Recent Comments

Prev  1664  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  Next

Comments 83551 to 83600:

83551. Bob Lacatena at 07:01 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       25, Eric the Red,

       GISS's own admission...

       Why do you insist on constantly doing this. "Admission." As in confession, as in, they're doing something wrong by making the corrections, and they need to "admit" to their evil, nefarious actions. "...the raw data is suspect." Did you read the post? Do you understand why the data must be homogenized (or, perhaps to use a better term, normalized)? That doesn't make it "suspect." By dropping these little grenades of yours, with no clear explanation and without background, you are sabotaging the nature and intent of the original post, and to my eyes, you are doing it deliberately, because you feign ignorance when it is pointed out to you, and yet compound the error by reiterating your (vacant) points. And you completely dodged my question. Your posts imply that the data is suspect and therefore the world may not be warming. Is this what you intend to communicate? Is this what you are saying? Agree that this is what you are saying and openly deny that the globe is warming, or else deny that this is what you are saying, and explicitly agree that the world is warming. State it clearly and without ambiguity. What are you saying?
83552. Eric the Red at 06:55 AM on 7 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       A post on a previous site stated that likely was defined as 66%. Is this correct? If so, is very likely 90%?
83553. KR at 06:51 AM on 7 June 2011
       CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
       J. Bob"Nice graph, but you are only looking at a little over 50 years of reasonably accurate CO2 recordings. A longer record would be more helpful." Try this video, Time history of atmospheric CO2, which covers 800 Ky. Also, what dip of CO2 rates? There's some variation in the record, but no significant dip in the rate of CO2 rise.
83554. Eric the Red at 06:51 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       24. Sphaerica, From GISS's own admission, they make these corrections. Yes, that would imply that the raw data is suspect. This analysis is all about the requires and corrections made to U.S. monitoring stations. The rest of the world makes no such claim. Are they performing similar correction?
83555. Eric the Red at 06:44 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       pbjamm, I do not have an explanation, but there have been 5 such dips in the past 35 years (they show up better in the surface temperature data). I was simply curious. In the same way that I am curious as to the larger 60-year cycles. However, Spaerica seems to think that my curiosity means that I am just a denier for thinking such. Yes, the overall trend is up, but one must be careful not to measure trends that are influenced by these cycles (see the graph above).
83556. J. Bob at 06:42 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Tom Curtis @ 418 OK.
83557. pbjamm at 06:18 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric the Red @423 Do the dips occur in 7.5 year intervals? Hard to tell eyballing a graph. Assuming they do what is your explanation for it and why does it matter if the overall trend is still up?
83558. Bob Lacatena at 05:58 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       423, Eric the Red, This isn't the place to discuss this graph, only how you can personally (in your opinion) read something from the graph that actually isn't there, and yet with a straight face insist that it is. The trend for the thirty year period is undeniable. The trend for the selected 7.5 year period, and only that precisely selected period, is also undeniable. The intent of offering the second, in complete disregard to the first, and then actually sticking to your guns on it is, to me, also undeniable. As far as your lectures about science and skepticism, as I have repeatedly said, you demonstrate not one hint of actual skepticism, and calling daylight the darkness of night is not skepticism, it's foolishness. There is a serious and obvious line between "squelching any investigation into plausible explanations" and just plain making nonsense up to see if it somehow sticks somewhere. Scientists do not need to respectfully consider every ounce of drivel that deniers can think of in order to do their job properly. Quite to the contrary, they are wasting far too much time on denial nonsense when we have very, very important things to be researching and considering. By the way, the backhanded comment implying that deniers keep science from getting complacent is patently absurd. Science does just fine without worrying about Eric the Red's insightful 7.5 year cooling trend.
83559. Bob Lacatena at 05:51 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       23, Eric the Red, From your comment #7

       ...accurate corrections need be applied to remove this effect.

       1^st implication = the temperature record is suspect 2^nd implication = if the record is suspect, then logically maybe there is no warming. Many, many people will draw those (invalid) conclusions from your statement. From your comment #16:

       Now, if we can just get the rest of the world to follow suit ...

       Same implications and ultimate effect. That this is done by implication instead of direct statement escapes no one. It also directly contradicts the content of the original post, which is supported by a wide variety of evidence and logic, while your little grenades (to me) serve to subtly and inadequately attempt to refute the original post. Am I mistaken? Would you like to clarify what you actually meant to communicate?
83560. Eric the Red at 05:35 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       And yet Sphaerica, I suppose you will be the first to deny the actual graph. Are you not the leats bit curious as to why all the dips in the graph occur at roughly 7.5 year intervals? Although it wouldn't surprise me it you denied that also. With regards to skepticism and denial, if scientists would squelch any investigation into plausible explanations in the same way much of this crowd does, science would still be in the middle ages. A good dose of skepticism will keep science from getting complacent.
       Response:

       [DB] You strain credulity, sir.

       Why anyone (let alone a scientist) would try & read into a short, noisy time series dataset and see things that aren't there and then declare (without a postulated physics-based mechanism to explain it) that the quasimythological oscillation/trend/periodicity du jour explains away the temperature rise so that there's nothing to worry about, is beyond me.

       Tamino describes the thought processes involved here, among many other similar posts.

83561. Eric the Red at 05:27 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Sphaerica, Do you pigeonhole everyone who disagrees with you in the same way? Is that why you think everyone is a denier? I have never denied anything in your previous posts, except for droughts. Whatever gave you the idea that I do not believe that the planet has warmed?
       Response:

       [DB]  Everyone:

       1. Please focus on the arguments, not the person(s).
       2. If one must discuss climate denialism, the Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier? is the appropriate venue for it.  Not here.
83562. funglestrumpet at 04:38 AM on 7 June 2011
       If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
       Sorry, showing my age! Mandas @ 3 (I think)
83563. funglestrumpet at 04:37 AM on 7 June 2011
       If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
       Mandas @ 5 You know what they say about the 60s: "If you can remember them, you weren't there." I Would love to help, but I can't remember. Peace!
83564. Phila at 04:36 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Dr. PhD: I'm sorry but I asked a few weeks ago for the total number of global glaciers and somebody gave me a link which did not have the information readily available. All I am looking for is a number. If you want that information, there are many ways of finding it on your own (especially if you have a PhD). Demanding that other people do your research for you, and then getting snippy because you don't like the answer, is kind of ungracious, IMO.
83565. funglestrumpet at 04:24 AM on 7 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       Looks good to me. 1 Perhaps this digest should be the only way into the individual postings because, being considerably narrower, they are much easier to read. With the current postings, which are too wide, I often lose which line I am on and find myself reading the same line again, or the next but one, which, as you can imagine, is a bit confusing and no aid to comprehension. The last thing we need is to lose readership because of technicalities. Failing that, go straight to the narrow form on opening specific email postings (the one with the comments section at the end). This would have the added benefit of guiding any newcomer seeking knowledge on climate change to the large reservior of information available from SkS (in the side bars). 2 You could try bringing all the comments on all the linked articles into the comments section of the weekly digest (see chrismartenson.com weekly newsletter as an example) instead of the currrent arrangement. For instance, if I wished to reply to, say, fred1234's comment (item 96) about the Amazon Death Spiral, it would take the form: Amazon DS, fred1234 @ 96 .... That way, people would get to see all comments about all articles automatically without the need to open each specific one. You never know, a comment on an article that had originally been skipped might pique someone's interest enough to change their mind and read it. More importantly, someone expert in a particular field might in passing notice a comment that is incorrect and feel obligued to set the matter straight, even though they had originally only bothered with the article but not had time to read the comments section. That way we all win. As far as I am concerned, you can forget posting articles individually because from now on I will wait for the digest and dedicate time to an indepth weekly climate change session at my computer (the dog will just have to wait for his walk).
83566. Bob Lacatena at 04:20 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       pbjamm, That was awesome! I never knew about lmgtfy.com. Oh, my gosh, I've got a new toy to play with and I can't wait to use it. I swear, I need it 50 times a day, and the implicit sarcasm is just priceless. Awesome!
83567. Bob Lacatena at 04:17 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       16, Eric the Red, You stick in little (baseless) insinuations and I'll point them out. It's as simple as that. The follow-on statement about the world temperature record being unreliable is similarly foolish. Look, the indicators that the world is warming and the climate is changing are becoming almost too numerous to mention. How can you possibly sit and harp on the observational surface temperature record when multiple different sets of scientists have been working on it full time for decades, and the results are buttressed by satellite observations, melting ice, rising sea levels, shrinking glaciers, migrating species, expanding droughts, etc., etc., etc., etc. To nitpick on obscure details, trying to make the obvious seem controversial, is just denying the undeniable. I don't think you can deny that denying that the planet is warming is an act of serious denial. Do you deny it?
83568. Bob Lacatena at 04:10 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       And he throws in a cherry pick to top off the denial sundae he's been concocting. Really, one couldn't ask for better examples. The point is made by the deniers themselves. I'm even beginning to think that Eric the Red is a Poe.
83569. Eric the Red at 03:39 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       The issue was whether temperatures have risen or fallen over the past decade. Very few trends are going to be statiscally significant over such a short timeframe. However, the trends are obviously different from the preceding two decades (which differ from those before). Many have attempted to gloss over these seemingly insignificant trends, and focus on the longer term. For statistics, I prefer the long-term, and coincidentally, the latest CRU data falls almost exactly on top of the long-term trend (since 1880) of 0.6C / century. Although not statistically significant by our measurement methods, these short-term changes may yield some insight into various forces at play in global temperature records. For the record, RSS is negative for the past decade (-0.003 C / year excluding 2011, -.006 C / year if you do an exact 120-month analysis). http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
       Response:

       [DB] "The issue was whether temperatures have risen or fallen over the past decade."

       Umm, no.  The issue of this thread is Skepticism vs climate Denialism.

       Quite frankly, there's so much wrong with your comment I scarce know where to begin.  The focus on RSS, insignificant timescales, cherry-picked start dates (Tamino has many posts on this), etc.

       Cherries Jubilee:

       

       [Source]

       Your attempts to stay off-topic merely reaffirm the perception of denial (which is on-topic) you convey.  If you wish to discuss temperature records or something other than Skepticism vs climate Denialism, please use the Search function for a far more appropriate thread.  Thanks!

83570. adelady at 03:28 AM on 7 June 2011
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       J Bob "...referenced by Meehl, uses models, and again show little compassion of GHG to temperature, except they both go up over time. I don’t see the up and down motion that would give stronger correlations. This process is my idea of a skeptic. Your thoughts?" My thought currently is "Oh bother!" Once upon a time I had a lovely little display showing changes in nighttime temperatures in early 20th century. Can't find it (I'm sure some very thoughtful person will eventually direct me to the right place.) 'Twould be handy for one point I might make. Without it, I'll stay mum on that one. As for thinking about your "idea of a skeptic", I'm not so sure. The up and down squiggles you're looking for could just be the 'noise' from various natural variation or they could be those familiar roller-coaster dips we see after major volcanic eruptions. My first response as a skeptic would be - why do the people who know more than me about this stuff not consider it the same way I've been thinking about it? Read a bit, or a lot, more. Then decide whether I understand it well enough to see what they're getting at - or decide I've spent enough time on it and just accept it until someone comes up with the brighter, shinier, clearer version.
83571. DaneelOlivaw at 03:28 AM on 7 June 2011
       Poleward motion of storm tracks
       @9 Ron Crouch. Thanks!
83572. pbjamm at 03:26 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       DrJ: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=number+of+glaciers+in+the+world Read the First Sentence of the Top link. I may be a Certified College Dropout but I still know how to look for answers when I have questions.
83573. Tom Curtis at 03:24 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric the Red @419, yes. If you take a temperature index which excludes the fastest warming area on Earth, and then take the annual temperatures from the period of the last solar maximum until the lowest solar minimum in nearly a century, with several large El Nino's in the early period, and several large La Nina's in the later period, you do get a trend of - 0.028 Degrees C per decade (HadCRUtv3 2001-2010). In contrast, if you don't exclude the fastest warming region, the trend for the last decade is 0.075 degrees C per decade (Gisstemp 2001-2010). It takes a denier, to find great significance in that. Most of us would look at those figures and say that if the increase in CO2 forcing over just one decade can cancel out that large a combination of cooling factors, it must be very significant indeed. We worry about what the trend will be as those cooling factors reverse.
83574. citizenschallenge at 03:22 AM on 7 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       Great informative write up. As for Christy using "WE" perhaps he has merely adopted Lord M's habit of talking in the 'regal' first-person plural form. It lends an air of superiority don't you know.
83575. Byron Smith at 03:10 AM on 7 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       That is, the red link directs you to a different post.
83576. Byron Smith at 03:09 AM on 7 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       Link to Amazon Part 3 is misdirected. Thanks.
83577. adelady at 03:06 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       The number is over 100000 according to NSIDC. I haven't checked out any of the links at the bottom of this page, but I reckon you'd find what you want at one of them. http://nsidc.org/data/g01130.html
83578. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 02:55 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       @Moderator I'm sorry but I asked a few weeks ago for the total number of global glaciers and somebody gave me a link which did not have the information readily available. All I am looking for is a number.
       Response:

       [DB] The website I directed you to earlier, the world glacier monitoring service (on its facts and figures page), says about 160,000.

       Part of the problem in getting an exact number is that glaciers are not necessarily discreet separable entities, like rivers, nor are they all "named". Some parts of a single icemass have multiple names as well.

       In other words, there may not be a definitive answer to your question.

83579. Tom Curtis at 02:51 AM on 7 June 2011
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       J Bob:

       "You asked why I used local temps instead of global? The reason is that there where no “global” temperatures prior to 1850, if you would call it that. Even in 1850, almost all were in the Northern Hemisphere. But there were quite a number of individual station records starting in 1659, so one has a longer time span to compare one variable (temperature) to another (CO2), hence the use of Ave14. You will notice I included the HadCRUT NH as a check on Ave14, and the patterns do seem to track, especially when both are compared to CO2. Both Ave14 & HadCRUT showed strong variations, while CO2 showed none. If I added a HadCRUT global plot, it would appear to change nothing. Your plot, you referenced by Meehl, uses models, and again show little compassion of GHG to temperature, except they both go up over time. I don’t see the up and down motion that would give stronger correlations. This process is my idea of a skeptic."

       1) First, any sensible comparison between CO2 and temperatures should compare CO2 forcing with temperature as CO2 and its forcing are not linearly correlated. 2) Although CO2 forcing is considered to be a factor prior to 1950, it is not considered to be the dominating factor by anybody prior to that time for short term (< millennial) time scales (see figure 5 above). Therefore we do not expect a strong short term correlation between CO2 forcing and temperature prior to 1950. 2a) Because of that, temperature fluctuations prior to 1950 are not direct evidence against the greenhouse effect. They are interesting evidence of the scale of natural variability, but using a regional temperature record is inappropriate for determining that variability for reasons given in 9 above. 3) Once all GHG forcings, anthropogenic aerosols and volcanic aerosols are all taken in to account, the decadal correlation between forcings and temperature is remarkable (see figure 6 above). The correlation of annual variability is poor because annual change in CO2 forcing is small, and because annual variation is dominated by the El Nino Southern Oscillation. 4) If you insist on doing a simple comparison of CO2 to temperatures, you should do so using Southern Hemisphere temperatures which, because the NH and SH air masses mix poorly, was largely isolated from the aerosol burden which is so significant, and so significantly distorting in the NH. Differences between the Arctic and the Antarctic means that the Arctic amplifies, while the Antarctic suppresses the warming, but the SH still provides a better natural laboratory if you are not going to do a full work up of all factors:
83580. keithpickering at 02:41 AM on 7 June 2011
       Poleward motion of storm tracks
       Thanks for a very interesting post.
83581. Eric the Red at 02:39 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Yes, That is why the U.S. record is arguably top notch. Now, if we can just get the rest of the world to follow suit ... Boy, you just cannot resist sticking in little barbs, when you jump to conclusions, do you?
83582. Eric the Red at 02:32 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Let's see, GISS, NOAA, and UAH all show a slight warming trend for the past decade, while CRU and RSS show a slight cooling trend. Examing the 5-yr movign averages yields similar trends; NOAA, and UAH peaked in 2005, whereas CRU and RSS yielded a maximum in 2002. (UAH shows the most recent peak occurring in early 2006). Apparently, this is appaling to many on this site who cannot accept facts that contradict their beliefs, even Sphaerica's.
       Response:

       [dana1981] Examining statistically insignificant trends over such short timeframes is rather pointless.  You're just seeing short-term noise.  But for the record, RSS has a positive trend over the past decade.

83583. Bob Lacatena at 02:27 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       7, Eric the Red,

       ...accurate corrections need be applied to remove this effect.

       A seemingly thoughtful insight, with the unspoken implication that scientist somehow hadn't thought of this. That in spite of the wealth of details provided to you at the top of this page, in the original post, on the great lengths to which scientists have gone in studying the problem and working to properly and objectively homogenize the data. Really, the unwillingness to read and learn, while also dropping little doubt-grenades, is breathtaking.
83584. Tom Curtis at 02:27 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J. Bob, Adelady had carried the conversation across to this thread where it is on topic. May I suggest that you do likewise.
83585. Bob Lacatena at 02:24 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Cadbury, If I may, I think what you (and Watts) fail to understand is that scientists have carefully looked at this. When trying to generate a temperature map for the day's forecast, having lots and lots of thermometers all over is important. When generating a map of temperature anomalies which span years and decades, and are an average taken from many, many days of readings, we find that five, ten, one hundred, even hundreds of miles are inconsequential. One doesn't need a hundred carefully gridded stations if they all give the exact same answer. And it costs money to take all of those readings, money that could be better spent accumulating valuable rather than redundant information. The argument that we don't have enough temperature stations is a distraction from the truth of the matter. It's like sitting in a hospital worrying that you might die because the snowstorm outside would prevent an ambulance from getting to you in time.
83586. John Hartz at 02:20 AM on 7 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       Dana & James: Kudos on an excellent article! As Sgt. Joe Friday was wont to say: "Just the facts ma'm. Just the facts."
       Response:

       [dana1981] Thanks very much.  The "skeptics" have given us a lot of practice in rebutting "climate sensitivity is low"!

83587. J. Bob at 02:18 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Moderator: Thanks for the help. Still trying to get the image & thumbnail postings straight. Would using the Preview option help to make sure the image postings are correct? While I will agree, a detail discussion on the specific topic of CO2 & temperature would be better discussed on the appropriate thread, my primary point is to show how a skeptic becomes a skeptic. Not by just reading items or papers, but by doing some careful thought and analysis to make sure opinions presented stand up to questions by opposing views. Anyway, back to the fray. Adelady @393, You asked why I used local temps instead of global? The reason is that there where no “global” temperatures prior to 1850, if you would call it that. Even in 1850, almost all were in the Northern Hemisphere. But there were quite a number of individual station records starting in 1659, so one has a longer time span to compare one variable (temperature) to another (CO2), hence the use of Ave14. You will notice I included the HadCRUT NH as a check on Ave14, and the patterns do seem to track, especially when both are compared to CO2. Both Ave14 & HadCRUT showed strong variations, while CO2 showed none. If I added a HadCRUT global plot, it would appear to change nothing. Your plot, you referenced by Meehl, uses models, and again show little compassion of GHG to temperature, except they both go up over time. I don’t see the up and down motion that would give stronger correlations. This process is my idea of a skeptic. Your thoughts?
       Response:

       [DB] "Would using the Preview option help to make sure the image postings are correct?"

       Yes.  If they don't show properly after pushing the Preview button, then something is wrong.  Typically it is the inclusion of an extraneous space after the URL but before the second parenthesis.  Or the transposing of the closing slash and the HTML tag command being used.

       Please remember to keep widths at 450 pixels or less.  Lastly, PNG, JPG or GIF work best (avoid TIFF).  DOC and PDF will not result in a viewable picture (you will have to separate the graphic in question from the document and upload it to the Web first).

       The sample HTML commands at the TIPS page have all been tested by me and work in the SkS Comment posting windows.

83588. Bob Lacatena at 02:15 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Correction. In my previous post I said "Temperatures skyrocket" (after we cease pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere). That's the wrong thing to say. What I should have said was simply "temperatures continue to rise for many decades after we have actually completely stopped pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere." Sorry for any confusion.
83589. dana1981 at 02:03 AM on 7 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       If you click the red links to go to the articles themselves, the blue links will work there.
83590. Bob Lacatena at 02:02 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric the Red, So wrong, so often, in so many ways.

       To ignore this is poor science at the least, and possibly worse.

       Strawman. No one is ignoring it, or ignored it even before it happened. Everyone recognizes natural variability. They also recognize the indisputable march of CO₂ in the picture. Everything else (which isn't a feedback on CO₂) will even out in the end. So there's noise in a 5 or 10 or 20 year span. Big surprise (not). But you and deniers use this to imply that the science is uncertain, that climate is unpredictable, and maybe we should wait a decade or five to be really, really sure about how things will play out (and to conveniently have reached a point where it won't affect our own lives, because we'll be dead by then).

       Hence, the reported climate sensitivity values are a range, not an absolute (deal with it Sphaerica).

       Yet another strawman. Is that all you've got, a field full of strawmen? Everyone knows this is a range. But the low side of the range is dangerous if we take no action whatsoever, the most likely value in the range (3+˚C) is very dangerous, and the upper bounds (the long tail) extend much further than the short, low end tail. More than this, every year more and more studies confirm that this sensitivity is at least 3˚C, so the chance of anything lower gets less and less with every passing day. To present these plain, incontrovertible facts otherwise is misinformation, and to believe otherwise is denial.

       The recent Hansen paper admits that we may be underestimated aerosol effects.

       Admits? Admits? More denial-speak. Hansen warns that we may be underestimating aerosol effects. This is a gigantic problem, and a reason for far more aggressive action. It is a frightening prospect. To explain, since you do not seem to comprehend, there are several positive and negative feedbacks which are recognized, but quantified to different degrees. We know there is a negative anthropogenic aerosol effect. It's actually a forcing, not a feedback, in that we are pumping the air full of CO₂ and anthropogenic aerosols. The former raise temperatures through radiative effects. The latter lower temperatures by blocking incoming sunlight. The larger that negative forcing is, the worse the effects of CO₂ truly are. It is masking the full power of the CO₂ problem. But wait, there's more. What happens when we stop pumping fossil fuels into the air, either because we smarten up, or because they become too expensive to continue to use (as world demand far exceeds supply), or (God help us if this happens) when they run out? So, there is all of this CO₂ in the air, gigaton after gigaton of it, driving temperatures up. It stays there for centuries or even millenia. But the aerosols don't. We're no longer pumping them in, but the drop out of the atmosphere in anywhere from years to at best decades. So the negative forcing goes away. The positive forcing stays in place. Temperatures skyrocket. Really, please Eric, take the time to read and understand this stuff. It is important, and your field of strawmen and mis-characterizations are doing the world a huge injustice.

       My personal opinion is that the climate sensitivity is in the low range.

       Keyword = opinion, and one that is not only unsupported by but heavily contradicted by the facts, and clear evidence of denial.

       ...he cannot accept any fact that contradicts his beliefs.

       Again with the word "belief." Everything is belief, because that's what you work with. Educate yourself!

       Settled was a word chosen years ago by certain climatologists in an attempt to sway the public.

       More denial lies! Man, please, do some reading. Can you find this quote anywhere except on denial sites? Who said this? Not even one person, let alone "certain climatologists" (plural). This is a denier's fantasy. Please, really, stop with the nonsense. You are so lost that it's laughable. You have eagerly and willingly bought into every urban myth, superstition, and silly trope that denialism has manufactured in the past decade. Please, get some new material. And as a starting point, open your mind, become a true skeptic, and figure out where all of those false beliefs are so severely flawed.
83591. Albatross at 01:58 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       No doubt, the so-called 'skeptics' here will choose to ignore caerbannog's analysis and recommendation about looking at the actual data themselves and undertaking their own analysis. Instead they will most likely continue to spout conspiracy theories, pontificate, make laughable allegations of innumeracy against scientists and the usual flavour of 'skeptic' tactics to fabricate debate, obfuscate and confuse. Either put up (and by that I do not mean linking to some hacked attempt to do some analysis by someone like D'Aleo) or please move on. The planet is warming, and that fact has been independently verified, by the Clear Climate Code, including 'skeptics' such as JeffId and RomanM, not to mention other metrics and observation platforms--deal with it. Ignoring that reality amounts to nothing more than denial.
83592. Tom Curtis at 01:56 AM on 7 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       Eric the Red @35, reply here.
83593. Tom Curtis at 01:55 AM on 7 June 2011
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       Eric the Red here, you can simply combine the formulas by multiplying the constant in the Radiative Forcing formula by λ. It is unwise to do so, however, because the formula for other radiative forcings is quite different, while to a first approximation, the formula for climate sensitivity is the same across all forcings. Thus the formula for solar forcings 0.25*0.7*dI where I is the incident solar radiation on a meter squared area perpendicular to the solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Other formulas are given by the IPCC.
83594. actually thoughtful at 01:51 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       DSL - great post and great area of inquiry. I love the bus coming around the bend analogy (to suggest an improvement...). Wonderful way to think about this, the bizarreness of denialism, and why/how something in the physical world, not front and center, can have a huge future impact unless mitigated now.
83595. trunkmonkey at 01:50 AM on 7 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Charlie A @ 93. "Are you saying that we should not trust the climate models to make reliable decadal projections?" I think the answer is yes, that is what he is saying. It is a point that is well established on various threads here and mentioned earlier in this thread that the models are only good for a 30 year trend. This is largely because they are unable to predict the only quasi periodic alphabet soup of ocean atmospheric oscillations (PDO etc., I like to call the O's)These oscillations are able to tap into an enormous pool of ancient bottom water that like the loose end of a fire hose swings to alternate sides of the ocean basins. As CB Dunkerson points out all of this is just redistributed energy, but so are the obliquity and precessional Milankovitch influences. There is a thousand year supply of this cold water to frustrate decadal scale predictions until these oscillations are sucessfully modelled. This is why Hansen (et al 2011)has joined a growing chorous including Kevin C saying hey, if all you get is a 30yr GMAT trend line, I can do that on a spreadsheet.
83596. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 01:48 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       @mcClam6 Great. Please give me the range in which they accurate in miles, please. If you simply paste a link in I am not going to read it. I have been given the run around here enough times to know I won't get the answer I am looking for. @Adelady The link you provided is broken. Anyway, I have to disagree with you. I think local temperature is the least important measurement we need. I want specifics in areas where nobody is living to better deduce whether we are having an impact on the area.
       Response:

       [DB] "Please give me the range in which they accurate in miles, please."

       Pointless, line-in-the-sand dare.

       "If you simply paste a link in I am not going to read it."

       Petulance is the hallmark of a closed mind.

       "I have been given the run around here enough times to know I won't get the answer I am looking for."

       That you refuse to accept information that does not fit your predefined question is telling, and hardly a response worthy of one claiming to possess a "PhD".

       Quite wasting everyone's time: read up on the science and the basics and learn for yourself.  You need solid food, not milk.

       Note to other readers:

       Jay has on numerous occasions questioned the topic of various threads here.  Each time he has been provided with answers with links to published, peer-reviewed supportative and corroborating material.  Answers which apparently are not to his liking.  So be it.

       This Forum is for everyone: Authors, discussion participants and the silent readership majority alike.  The Comments Policy here at Skeptical Science mandates civility and a focus on the science.

       Readers posting genuine questions here always receive genuine, helpful answers.    No one here wants to see anyone "not get it".  But it is incumbent upon the person asking the question to actually perform the homework given and read the material furnished in answer, including the linked material, if they have questions.

83597. actually thoughtful at 01:47 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Garethman - instead of using your psychology to engage in a hand-wringing exercise that perhaps we are hurting the feelings of those who threaten human civilization (it is all about food; it is all about water) - why not do something useful and suggest ways that those who are in denial about climate science - the reality of what we are doing, the undeniable impacts and implications (think about food and water for 7-9 billion souls) can be educated or persuaded to take action. The takeaway point from my posts (and I suspect Sphaerica, adelady and many others) is the writing is on the wall. Our final understanding will be different than our current understanding. But not in any way that matters regarding the question of whether to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions. So instead of spending your time coming up with weasel-worded defenses of climate deniers, how about using your expertise to suggest *effective* ways of moving the conversation to how quickly (and how) to wean ourselves from fossil CO2? Your suggestion that climate deniers are having no impact on public policy directly contradicts recent history in the US - where the ascendant political party has a litmus test that you must deny ALL climate scientist in order to be a candidate for office. Words (and ideas) have meaning and impact. Those impacts will determine our future on this happy little rock.
83598. adelady at 01:29 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Dr Jay "I am completely against filling in missing locations..." You should be relieved when you have a look at the 'There aren’t enough stations' section in Part 2A of this series The analysis shows that the problem is not much of a problem at all. (This is likely a weather vs. climate issue. We really need local temp, humidity, wind conditions for weather reporting and forecasting. We don't need local specifics for a general picture of global climate.)
83599. Eric the Red at 01:24 AM on 7 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       Tom, I agree that the radiative forcing directly due to CO2 is well known. It is the feedback loops that are less well known. Forgive me for short-cutting the equation, I was just trying to combined the two equations for John for simplicity purposes. I believe the uncertainty range you are quoting is one standard deviation, whil I posted a range of two.
83600. dhogaza at 01:23 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       "Uncorrected urban stations will yield higher temperatures than corresponding rural stations, this is well documented" However various slicing and dicing of the data has shown that there's little effect on *trend*, which is all we care about.

Prev  1664  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  Next