Recent Comments

Prev  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  Next

Comments 83601 to 83650:

83601. scaddenp at 19:32 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric, what I am missing so far is any incentive to change away from coal. I assume you would also like China to transform into a libertarian state so it would need to apply there. In a libertarian world, how would that happen? Also on your geoengineering ideas - if we came to that, who would pay for it.
83602. Eric (skeptic) at 19:25 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, China uses coal (including Australian) and their command economy is a special case, not all libertarian principles apply. On the other hand, I don't think they will be simply be "inspired" by CO2 cuts in the West to do theirs all on their own. For one thing their local politicians are often connected with local industry and may be inclined to cheat. But China is currently as interested in nuclear as they are in coal and will probably keep trending in that direction. Probably the best thing we can do is encourage them to open their economy so rather than having the party determine economic and energy policy, the market can and then market incentives will be more applicable. Our own nuclear industry is stymied by the small numbers and large size of nuclear plants making them easy targets for anti-nuclear activists. The best thing to do is scale down and get more local competition for feeding the grid. I would trade the current regulated monopoly status of nuclear providers for a safety-regulated but market-unregulated status. It will be a tricky balance, but Japan can provide a lot of good lessons in how not to prevent and manage crises (they seemed to have various perverse incentives to do the wrong thing early in the crisis). I would try to get as complete as possible private insurance for nuclear accidents and enforce the insurance companies responsibilities to the general public with a large radiation measurement network and a predictable formula for radiation release penalties I think the biggest problem in that regard is irrational fears of low exposures (notwithstanding the rational fears of large exposures) WIth much better measurement and strict but sensible formulas for release responsibility we could greatly lower insurance costs. The insurance companies are smart enough to figure out how to minimize the risk of larger scale releases. They can also be responsible for low level waste. For high level waste disposal I would recommend some sort of noncritical thermal generator where the waste is packaged into a small power plant in some tamper-proof container. If I had the opportunity I would buy one, stick it in the river and use it to generate power for our subdivision.
83603. garethman at 19:24 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       With reference to alarmism there is the head in the sand vs chicken little. Both are damaging. To say lets not be alarmed at damage to the environment and the costs to all species ( including us) is bad news. To also make grandiose predictions which do not materialise is also damaging. It makes people who are trying to make a valid point look like these weird people in the USA who regularly predict the end of the world. Every time the prediction falls flat more people become sceptics. While most people have now wised up to this, there are still a disconcertingly large group of people who make predictions of catastrophe in the near future and shout down anyone who questions the reality of the prophecy.
83604. adelady at 19:18 PM on 6 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       I really, really like the upcoming topics idea. Adds a bit of interest to checking in.
83605. garethman at 19:17 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       In my job of assessing risk in individuals, the only real tactic is to analyse past behaviour as a key to future behaviour. Now this risk assessment does not say something will happen, it gives a likelihood of an increased risk of something happening in a given set of circumstances. This a science. But it is not an exact science, we freely admit that. This is mainly because we dealing with humans who are subject more to chaos theory and any given solid laws like mathematics. Sometimes one of my colleagues will get a different result, not wildly different, but interestingly so. I don’t call them by derogatory titles as a result, the fact that we get differing results often helps develop the theory. Apparently we cannot say the same thing with climate science. We are told it is like mathematics, there is no chaos theory or subjectivity. There cannot be any idea of qualitative study or phenomenology as everything is pigeonholed, carefully counted and quantified. Two and two make four and there is no debate. From a psychological viewpoint I am interested in the fury that arises at any suggestion this may not be the case ( note how many “you must be a denier” posts follow any suggestion of subjectivity), this in itself speaks volumes as it is a denial of the human condition. There is much evidence out there, but all evidence is interpreted, correlated and projected. Models in psychology and climate are not the real world. If two people undertake the same piece of detailed research on a complex subject such as climate and get the same result, either one is lying or work has been copied. To say the same result must be arrived at every time is like saying the UK summer will always be warm and winter cold. Things will tend in that direction, but to make it a black and white issue is a denial of the scientific process indeed. And climate opinion? We would be left with nothing to talk about if such things were banned in the UK!
83606. Lars Bergestrom at 18:38 PM on 6 June 2011
       Ice age predicted in the 70s
       The Ice Age is not over and we are still in an Ice Age climate. Ice Age conditions first appeared on the Earth about 45 million years ago with the appearance of permanent ice sheets in Antarctica. The other feature of this ice age climate was the sharp drop in the concentration of CO2 which dropped from several thousand ppm 50 million years ago to levels as low 150-250 ppm as recently as 3 million years ago. Today we have a CO2 level of 380 ppm and most of Antarctica and Greenland are still covered with ice. The great ice sheets have at their maximum reached as far south as 40 deg latitude. Burying much of North America, Europe and Siberia. How do we know all this? 100,000s of ocean core samples collected since the Second World War when studies of the oceans and atmosphere became a priority for the US military. In addition to establishing our world's paleoclimate it also proved that the continents move on giant rocky plates. The message I take from this is that life on Earth can globalize and cope with a great range of climate and has survived worse climate upsets like those 65 and 250 million years ago. It will be a different place and there is no guarantee man will flourish in such a brave new world. Much of the flora and fauna didn't pass muster 65 and 250 million years ago.
       Response:

       [DB] You may be interested in this, then:

       Carbon Release to Atmosphere 10 Times Faster Than in the Past, Geologists Find

       A blog post exploring this is planned.

83607. Lars Bergestrom at 18:08 PM on 6 June 2011
       Radio interview with Skeptically Speaking
       I heard your interview and enjoyed it very much. The homeopathic believer who called in was a little intense, but they tend to be, I guess. It is good to see you verbalize from the heart. Well-handled and your site is now bookmarked! Have a good one.
       Response:

       [DB] Please do not embed SPAM links.  Comments containing them are normally deleted outright.

83608. scaddenp at 18:06 PM on 6 June 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       "Good luck trying to convince anyone here of this, even though" Correct, it would appear most of the rest us bothered to learn physics.
83609. scaddenp at 18:03 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric, okay, I accept your points on CATO. If we accept that nuclear is okay for electricity generation, what is the libertarian way to make the transition happen? I'm looking for something as effective as my pretty direct way. "You compete against Australia do you not?" :-) On the sports field! (and we will cheer for Oz when they play the bleedin' poms at cricket). Australia is our most important market and we have very close economic ties. However, their thermal coal needs to stay in the ground. They are big enough to cope.
83610. scaddenp at 17:56 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Adelady - thanks. J Bob, I think current climate theory makes an adequate enough of explaining past and present climate within a coherent physics framework. Furthermore, the theory predicts that if we increase GHGs at current rates we will change climate faster than is comfortable. The data you are trying to present does not challenge that in any way. Both physical and statistical models of forcing correlate quite well as adelady has shown and further comment should be on that page.
83611. adelady at 17:55 PM on 6 June 2011
       If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
       Yani, the 70s women's movement was a natural extension of the 60s civil rights movement - and they've both moved along fairly steadily. Things like industrial health and safety are now a great deal better in OECD countries than they were then, although the US seems unable to get all its ducks in a row on some of these matters. The biggest disillusion for us older ones though, is that all these 'wins' have to be defended and 'won' all over again every 15 years or so. If so, I'll do it all again when necessary.
83612. Yani at 15:53 PM on 6 June 2011
       If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
       I hope we manage more than the 60s crowd. We fought against war and nuclear weapons and got more wars and more weapons. We fought for gay rights and didn't even manage to get the CDC appropriate funding until it was 1 minute to midnight. For free love and got Billy Graham and the creationists. What we have on our side now is connectedness. If we can't create change with the help of the Internet that I'll change my position on gun control. ;) And really thank you John Cook for your work on this topic. It's a beacon of light.
83613. DaneelOlivaw at 15:41 PM on 6 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       Speaking for myself, I don't think this is necessary. I read SkS primarily via google reader so I can mark which entries I yet have to read. Maybe it will be more useful for other readers!
83614. Stevo at 15:37 PM on 6 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       For my money the weekly update would be better. It would mean less emails for you to send and I visit the site every working day anyway. BTW A big thankyou to everyone who contributes to the site. As an historian and not a climate scinetist I find this site provides comprehensive information in a format I can easily understand. The contributors have been patient and helpful will any questions I have asked (and some of the debates can be highly amusing and witty at times).
83615. Glenn Tamblyn at 14:57 PM on 6 June 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
       Eric. Yes Teleconnection occurs at the wider weather system scale. But it also occurs on a smaller, sub-1000km scale as well due to the basic fact that similar weather patterns pass over adjacent regions. And this is the point of the scatter diagrams from Hansen & Lebedeff 1987 above. Observationally they show correlations between random pairs of stations out to 1000 km ranges.
83616. Glenn Tamblyn at 14:40 PM on 6 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Eric, Tom, Skywatcher You might like to take a look at my earlier post on satellites here. UAH & RSS began to drift apart around 1987 when NOAA 9 & NOAA 10 failed to have a long enough overlap period to give a good correlation to keep the records in synch. There have been a number of criticisms of the processing methods used by the two teams with, it appears, UAH having to make more corrections.
83617. Glenn Tamblyn at 14:28 PM on 6 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Eric @22 In your example, if the aerosol effect is urban based then it is likely to be removed by UHI processing. And even if a rural station is removed, what is the station density in the neigbourhood of the UHI affected station. If their enough other rural stations remaing, that is still sufficient. Station coverage is the issue, not absolute station count. The theme of this series is that, for various reasons, the methods used to calcuate the temperature record are far more robust than is commonly portrayed. Not that it is perfect which it can't be. The key point therefore is whether any residual errors, biases etc are making any meaningful contribution to distorting the record which is the oft cited claim elsewhere. So while we may need to look for further factors to improve the quality of the record - which the teams who work on this do as their day job - the question is is the record good enough already to be relied upon for general understanding. Sure we might sqeeze the error margins down a bit more but is it 'good enough' already. And sisnce a range of analyses have all reached the same basic result, I suggest it can be. Others have already shown from the data that it is. In this series I am trying to focus on why the record is robust.
83618. adelady at 13:58 PM on 6 June 2011
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       This is a response to a comment on the Skeptic/ Denier thread. J Bob - I don't understand why anyone would use a local/ regional temperature record for such a comparison when there are others with global figures. Such as this graph on this page It also has the great advantage of displaying aerosols (and other forcings) as well as GHGs. Global. Comprehensive. Much better.
       Response:

       [DB] Thank you for setting a great example!

83619. Ron Crouch at 13:56 PM on 6 June 2011
       Poleward motion of storm tracks
       @7 Daneel No high clouds are more efficient at trapping heat. See here Cirrus clouds efficiently absorb outgoing infrared radiation beneath them (this is otherwise known as the greenhouse effect), while only marginally reflecting the incoming sunlight.
83620. adelady at 13:52 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J Bob - I don't understand why anyone would use a local/ regional temperature record for such a comparison when there are others with global figures. Such as this graph on this page. It also has the great advantage of displaying aerosols as well as GHGs. Global. Comprehensive. Much better.
83621. J. Bob at 13:39 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Above post (#391) seemed to miss the graph link, so here it is in text form: http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/co2_temp_1650-2010-NZ4UP.gif
83622. J. Bob at 13:33 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Scaddenp @ 269, I’ll agree, that CO2 is not the only “driver” of climate, and I don’t recal saying it was the only one. But from the discussion above and your ref. to Paul Barton’s data, it would appear the CO2 appears to be the primary GHG. As also noted by the CO2 discussions at this site. The real question is just what is the most significant contributor, and is that contributor, humans. So if you say “why correlation (CO2) weakens when other factors are important (eg aerosols, solar).” you should add particulates. I think comment weakens your case, that man is the primary contributor to global warming. You would then be moving (inching) to the “skeptic” camp. But in order to show why I hold “skeptic” beliefs, based on science, the following graph, shows long term temperature (150+ years) sets vs. CO2 concentrations. Or a better graph: (Hope I’m reading the posting directions right) CO2 concentrations are from NOAA & Lawdome sites. Temperature anomaly data is the HadCRUT-NH data set, and long term western & central European sites (Ave14), which started recording prior to 1800. These include the CEL, Debilt and NASA/Rimfost stations. The most apparent discrepancies between the temperature & CO@ data is the lack of up & down variability of the CO2 plot(s), as compared to temperature swings, and these are in 100 years ranges. In these cases, the CO2 changes are almost non-existent. While there are some “lags” in responses to temperature and CO2, it is hard to believe that after some 25 years, one would see no correlation. So in my case, I see no strong relationship to CO2 and global temperatures, and I would start looking for another “driver”.
       Response:

       [DB] Fixed images.

       Your comment is more appropriate to the CO2 is not the only driver of climate and/or the There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature threads.  If you wish to further discuss this, please take it to the most appropriate thread.  Thanks!

       BTW, Image posting tips can be found here.

83623. actually thoughtful at 13:31 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Human CO2; coal.
83624. actually thoughtful at 13:30 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro - if you are right that we won't accomplish CO2 mitigation, that is an indictment of the human race, not of Sphaerica - one of the ones fighting to accomplish the necessary reduction in CO2 to save the human race (and many, many species with no voice) from unnecessary pain. That pain will be large. You don't have to know how many stitches you will have to know that open heart surgery will be painful. The same is true of AGW. We know enough to know we need to repent (which means change our ways!)
83625. apiratelooksat50 at 13:26 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       at @ 385 and 386 The answer is: No, I have not. We are partially responsible for climate change. I still agree with that. Can you succinctly tell me what is causing the problem, and what the mitigation should be?
83626. apiratelooksat50 at 13:21 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       DB at 383 Why is Gore OT? I may have missed something somewhere.
       Response:

       [DB] With respect, this thread is about a discussion of John's article on being a genuine skeptic or a denier within the field of climate science. 

       It is not a discussion about Nazism, eco-fascism, new world orders, X-file conspiracies, abortion, the 2nd Law, God and the 10 Commandments, faked Apollo moon landings, LGM & BEM's, Area 51, the Asian Dawn movement, and all things Al Gore.  All are equally devisive and polarizing in their own way.  And all equally off-topic on this thread.

       Thank you for your understanding.

83627. actually thoughtful at 13:16 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       A pirate - have you refined your view of item 6 you posted earlier in this thread?
83628. actually thoughtful at 13:10 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric the Red and a pirate - the work of this thread was to come up with a statement that quickly separates the wheat from the chaff. Those of us who apply logic and reason (as opposed to an emotional "gee the truth is in the middle") get trapped by honestly acknowledging there are some open issues. We quickly add that the preponderance of evidence tell us to act. But deniers seize on the uncertainty and stop listening. We now have a statement, that if you agree with, it is clear you understand the issue, and if you disagree, you are a denier. No room for naval gazing gee what about whatever. There is a 100+ year body of evidence, and I don't know a subject that has been studied more thoroughly. **The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES and active mitigation response.** I personally am very comfortable drawing a line in the sand at this point. Are you? If not, be intellectually honest and admit you are a denier. And own that your lack of action is pushing humanity towards a crisis we (as a civilization) may not recover from.
83629. RW1 at 13:08 PM on 6 June 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Jigoro Kano (RE: 1022), The diagram shows 161 W/m^2 shortwave incident on the surface, while the texts say 240 W/m^2. Using radiavite transfers equations, and starting text value of 240 W/m^2 solar input how you get to 390 W/m^2?" Good luck trying to convince anyone here of this, even though - as you say, the text of paper on page 6 clearly says the "Net Down" radiation equals the full post albedo (or at least to within 1 W/m^2). I've tried and have given up. Apparently, Tom Curtis and everyone here thinks they can create an additional 121 W/m^2 out thin air to justify that diagram (517 - 396 = 121) and that the surface can be receiving a net flux of 493 W/m^2 when it's only emitting 396 W/m^2. No one seems to be able to deduce that the incoming 78 W/m^2 from the Sun designated as "absorbed by the atmosphere" must get to the surface one way or another because the atmosphere cannot create any energy of its own and the Sun is the only source of energy in the system. Now, it doesn't all have to get there in the form of downward emitted LW radiation - some of it could get to the surface kinetically in the form of latent heat via precipitation, for example, but this just offsets energy that what would otherwise be radiated to the surface.
83630. adelady at 12:34 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       apla50 "Alarmists do as much damage to the public's perception of what may be a real problem as denialists." I both disagree and agree with this one. Firstly, there is a huge distinction between being 'alarmist' and talking about something that is alarming. Secondly, the most alarmist material I read tends to come from people who seem to think that life-as-we-know-it will end if we get our power from anything other than burning stuff we've dug up. In fact, I'd really like to see some serious work from this group. Accusing people of being 'watermelon' politically (or worse) does not enhance whatever valid reasoning such people have for warning us of what they see as alarming in the economic or political issues surrounding climate change.
83631. sailrick at 12:10 PM on 6 June 2011
       Humidity is falling
       There is a great article on water vapor trends at Science of Doom, today. Water Vapor Trends – Part Two http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/05/water-vapor-trends-part-two/
83632. apiratelooksat50 at 11:56 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Let's forget about the term denier for a moment, though historically it has been used to create a distasteful, immoral view of skeptics. And, it has most certainly in print been used in connection with Holocaust denial. Skeptics did not make that one up. It doesn't really ruffle my feathers coming from the likes of people who throw the term around as if it is a trump card in an infantile attempt to degrade skeptics. On the other hand, let's take the word alarmist. Alarmism is another extreme position which I would say is the opposite of denialism. Alarmists do as much damage to the public's perception of what may be a real problem as denialists. The exaggeration and distortion of real science in effect desensitizes the real public to what is really going on. Can any of you disagree with this statement: ( -Snip- ) is an alarmist.
       Response:

       [DB] To all:  Gore is off-topic on this thread.

83633. Bob Lacatena at 11:50 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       380, Eric the Red, There is a world of difference between gray areas in science (and yes, obviously science should progress, not stop... you're constructing strawmen) and gray areas that are merely used as excuses to delay, confuse and sew doubt. The merest suggestion that something else might affect climate? Another strawman. Obviously the science shows that many, many things affect climate. No one has ever said this (and that you say it is, I think, strong evidence that you are a denier -- it's another ridiculous denial tactic, to exaggerate the actual position of the science into a silly caricature). It has become a religion? Another strawman. Devalue the science, once again, by making it seem like understanding and acceptance of the science, or recognizing its import, is "a religion" or "a faith" or "a belief." As far as being appalled that there are those who take this research and twist it to accommodate their own beliefs... hooray! I finally got through to you. So you are ready to express this disapproval at any and every person who twists the science to accommodate their beliefs. Now do it. But the difference between the X-files and climate science are two. First, the X-files dealt with wild fantasy and the impossible. Second, in the X-files they were always in the dark, and very, very far from the truth. That is not the case with climate science today. Comparing the two is ridiculous.
83634. John Hartz at 11:48 AM on 6 June 2011
       Poleward motion of storm tracks
       @adelady #6 Kudos for bringing some wry humor to this comment thread.
83635. Jigoro Kano at 11:38 AM on 6 June 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis @ 1019 No Tom, I an not comparing circuit watts to atmospheric temperature, or the increase thereof. Rather I'm comparing input watts to a circuit to input watts to the Earths surface. But to your circuit. If radiation is analogues to voltage not power, does that make GHG the analogues capacitors? You seem to contradict your own analogy at 2) when referencing input/output watts. The diagram is a itself is perplexing. The title alone Global Energy Flows W/m^2 is wrong. Shouldn't it be titled Power Distribution or Flux Allotment or something more accurate. The diagram shows 161 W/m^2 shortwave incident on the surface, while the texts say 240 W/m^2. Using radiavite transfers equations, and starting text value of 240 W/m^2 solar input how you get to 390 W/m^2?
       Response:

       [DB] Sorry, L.J., we've all been down this road before.

83636. adelady at 11:23 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric the Red "After all, much of the climate research has wide ranges due to large uncertainties or unknowns which would render a black and white scenario unacceptable to us scientists." This is a forest versus trees argument. (And it's not black or white, it's a kaleidoscope.) When we look at a forest, there are lots of questions. We know that the mix of trees, creepers, undergrowth, birds, bugs, foraging animals, reptiles, moisture, soils, fungi are all important to the structure and health of the forest. How many tonnes of berries will the undergrowth produce this year? How many of the saplings on the western edge in 1991 have grown to full size? How many frogs in the NE pond? How many birdsnests are in the uppermost canopy? The answers will vary. Don't know, pretty good estimates, exact numbers, research not yet complete, very rough estimates, no money/ equipment for the research required, no idea, paper in course of publication - and all the other possibilities. Frogs, berries, birds, trees, these questions are important. But the answers don't really matter for the central issue. It's a forest. Same for climate change. All the uncertainties are in the details, not the basic physics which tell us the central answer.
83637. Eric the Red at 10:52 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Garethman, Your posts are a welcome relief to the hard-line position of some on this thread. I have suggested that people should be open to others opinions and beliefs, but have been shot down and called a denier just like you have. I believe that science should progress forward, not stop at someone's preconceived ideas. I also believe that the issue is not black and white as Sphaerica vehemently maintains, but rather gray. Afterall, much of the climate research has wide ranges due to large uncertainties or unknowns which would render a black and white scenario unacceptable to us scientists. There are those who are completely intolerant to the merest suggesting that there may be something else affecting climate besides CO2. TO them, it has become a religion. As opposed to your asdmission, I am a scientist, and well-researched in climate science. I am appalled that there are those who take this research and twist it to accommodate their own beliefs. A quote from the X-files: "The truth is out there."
83638. John Nicol at 10:47 AM on 6 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       I thought I had included a comment apologising to Dana and Tom Curtis for upsetting them with my comments, but don't see it now. Briefly this time: Sorry, I will be careful as to what threads I post to. Best wishes to you both, John
83639. Bob Lacatena at 10:35 AM on 6 June 2011
       An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
       122, RW1, You are grossly misrepresenting the paper, and drawing your own conclusions based on a childishly limited approach to the system in question. I strongly suggest that if anyone thinks what you are saying may be true, they download and read the paper themselves. It's quite accessible and easy to read. I also suggest that they study a lot more about humidity, water vapor, clouds and all other background information required to even begin to understand the subject. Doing as RW1 is doing, and using "common sense" and everyman's views of humidity, clouds, and the system as a whole, is a trap for the unwary to fall into.
83640. John Nicol at 10:28 AM on 6 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       I am interested in clarifying the definition of climate sensitivity. CBDunkerson is talking in terms of percentages which I take to mean the fraction of Global Warming attributable to a particular GHG. As I had understood things previously, the senstivity is defined in trems of a constant k related to the relative inrease in CO2 or H2o or whatever as individual gases. For CO2 I believe k = 5.35 and appearts in te equation for an effective temperature increase od Delts_T = k ln(C/Co) where Co is the initial concentration in the atmosphere at time T and Cis the final at time T+Delta_T. Could someone pleae explain this for me.
       Response:

       [DB] I think you'll find what you are looking for here:

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html

       Many other threads touch upon climate sensitivity as well.  Using the Search function finds this list.

83641. DaneelOlivaw at 10:03 AM on 6 June 2011
       An Interactive History of Climate Science
       Sorry for the double post. From the paper istelf: "Evaluations of global surface temperature histories, after accounting for urban warming biases and other influences, indicate that the globe has warmed approximately 0.67°C since 1900.(...)Furthermore, based upon scenarios of future increases in greenhouse gas emissions, climate models estimate a globally averaged temperature rise of 1.4–5.8°C between now and the year 210" So even if it's irrelevat to the assessment of the reality of AGW, it implicitly accepts the consensus opinion. (link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241712/pdf/ehp0111-001712.pdf)
83642. DaneelOlivaw at 10:00 AM on 6 June 2011
       An Interactive History of Climate Science
       Changing Heat-Related Mortality in the United States (2003-11-01) is listed as skeptic. I think it's just irrelevant. From the abstract: "This systematic desensitization of the metropolitan populace to high heat and humidity over time can be attributed to a suite of technologic, infrastructural, and biophysical adaptations, including increased availability of air conditioning" So it's saying that people buy AC units. I don't see why would this be relevant to global warming.
83643. DaneelOlivaw at 09:45 AM on 6 June 2011
       Poleward motion of storm tracks
       Wait, an increase in hight altitude clouds would't mean a negative feedback since they reflect more sunlight into space?
83644. Eric (skeptic) at 09:39 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp (376) "1/ Only picks loser (coal Australia)" You compete against Australia do you not?
83645. Eric (skeptic) at 09:36 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, I don't mind exploring the hypothetical if there is some realism about electricity (e.g. nuclear or some effective substitute), realistic goals (50% in 40 years) and a tip-of-the-hat to the market. I see now that Koch helped found CATO. I suppose the fact that I didn't know that might make his libertarian think tank scheme somewhat suspect to some, but not to me. CATO has consistency and principles that I believe are essential to human progress and individual liberty. Education in those principles is sorely lacking IMO. Clean air and safety have added considerable cost and inefficiency to automobiles with a modest social benefit compared to factors like cracking down on drunk driving, urbanization and interstate highways, teen driver restrictions, etc.. Many people compensate for safety systems by driving less safely although that is hard to quantify. The clean air stuff is expensive and some articles http://www.sciencemag.org/content/252/5005/522.short go one way while later articles say benefits outweigh costs. But in my rural location, a hundred new cars with the expensive mitigation can be undone by a farm-use truck or two. If I could get away with it, I would have a farm-use truck to get to the park and ride. The clouds from a ship was just an idea which I'm sure had some problems. But a ten second search brought me to this http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v4/n7/abs/nphoton.2010.115.html "We demonstrate that self-guided ionized filaments generated by ultrashort laser pulses are also able to induce water-cloud condensation in the free, sub-saturated atmosphere."
83646. RW1 at 09:28 AM on 6 June 2011
       An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
       Dessler is primarily just looking at TOA net fluxes and temperatures – he’s made little (if any) attempt to carefully discern cause and effect or come up with any physical mechanisms or reasons behind his interpretation of the data. He admits in the paper at the beginning that the net effect of clouds at the current operating point in the climate is to cool by about 20 W/m^2, yet doesn’t seem to ascribe any significance to this or express any curiosity about it at all. Furthermore, I notice that the SW component is also positive, which would seem to be consistent with decreasing clouds causing the warming rather than warming causing decreasing clouds. Even if the claim is warming causes decreasing clouds for positive feedback, how is this consistent with increasing water vapor from warming? Does increasing water vapor cause decreasing clouds? That doesn’t make any sense since water vapor concentration drives cloud formation. It seems to me that unless Dessler can explain all of this and corroborate it with all the other data and system behavior, he really doesn't have a case.
83647. RW1 at 09:17 AM on 6 June 2011
       An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
       I've confirmed with Dessler. It's the net flux.
83648. adelady at 08:32 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Garethman "Interestingly you elegantly re-enforce my message by condemning me for suggesting that everyone should have the right of opinion." Apparently you're not a schoolteacher. This is the chronic complaint of fourteen-year-olds - about maths problems. And the answer is always No! Why? There are no "opinions" or "ideas" open to discussion or interpretation in year 9 mathematics. There are only facts, measurements, rules, procedures. And teachers know why such students argue. It's a cover or a diversion. From unwillingness to work, fear of failure, braggadocio in front of sniggering 14 year old friends, pure cussedness, avoidance of homework, failure to bring necessary equipment... The list is not endless, it just seems like it. People are entitled to hold opinions - but only about matters of opinion. When it comes to facts, they're entitled to double- and triple-check facts. What no-one is entitled to do is to say 'That's just your opinion' when opinion doesn't come into it. Just like year 9 homework.
83649. scaddenp at 08:32 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       On the issue of coal-powered consumer imports (which I am guessing dwarf autos as a problem). My solution is twofold. 1/ ban any new coal generation that doesnt deal with emissions. (This means coal generation phases out over 30-50 years as stations age. Coal for steel is uneffected) 2/ Tariff against any country that doesnt implement same ban and tariff. Sliding scale of stay at 0.5% and ramp up at say 0.25% per year. Advantages: 1/ Only picks loser (coal) - leaves it market to find solutions any way it can. 2/ Effective! 3/ Low admin cost. Whether to tariff or not is simply about country of origin. 4/ Smuggling annoying but unable to affect effectiveness 5/ Time to adjust.
83650. scaddenp at 08:12 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric(sk), I should add that I am really appreciating your willingness to engage in this conversation (very rare) as well as your thoughtful responses which are very stimulating (and still being digested). I look forward to your thoughts replacing coal generation. Given your posting history, I was somewhat surprised to find you supporting a Koch outfit like CATO but I am finding that I am understanding your viewpoint better.

Prev  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  Next