Recent Comments

Prev  1649  1650  1651  1652  1653  1654  1655  1656  1657  1658  1659  1660  1661  1662  1663  1664  Next

Comments 82801 to 82850:

82801. 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.
82802. 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.
82803. 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.

82804. 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.

82805. 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?)
82806. 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
82807. 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.
82808. 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.
82809. 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.
82810. 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.
82811. 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?
82812. 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.
82813. 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
82814. 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.
82815. 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 ?
82816. 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.
82817. 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.
82818. 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.
82819. 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.
82820. 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"!
82821. 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.
82822. 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.
82823. 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.
82824. 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.
82825. 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.
82826. 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.
82827. 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.
82828. 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.
82829. 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.
82830. 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 )
82831. 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?

82832. 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.
82833. 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.
82834. 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.
82835. 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!
82836. 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)
82837. adelady at 16:10 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       jonicol "I don’t know what all of the researchers now believe, but some at least have become ardently sceptical of Arrhenius’ hypothesis." Who are these people? The only ones I can think of challenging the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are the seriously strange products of Gerlich & Tscheuschner (not providing a link - not good enough science) and a couple of others whose names escape me just now. Anyone who doubts the properties of CO2 has a very big job ahead of them explaining how CO2 lasers work.
82838. Tim Curtin at 15:44 PM on 14 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
       Evidently my last has been "moderated". Here is the actual letter I have sent to Prof. Steffen: Dear Professor Steffen There is a basic fallacy throughout the discussion in Chapter Three of The Critical Decade of the so-called carbon budget, and that is the (-imputation of fraud and scientific misconduct snipped-) confusion there between gross emissions of CO2 and net additions to the atmospheric concentration of CO2. This procedure enabled your report to claim that “In the first nine years of the period (2000 through 2008), humanity emitted 305 Gt of CO2, over 30% of the total budget in less than 20% of the time period.” Your budget to 2050 of one trillion tonnes of CO2 apparently assumes that as has since 1958 been the case, on average only 45% or so of gross emissions remain aloft (Knorr, GRL, 2009). Thus in truth less than 15% of your “budget” had been used up by 2008, which is less than the 20% of the time period. I hope you and the Climate Commission will correct this gross error with as much publicity as in its original release of The Critical Decade. By the way, I note your report cites Meinshausen et al 2009 as the source for this very misleading budget approach. My attached published Note showed how they (-imputation of fraud and scientific misconduct snipped-) assumed 100% retention of emissions in the atmosphere. [Tim Curtin] www.timcurtin.com
       Response:

       [DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

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

82839. scaddenp at 15:15 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       jon Nicol. the tropospheric hotspot is NOT as signature of GHG warming. Read that article. and you will see that you are making a host of incorrect statements in your post. What is your source for this?
82840. jonicol at 14:33 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Thanks Adelady, KR and Scaddenp for the links. I have read the foirst "the tropospheric hotspot" and will read it again as well as trying to obtain the references given in the article. I will now lookat the others as well. Below is an explanation of the signature I was referring to: The "signature" I am referring to is the warming in the upper troposphere betweeen about -20 S and +20 N latitude and 7,000 and 11,000 m, which certainly up until 2006 was defined clearly and consistently as a most important parameter to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural warming, and was widely accepted as such. I understand that everyone searching for it were expecting it would be found and were using apparatus which was little, if at all, different from what is available now. Good quality well calibrated detectors have been in use since the 1940s at least, and have continued to be refined, leaving little to be improved upon since the late 1980s when very refined atom trapping experiments using IR lasers were taking place. People I know of, and one whom I know, working on the experiments were certainly expecting the model predictions to be correct. I don’t know what all of the researchers now believe, but some at least have become ardently sceptical of Arrhenius’ hypothesis. In 2005 and 2006, when it became obvious to most of those workers looking for the signature that the hot spot would not be found, and papers were published explaining the difference between the predictions and the results of measurements, there were several following papers claiming that reworking the data could show the semblance of a warming. No one questioned the accuracy of the measurements the accuracy of which were well within that needed to distinguish the warming from the noise. Since this warming signature has not been found, it now seems that the answer to the problem is that this is not what should have been looked for as indicated in the article I have just read, the references for which are all post 2006(2) and the rest later. It is all very confusing but I will withhold my judgment until I have had a chance to follow through at least the 2010 publications among the references given. Thank you all again for the interesting links.
82841. Albatross at 13:57 PM on 14 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       This is priceless, in a incredibly desperate move to try continue the deception and confusion, a 'skeptic' blogger has now feigned ignorance and claimed that the warming in the HadCRUT data since 1995 and 2010 is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level because they could not figure out which data Jones is using. Well, it would help if they used the same data that Jones used (and that I used below). Of course, uncritical 'skeptics' have bought their deception hook line and sinker. Here is the output from a professional statistics package. Note the bolded p-value of 0.042 is less than 0.05,that means that that the warming trend in the variance adjusted HadCRUT data is indeed statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Regression Analysis: HadCRUT3 (1995-2010) versus Year The regression equation is HadCRUT3 (1995-2010) = 0.293 + 0.0109 Year Predictor Coef SE Coef T P Constant 0.29328 0.04685 6.26 0.000 Year 0.010865 0.004845 2.24 0.042 S = 0.0893442 R-Sq = 26.4% R-Sq(adj) = 21.2% Analysis of Variance Source DF SS MS F P Regression 1 0.040134 0.040134 5.03 0.042 Residual Error 14 0.111754 0.007982 Total 15 0.151888 Unusual Observations HadCRUT3 Obs Year (1995-2010) Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 2 2.0 0.1390 0.3150 0.0386 -0.1760 -2.18R 4 4.0 0.5290 0.3367 0.0312 0.1923 2.30R To be fair the "skeptic" does state that "I don’t think this lack of significance has great scientific importance..." Exactly, this whole cherry-picking exercise is moot, and I am getting tired of playing whack-a-mole.
82842. scaddenp at 13:47 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Jon, I would also say that "signature" is something to use carefully. If you take a climate model and change GHG you get a pattern. Change solar and you get another etc. There are a large no. of predictions made and some would be what you expect for say solar OR GHG; some for GHG OR reduced aerosols and so on. Its the whole suite of predictions that are important. There is also the question of robustness. They cant make decadal predictions. There is no robust prediction for effect on ENSO. Warming from ANY cause should show a "troposphere hot spot" but measuring that is very difficult. Stronger would be prediction that CO2 should cool the upper stratosphere but then you also have filter ozone effects in the lower stratosphere and stratosphere has not been well observed. Stronger would be arctic amplification, warmer nights, warmer winters. If there is one thing you cant complain about it, is that climate models dont produce testable predictions. Models produce a huge no. of predictions and with remarkable skill so far.
82843. Chris4795 at 13:45 PM on 14 June 2011
       Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
       John You may want to look at Today's Telegraph where Piers Ackerman has written an article denying the science of Climate Change. He refers to an article written in Quadrant by Bob Carter and 3 other scientists that refutes all the scietific research as overblown and exaggerated. Cater even makes the claim that the peer reviewed scientists are liars.
       Response: [JC] Link?
82844. Bob Austin at 13:41 PM on 14 June 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Chris, only Hugh Falconer and Chuck Norris don't make mistakes. And Mike, don't forget what academic freedom is all about.
82845. scaddenp at 13:07 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       jonicol, I would recommend the science of Doom series for the basic textbook physics. On the same site this series is also good. KR has pointed you to Weart which has the key historical papers. Ramanathan & Coakley 1978 is the key to radiative physics in models but read the background first!
82846. sailrick at 13:03 PM on 14 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       @21 Albatross "Ironic beyond belief, because the CRU employs the same group of scientists who the 'skeptics' accused of fudging" Not only that, but UAH is home to two of their favorite skeptic scientists, Christy and Spencer. Priceless. double irony?
82847. KR at 12:41 PM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       jonicol I would suggest reading this excellent history of the science of the greenhouse effect. If you have further questions, please, ask them. But read this first.
82848. adelady at 11:55 AM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Greenhouse signature?? Are you referring to the tropospheric hot spot ? If so, I suggest a careful reading of the link - and strongly suggest the links within it. If not, can you clarify which signature you're looking for? Thanks.
       Response:

       [DB] Fixed link.

82849. jonicol at 11:47 AM on 14 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Thanks Tom Curtis and KR for your comments. However, the links in the articles on Christy and Lindzen, take one only to criticisms, most if not all of which I have read, which state simply that those scientists are "wrong". I could find none which goes deeply enough into the science to show "WHY" they are wrong. 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. Perhaps some which give details of the principle features of the models. Professor David Karoly recently gave a very good summary of the case made for accepting the hypothesis that carbon dioxide causes global warming. He explained that the case is based on models being able to determine patterns of change in the global climate - warming here, cooling there which is consistent with the injection of an increased or new "forcing" into the models, assumed to come from increased carbon dioxide. 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. These are basic pieces of evidence which represent a scientific approach. They also meet the criteria of the "scientific method", first enunciated by Karl Popper and embraced universally by most if not all scientists from every discipline for many years. This "scientific method" involves formulating an hypothesis, in this case Svante Arrhenius' hypotheis, and testing it using empirical measurements or theoretical analysis, all of which must be "falsifiable" i.e. has an underlying reason for its pronouncement which could be found to be wrong by the presentation of further evidence. As Einstein once said: "I could write a hundred papers, proving I am right, it would only take one paper to prove that I was wrong". Karoly's and Pitman's statements are falsifiable, and therefore represent a basic scientific approach. One of the stronger arguments, which does not "falsfy" Karoly's and Pitman's statements, but does tell us that they are not complete in demonstrating the link between CO2 increases and Global Warming, is 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", which was and still is, a very significant result from the atmospheric modelling. he models need to show noe that this warming is not part of the green house effect. It was the modelers who defined it as a "signature", such was their confidence in its existence. That would/should be the next logical step for the modelers in a truly scientific analysis of the problem where there is evidence coming in from both sides of the hypothesis - some which proves and some which disproves it. Statements that Christy is wrong here or Lindzen made a mistake there because someone else said the opposite, do nothing to clarify the science. The comment 15. above, is an example.
82850. Bibliovermis at 11:42 AM on 14 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Scratch that last bit. It's been a long day, and my eyes crossed when I looked at the data. How is there a cooling trend from 2001, when 2001 was cooler than 2010? The only 2 years warmer than 2010 were 1998 & 2005.
       Response:

       [DB] Per CRU, "The years 2003, 2005 and 2010 are only distinguishable in the third decimal place."

Prev  1649  1650  1651  1652  1653  1654  1655  1656  1657  1658  1659  1660  1661  1662  1663  1664  Next