I thought I had a pretty good grasp on greenhouse warming 'fingerprints'... but obviously there is alot more complexity to the issue than I thought. Thanks for the info. -
Tsumetai at 07:50 AM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Is there an online updated link to 60 month and 132 month running averages of the global temperature?
That's what Wood for Trees is for. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 07:43 AM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Pick up sticks.
-
Eric the Red at 07:39 AM on 15 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
Let me get this straight Sphaerica. It may well be that the temperature is lower in 2030 than 2010, but it is not appropriate to call it cooling, or lack of warming, but delayed warming or hidden warming is okay? Talk about nitpicking. It certainly appears that any presentation that does not exemplify your own beliefs, you label as "misinformation." Oscillation only "masks" the warming when it is in the cooling phase. During the warming phase, it is enhancing the warming. One cannot accept the premise of decadal oscillation resulting in cooling without also accepting its role in warming. -
Albatross at 07:37 AM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Pete @67, Re the running averages-- not to my knowledge. If someone knows please share. Thanks :) I was planning on emailing Hansen and asking them to include that as one of their regular monthly graphics. -
jonicol at 07:31 AM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
KR - Thanks for your apology which is acknowledged and accepted. The Australian Climate Science Coalition, though, is not in any way connected to the AEF or to the IPA. It was introduced at an AEF Conference in Canberra, simply because of the timing of its formation which coincided with an Annual Conference of AEF and there members of AEF who are also in our ACSC, but I am not aware of who they are. I am not a member of AEF nor of IPA. The ACSC is funded privately by a benefactor from New Zealand and as far as I am aware, the ACSC has NO funding connection directly or indirectly with any other body. For this reason we run a very tight budget with a website which picks up material from voluntary individuals. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 07:21 AM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Recall Uncertainty, noise and the art of model-data comparison. Is there an online updated link to 60 month and 132 month running averages of the global temperature? -
Albatross at 07:07 AM on 15 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
Sphaerica @28, Sigh-- I agree with your coments about the post @27. Eric @27 directs us to slide 3 of Latif's 2009 WCC3 talk and neglects to mention that the figure in question is not in fact an official prediction, it is essentially fictitious, a cartoon. Dr. Latif presented that slide, which depicted a hypothetical temperature trace in which random internal climate variability was superimposed on a monotonic increasing temperature curve. When speaking to this slide/cartoon Dr. Latif said: "It may well happen that we enter a decade, or maybe even two-you know- when the temperature cools, alright- relevant to the present level, alright, and then, I know what is going to happen I will get millions of phone calls you know saying "what is going on, so is global warming disappearing". You know. Have you lied on us". You know, so, and therefore this is to me why we need to tackle this decadal variability prediction issue". Had the 'skeptics' here actually taken the time to listen to Latif's talk he would have known that. And again, so far the Keenlyside forecast has been a bust. I request that the moderators please consider snipping that piece of blatant misinformation (the link to wcc3 and associated text) @27-- I'm sure that SkS does not wish to assist in the distribution of confusion and misinformation. And while we fiddle Rome prepares to burn. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:49 AM on 15 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
27, Eric the Red, For emphasis, let me repeat 3 main points about Latif and Keenlyside:- The work of Dr. Latif and Dr. Keenlyside in Nature “does not allow one to make any inferences about anthropogenic global warming.” (Latif's own words).
- Their work has no forecasting skill after 2015. “We don’t trust our forecast beyond 2015.” (Latif's own words).
- Dr. Latif is not making any predictions about what will happen after 2015 other than that the long-term temperature warming trend driven by anthropogenic GHGs will continue and that the near-term temperature trend must catch up with the long-term trend, likely during a period of rapid warming.
-
Bob Lacatena at 06:38 AM on 15 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
27, Eric the Red, Your disinformation is, once again, clear evidence of denial. The entire Latif-says-the-globe-will-cool meme has been done to death. It's ancient history... and you are representing a serious falsehood in all of your statements about his position. His words:“I don’t know what to do. They just make these things up.”
Read more here. And stop spreading lies. [The easiest way to start is to stop getting your misinformation from WUWT.]...but at least get the data correct.
Hmmmph. Yeah, the data, and the interpretation, and who says what, and all the rest. Physician, deny thyself! -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 06:35 AM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
Great letter - look forward to reading their exposés of how contrarians operate. If this letter's anything to go by, it should be a great read. -
Eric the Red at 06:11 AM on 15 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
Chris, That is why I quoted both "cooling" and "lack of warming." Figure 4 to which you referenced was an older graph. His most recent presentation in Geneva, 2009 shows three decades of cooling or a lack of warming until 2030, then continued warming. It looks more like Latif predicts the warming to start around 1930, rather than centered around it, leaving about two more decades of a "lack of warming." ( -Link to disinformation site snipped- ) If the decadal oscillation results in insignificant warming, then the Earth will be a lot warmer by 2030. If the predictions hold true, as predicted by Latf, et. al., then temperatures will be similar (or cooler) in 2030 to 2010. I have no problem with you taking a dig at me, but at least get the data correct.Response:[DB] Link to disinformation site snipped. Advice: In the spirit of getting things correct, stick to reputable sources.
-
les at 06:10 AM on 15 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
5 - Badgersouth Sometimes this site really needs a "like" button :-D -
dana1981 at 06:00 AM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
This is an excellent letter - harsh, but true. I like how they didn't pull any punches. The whole series should be interesting. -
les at 06:00 AM on 15 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
22 - paddy; leaving science to one side and concentrating on English comprehension, may I draw your attention to the top of the page "Reposted from The Conversation." This is not a SkS science article I'm not going to paraphrase your "need to do better" words as that would just be obvious and tacky. -
John Hartz at 05:56 AM on 15 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
My one-line repsonse to climate denial bloggers who post about the Venusian atmosphere: "What happens on Venus, stays on Venus!" -
Albatross at 05:43 AM on 15 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
Patrick @22, Your weeping dismissal of the alleged absence of science are quite ironic given that your post contains no science whatsoever, never mind any attempt to substantiate your position. Indeed, you need to do much better on a science site. -
John Hartz at 05:29 AM on 15 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Kudos on an excellent post. -
Patrick Kelly at 05:17 AM on 15 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
I must say that I find this article to be a very disappointing addition to a site that headlines itself as Science based. Long on assertion and ambitious in conclusions which stem from very little solid scientific argument. Need to do better. -
angliss at 04:59 AM on 15 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Thanks! -
Chris Colose at 04:56 AM on 15 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
I hadn't seen this before but I just added it to the Recommended reading -
Albatross at 04:52 AM on 15 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
Hi Chris, Re your #25. Sorry if I was not clear-- my dig was at Eric, not you-- I very much appreciate you clarifying the Keenlyside et al. issue :) I concur with you that the Earth will be quite a bit warmer by 2030. -
angliss at 04:51 AM on 15 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Hopefully no-one's offended by this self-promotion, but I did a five-day series of posts that took apart common denier arguments for how Venus could be kept hot by means other than the greenhouse effect. This link goes to the first of the series. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:27 AM on 15 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
I'd like to point out another minor inconsistency in the fingerprints. The idea that winters and nights will warm more than summers and days, while true, should also apply to a lesser degree to any forcing, since many of the primary feedbacks are themselves greenhouse gases (mostly H2O). At the same time, part of the overall feedbacks for even an initial GHG forcing include changes in albedo, which would not bear the same signature. So while a pure GHG increase from CO2 now will involve a larger degree of difference, it could be difficult to tease out the difference between, say, a pure CO2 forcing versus a pure solar forcing. Both will have non-winter/daytime components and winter/nighttime components, to different degrees. I've tried to find someone knowledgeable about various climate model runs, to figure out exactly what the difference might be, but so far with no luck, so I can't quantify this in any way. All I can say for certain is that any warming will have both a GHG component and an albedo component as part of the positive feedbacks, and as such the difference between an initial GHG forcing and another forcing may not be as pronounced as one might initially expect, or would want (to be able to discriminate, observationally, between the two forcings). -
chris at 04:17 AM on 15 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
Albatross at 03:15 AM on 15 June, 2011 Yes fair enough Albatross. There are two relevant points though: 1) Eric was citing Latif as an indication of "cooling" in the next 20 years. So it's worth pointing out that Latif doesn't predict that at all. He predicts a large warming by the decade centered around 1930. 2) There is uncertainty about the extent to which "natural variability" is suppressing current warming a little. The evidence (including Latif's) suggests that ocean circulation variabilty might be suppressing surface temperatures a tad. We know that the extended solar minimum will also be countering greenhouse warming a little (we expect the drop of solar output from the max to min of the solar cycle to pretty much counter greenhouse-induced warming, although natural variability masks this somewhat). The point is that despite any current short term slowdown in warming, Latif (and pretty much all physics-based projections) indicate that the Earth will be quite a bit warmer by 1930. That's relevant to the subject of this thread. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:52 AM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
John Russell You are missing the point. There is no way to give an honest answer to that question that gives no room for misinterpretation by a dishonest adversary, and I rather doubt Prof. Jones was in a position to refuse the interview (given the circumstances). If you think such an answer exists, lets hear it. -
Chris G at 03:38 AM on 15 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
CB, FWIW, my presumption on the greater increase over land than water is that it is primarily related to the heat sink/energy transport attributes of land versus ocean. There are thermoclines, but oceans mix more rapidly than dirt; therefore, any energy delta at the surface is distributed over a greater volume over the ocean than over land. Not only does the energy get transported to depth, but also across meridians. I would expect this to have a sort of buffering effect, though thermal inertia might be a better concept to invoke semantically. On clouds, I agree, but, of course, some mechanism would have to drive the change in cloud behavior. Aerosols might do it since more of them would tend to lower the occurrence of supersaturated states. But then there are complications in the tradeoff between water vapor content versus droplet content, and whether they are high clouds or low clouds. For that matter, GCRs _might_ have an influence, but that would require evidence that has so far been lacking, or at least had big gaps, to the best of my knowledge. My two cents. -
Chris Colose at 03:33 AM on 15 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
Tom Curtis, My only point was that polar amplification is a rather common occurrence in climate change scenarios, regardless of whether we are talking about deep-time greenhouse climates, Milankovitch (orbital) timescale changes, or modern global warming, and has been simulated for a variety of forcings as well as "aquaplanet only" or other flavors of idealized experiments. Moreover, feedbacks associated with atmospheric dynamics and heat transport (and are not directly dependent on snow or ice) can contribute to polar amplification (e.g., Pierrehumbert 2002, Alexeev 2003; Alexeev et al. 2005; Cai, 2005). The other thing is that there are still recognized problems in simulating the pole-to-equator temperature gradient that proxy indicators report in some early greenhouse climates, so it is not clear to me that we have a convincing and full-proof quantitative theory linking the behavior of the pole-to-equator temperature gradient (and the meridional heat transport carried by the atmosphere and ocean) to the mean climate, so there's still work to be done here.
Prev 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 Next
