Recent Comments

Prev  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  Next

Comments 84201 to 84250:

84201. owl905 at 15:42 PM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Deniers and skeptics is way too ivory tower ... or ivory soap. They're pro-pollutionists. (Hint: try the phrase out, and count to ten, then count the number of 'CO2 isn't pollution' responses). The mindset was bottom-lined on alt.globalwarming almost 15 years ago: "The notion that Man can have any effect on the climate is hubris." They truly believe that there are petty consequences to inaction; versus higher taxes/wrecked economies/3rd transfer plots/world government conspiracies ... reducing the pollution. The basic issue at street level, unfortunately, is intelligence. Some of the banal comments here illustrate that: restart and redefine the terms; invent a fictitious expectation and then claim valid skepticism when it isn't found; warn people that discussing those terms could polarize the discussion; develop a CO2-thermostat that will turn down CO2 emissions, and atmospheric levels will fall; somehow make the Greenhouse Effect 'go away' or stop working. It's turned into a Clown Convention for the Anti-Science Society. It's the reason crypto-science like WUWT out-vote realclimate as best science blog.. Skeptical Science does a great job of getting the science out to the non-science world. Unfortunately, it comes up short of being a decent bug-lamp.
84202. Tim Curtin at 15:39 PM on 31 May 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
       Tom: so why does GISS have 2 different figures for Canberra, depending on the 250 or 1200 km radius? If Wagga is good enough for one (and I have been to the met.station there)why is it not good enough for the other? Your data confirm that Wagga is more convenient than Canberra. Canberra does have a number of met.sites. I prefer real data to the confections of Gistemp.
84203. scaddenp at 14:56 PM on 31 May 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Just to add to comments on CO2 measurement, you might like to look at this on measurement of CO2 in general and problems with the old chemical measurement. Further Keeling, responded to Beck's stuff with this comment. "It should be added that Beck's analysis also runs afoul of a basic accounting problem. Beck's 11-year averages show large swings, including an increase from 310 to 420 ppm between 1920 and 1945 (Beck's Figure 11). To drive an increase of this magnitude globally requires the release of 233 billion metric tons of C to the atmosphere. The amount is equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally. Other CO2 swings noted by Beck require similarly large releases or uptakes. To make a credible case, Beck would have needed to offer evidence for losses or gains of carbon of this magnitude from somewhere. He offered none. " Are you sure that measurements you refer to dont run foul of same issue? (mass balance).
84204. Albatross at 14:49 PM on 31 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Moderators, Please snip all text written by on this thread me that has violated the house rules. I do not want any claims of favoritism being made, nor do I expect any favoritism. The body of science stands on its own anyways. The cherry-picking of statistically meaningless and insignificant windows continues @102..... Please also delete this message if you wish.
       Response:

       [DB] The issues in play have been discussed and dealt with.

84205. scaddenp at 14:43 PM on 31 May 2011
       Climate's changed before
       1/ I agree TOA energy imbalance includes all sources of energy, but there is no way to infer from OLR that there natural warming going on. In contrast, the spectral signature of OLR matches the expected spectra for OLR. An increase in OLR W/m2 just tells you planet is warming. By itself this tells you nothing. Energy balance is difference with energy in and that is what we expect. This is a very confusing argument. 2/ Look at the whole list of proxies available in WG1 report, with and without tree proxies. The different published proxies vary in detail but support a consistent picture. We are getting hotter. 3/ Please provide a reference to these. The usual source of this argument is EG Beck's collection of old references. Got a better reference. All proxies have problem, ice data just happen to be among the best. What's your reference for problems with ice bubble data that you think allows for a different interpretation?
84206. Tom Curtis at 14:36 PM on 31 May 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
       Tim Curtin @23, the highest High Quality network station to Canberra is Wagga Wagga. If GISS just used the nearest station, that is the temperature record they would use. As it happens, GISS shows a 1910 to 2010 trend of between 0.2 and 0.5 degrees C per century in South Eastern NSW (including Wagga and Canberra). In contrast, BOM shows a 0.9 degree warming trend over the same period at Wagga Wagga. I checked the Canberra location only because you brought it into discussion. Clearly your concerns about GISS artificially inflating its temperature trends are unwarranted, a fact we already knew from the similarity between GISS trends and other major surface temperature indices.
84207. Camburn at 14:36 PM on 31 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Albatross: When I am discussing an issue I prefer not to ruffle feathers, so I shall not post to this thread in the future. I have pointed out that sea level rise has slowed. Why does that upset you so much? I have pointed out that according to ARGO data, 0-700M OHC is static since 2003. When you go to woodfortrees.org and plot hadcrut ocean anomlies from 2005 thru 2011, the trend is also flat. These are observations that are recent. To me they indicate a change in trend as three very large metrics concerning heat show a flat trajectory. You also seem to have a problem with Houston and Dean's paper. Tell me what the problem is with it please. It is actually a quit wide ranging paper, talks, with references, about the current problems in determining the rate of SLR. I wish you well. The counter arguement, if you think it is an arguement, is not weak, as it is supported by empirical data and the link you so graciously provided that I quoted, in ref to the data that is currently present.
       Response:

       [DB] "I have pointed out that sea level rise has slowed.  Why does that upset you so much?
       
       I have pointed out that according to ARGO data, 0-700M OHC is static since 2003.
       
       When you go to woodfortrees.org and plot hadcrut ocean anomlies from 2005 thru 2011, the trend is also flat."

       Several problems here, chief of which is the focus on statistically insignificant timescales (which is also called cherry-picking).  This issue has been pointed out to you in the past.  For a recent discussion of the issues with that practice, see here and here.  Also, 0-700m is not the whole ocean.  Various other studies show heat being transported deeper than that.

       Sea Level Rise:

       

       OHC:

       

       "You also seem to have a problem with Houston and Dean's paper."

       Many others do as well.  Commentary by Church and White begins here.  Longer analysis found here (which you were given previously).

84208. Ari Jokimäki at 14:35 PM on 31 May 2011
       An Interactive History of Climate Science
       Perhaps the refuted paper should travel to "refuted" bin after the year the refutation has been published?
84209. Albatross at 14:19 PM on 31 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Ken @99, So you too endorse quote mining, cherry-picking and misrepresenting scientists' findings and position on certain issues then? As I and others have demonstrated that is what a certain poster has been doing. And now you seem to be endorsing that behavior... Tamino perfectly described what Camburn, and now you it seems, are up to. Camburn states that according to ARGO data global SSTs are "presently static". Presently? Framing the argument that way is disingenuous, we all know that cherry-picking short-term, statistically insignificant windows is meaningless. You seem to be claiming that to do so is a valid and reasonable point? Camburn ignoring the data presented to him here by me and others is reasonable? Him uncritically accepting Houston and Dean's troubled paper is reasonable? You guys are desperately trying to advance a very weak counter argument here, and it is showing. Now good night.
84210. Albatross at 14:10 PM on 31 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Daniel, To add to your Figure above @98. Long-term SST, statistically significant trends are very much UP. [Source]
       Response:

       [DB] Thank you.

84211. Ken Lambert at 14:09 PM on 31 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       DB at #98 DB is confusing us at #98. viz: "ARGO says otherwise' - then reproducing Fig 1 of Levitus 2009. Only the 2003 and later portions of the chart are from ARGO. Reason: Full deployment did not start until the 2001-03 period. The step jump in this chart in that 2001-03 period has been discussed elsewhere - and is more likely an artifact of the splicing of Argo to pre-2001 XBT and other methods. Camburn has made several valid and reasonable points to be called 'recalcitrant, deluded, disingenuous' by Albatros. Why is Albatros immune from moderation?
       Response:

       [DB] "DB is confusing us at #98."

       "Us"?

       "viz: "ARGO says otherwise' - then reproducing Fig 1 of Levitus 2009."

       If you had clicked on the image itself or had followed the source link you could have easily noted that the graphic in question is hosted by the ARGO website and is used by them to display the very same information as related here.

       "Camburn has made several valid and reasonable points"

       Which fail to stand up to scientific rigor and scrutiny.

84212. PhillyWilly at 14:04 PM on 31 May 2011
       Climate's changed before
       1 Yes Partially correct..Its indeed part of the TOA imbalance, but the TOA imbalance includes more than just the CO2 spectrum. NOAA/CPC both show increasing avg outgoing LW radiation...indicating that there is natural warming going on as well: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.interp_OLR.html Note the Increase is by several W/m^2, in fact it has increased by about 3W/m^2 since 2002, and since 1980 there has been an overall increase. That is not only indicative of nautral warming from the planet (not caused by CO2), but also a negative feedback since 3W/m^2 is more than the 1.6W/m^2 cited by the IPCC since 1790, which should supposedly due to positive feebacks have amplified to the 0.8C we've increase we've seen, since per Doubling the increase in temps is progged around 1.2C. The changes in CO2 energy increase has been significantly less than the obsevred OLR change in the time we've measured, and we've likely mis-represented the feedbacks to CO2 warming. 2) No they don't actually, although it depends on the tree-rings used. Ice core proxies show the polar temperature to have been warmer by 2C at time in the past...so if Tree ring proxies show the same thing...why are the similarities invivible??? 3) What makes you think these CO2 measurements were taken only in "polluted cities"? And no not referring to "beck", but more of the measurements in geenral. Do you know what happens to data trapped in Ice Cores over time? take a guess :-)
84213. trunkmonkey at 14:02 PM on 31 May 2011
       CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
       Dikran Marsupial @3. I did read the link you provided and did some further research. It was a real eye opener to understand how the greenhouse effect works in a gas. It's not like your car or a greenhouse. That is why I went so far as to suggest a possible mechanism for CO2 control knob function as a lid in the stratosphere. (I've often wondered why thunder clouds anvil off so sharply when they hit the bottom of the stratosphere. Sure, they are on a moist adiabadic path and the stratosphere is very dry, but there is no dry adiabadic inversion there) How do you know the oceans are a carbon sink and not a source? Because they are acidifying? What if the acidification came from subsurface CO2 via metnane?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Had you read the RC article, you would not have written "In the parts of the absorbtion spectra where CO2 and water vapor overlap water vapor seems to dominate the absorbtion and reduce the effect of CO2." as the article explicitly says that this is not the case (I even gave the relevant quote in my reply on the other thread, and put it in bold so you must have seen it). As for knowledge regarding the oceans being a carbon sink, see the work of Corinne Le Quere (for example). As to carbon being the "control knob", it is actually more like a thermostat (it only becomes a control knob if the natural feedback mechanisms are over-ridden by e.g. fossil fuel emissions), see the book by David Archer reviewed here.
84214. Composer99 at 13:55 PM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       I feel somewhat vindicated in the comment I left on the ABC Drum site noting that there was a dearth of reference to supporting evidence on the part of the commenters who took offence to being characterized as deniers, as that behaviour appears to have remained characteristic (with very rare exceptions) on the comment thread.
84215. actually thoughtful at 13:45 PM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J Bob: "P.S. One of the things about engineering, is that it’s very clear what happens if one doesn’t consider all the factors. It’s called job lose & litigation." Information you could have found by searching this very site - not even requiring a Google search Good thing you didn't base your job on your post above - you would be unemployed!
84216. Camburn at 13:22 PM on 31 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Albatross: My statement that sea level rise has slowed, which it has, was considered unreliable. I provided, from your link, what others have observed. There is nothing disingenuous about that. What has changed is that according to AGRO data, sea surface temps are presently static. This goes hand in hand with the reduction in the part of sea level rise caused by OHC. I use charts all the time in my business. One of the successful ways to use a chart it to recognize a change in a trend. We are now, for whatever reason, seeing a change in trend. Will it continue for 10 years? 20 years? I don't know, but the preponderance of current temperature evidence indicates that it may. The last sentence is an opinion....."Ocean heat uptake will surely resume, so acceleration of sea level rise in the next few years may occur." I was stateing known facts, not opinions. That is why I did not include it in my quote. The opinion may bear fruit, it may not bear fruit. I am not deluding myself in the least. The evidence is quit clear.
       Response:

       [DB] "What has changed is that according to AGRO data, sea surface temps are presently static.  This goes hand in hand with the reduction in the part of sea level rise caused by OHC."

       ARGO says otherwise:

       

       [Source]

       As for SST's, they change all the time with the sun rising and setting, with the seasons, and with those oscillations squeptics are so enamored with, like EN/SO:

       

       [Source; above graphic updates daily]

       The evidence is indeed quite clear.

84217. J. Bob at 13:19 PM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       In Cook’s item about skeptics, a note is made about increased sea levels. In looking at the tidal sea level data from the Gulf & Atlantic, it would appear that while there is a increase in sea levels, the rate has been pretty much constant. There have been some ups & downs along the way, from the late 1800’s (NY). From the gulf area (early 1900’s), again it’s been pretty much a constant change, without the acceleration factor one would expect if CO2 increases were a major factor. http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/n_amer_s_e_composite_4-har7A.jpg Looking at more long term temperature data, a similar pattern seems to be present. The following graphs show long term temperature readings from central & western European stations. The plots are averages of the station anomalies (1970-2000 base ref.), and are “smoothed” using a Fourier 50 yr. filter. 1 station, starting record prior to 1700 (CEL) http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave1_2010_ff_50yr-lr7es.jpg 4 stations, starting records prior to 1750 (CEL, Debilt, Berlin, Upsalla) http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave4_2010_ff_50yr-j0g0I.jpg 14 stations, starting records prior to 1800 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave14_2010_ff_50yr-4mWjL.jpg Looking at the smoothed & raw data, there is a long term upward trend, along with some ups & downs. However, again I don’t see the correlation, such as an sustained acceleration upward that would correlate to a increase CO2. Considering the complexity of thermo-fluid dynamics, and the limited knowledge of how this planet operates, it might be a little premature to lay any significant increase in global temperature to human activity. Hence you might call me a skeptic. P.S. One of the things about engineering, is that it’s very clear what happens if one doesn’t consider all the factors. It’s called job lose & litigation.
84218. scaddenp at 13:17 PM on 31 May 2011
       Climate's changed before
       1/ - but those natural factors are not is causing the current imbalance. The imbalance is from increasing GHG. 2/ - proxy reconstructions without tree rings deliver the same picture (esp ice core). 3/ - low accuracy measurements in polluted cities are exceedingly poor proxies for real atmospheric CO2. If you are referring to Beck's nonsense, then please see the link in this for some real analysis.
84219. adelady at 13:13 PM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Harry@47 "...if we don't identify the sources, then how do we address them?" In the end, if the planet is warming or cooling on a trajectory that we see as dangerous to civilisation, identifying the sources is secondary to identifying the things that are within our capacity to control. If the planet were warming or cooling for any reason (say TSI increasing or decreasing), CO2 would still be the "biggest control knob" available to use. Why? Because we _can_ control the concentration by our activities. We can artificially speed up geological processes by burning a lot, or a lot less, carbon rich fossils. We can pulverise carbon absorbing rocks or protect them from weathering. We can sequester or release carbon by promoting release in the form of methane by creating fetid swamps, or hold it back by processes like biochar. Same for forests, burn them or cut them down to release soil carbon by exposure and consequent oxidation or replace/ extend them to claim carbon dioxide back from the lower atmosphere. The other item we can influence to some extent is albedo. Some of that is the same as some of the carbon processes, more or less land clearing, more or less forestry. As for cities, we can paint all roofs and roads black (or white) to affect local climate, maybe not so much effect on global temperature though. Of course, all this overlooks the issue of ocean acidification. Even without the link to temperature, keeping our fisheries healthy would be a good enough reason to extract CO2 from the atmosphere-ocean system.
84220. Albatross at 13:00 PM on 31 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Camburn, I am done engaging you. You are being disingenuous, and your recalcitrance is astounding. First cherry picking, then quote mining to misrepresent Church and White, and now more quote mining to misrepresent Hansen's group-- they are of the opinion that GMSL increase has slowed somewhat the last few years. Tamino has shown otherwise, but regardless Hansen and Sato are wisely most definitely are not using noise in the data record as a reason to claim that we are not facing a whole lot of trouble down the road if we continue along those path. So you have misrepresented Hansen's position. How about giving the full context of the text from Sato and Hansen's page (unlike your cherry-picked sentence): The reason seems to be that ocean heat storage decreased in the past five years reducing thermal expansion. Reduced heat storage may be related in part to solar minimum radiation. Ocean heat uptake will surely resume, so acceleration of sea level rise in the next few years may occur." That is the peril of you intentionally misleading people, your credibility tanks really fast. The following statement made by the Australian Climate Commission is accurate: "Sea-level has risen at a higher rate over the past two decades, consistent with ocean warming and an increasing contribution from the large polar ice sheets." Feel free to delude yourself, but it is highly irresponsible (and shameful) of you to try and mislead others on this forum. The quoted text by Tamio at #87 perfectly fits what you are trying to. Sadly you do not realize that your posts are only proving him right, again.
84221. Ken Lambert at 12:56 PM on 31 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       DB at #58 DB is confusing me at #58. He seems to suggest that the UCAR satellite plot (top figure) needs further 'correction' and then includes Fig 7 from Church & White 2011 which is based on 'Coastal and Island Sea Level Data'. The latter shows an uptick in the 2000-2011 period. DB - please explaim which is the 'global' sea level measurement? I would have thought that the satellite series from UCAR meauring the surface of the oceans from orbit would be the best theoretical method. Practical degradation problems are encountered in all methods. Unless the instrument is degrading year-year in an uncorrectable way, satellites are supposed to have high precision in year-year measurement for the SAME instrument, with calibration difficulties between different instruments. Are you suggesting that the UCAR chart is not the best measure of global SLR?
84222. Camburn at 12:34 PM on 31 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Tom: Please note the table in the link provided. Average salinity for sea water is 35g/kg You will note that sea water expands from 0-5C. http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_9.html
84223. actually thoughtful at 12:26 PM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       A pirate - I actually formulated my statement with people like you in mind (and you in particular). Your views on climate change are so muddled you often get lost in even trying to express what your issue with the science is. Those of us who base our opinions strictly on the science can see the problem - you would like to pick and choose your scientific results. So I crafted a statement that lets folks like yourself see exactly where you stand: The body of evidence in climate science REQUIRES an active mitigation response. We know the body of evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW. We know we are the "A" in AGW - so the conclusion follows directly from the science. My statement, while encapsulating a judgement, is also a statement of fact. (Fact in the logical sense:a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) I will amend the statement to more completely express the issue: This situation - the body of evidence in climate science and the desire to continue living in a world hospitable to human civilization and a population greater than 6 billion - REQUIRES an active mitigation response. It effectively removes your (and like minded folks) ability to wiggle around and say "what about this tiny little corner of dispute?" Or "what about the last 4 months" or "what about any other minuscule slice?" (aka a cherry pick) you want to do. It forces you to evaluate the totality of the evidence, and not live in the muddled middle you have demonstrated over the last few months. In reality there is no muddled middle. Only people trying to dance away from the inevitable conclusion of climate science. So I am painting in black and white. The fact that it makes you uncomfortable confirms I have hit near the bullseye. Thank you for that. Now, you would like to portray me as an extremist. I will answer the question you have failed to answer. I asked you what evidence would convince you that AGW is real, happening now, etc. You couldn't come up with anything and wandered off into your usual state of confusion. So the question in reverse - what would convince me that the current settled science is not, in fact settled? The answer is OHC. If the oceans aren't warming, the world isn't warming (we can just open the windows as it were). And finally, we can play the credentials game - I am published in my field, which is not climate science. I hold no advanced degrees (I am a proud Cornell PhD. drop out...). But if you play the credentials game - wouldn't those who actively publish and who have spent their entire graduate studies and dedicated their lives to the study and understanding of the climate trump you and me? Now you are stuck with the 97 (AGW) vs 2 (neutral) vs 1 (skeptical of at least (and sometimes ONLY) one pillar of AGW). So your position is NOT supported by appealing to credentials. As you might be able to tell - one of my degrees is in philosophy/philosophy of science/logic. Thus my limited patience with your inability to communicate clearly. I sincerely hope you do better in front of your students than you do here on skepticalscience. Some people are better verbally than in writing. I hope you are one of them.
84224. PhillyWilly at 12:14 PM on 31 May 2011
       Climate's changed before
       The Earth has always had a TOA imbalance, it'll always have one. 1) Looking at the Arctic and Antarctic Ice Cores, both clearly show todays temperature has been exceeded in those regions by 1-2C in the past due to natural factors. Also knowing the "Methane Feedback" that would occur in that circumstance, or a general positive feedback, would have a global impact. 2) Tree ring proxies are aweful, and are often used in reconstructions to temperature. Thats a problem. 3) Why are we using CO2 data from Ice cores before 1960, and not the 80,000+ bottle measurements? These clearly show a higher CO2 level, around 335ppm, from 1920-1950, some higher, some lower, but the mean is clustered.
84225. PhillyWilly at 11:59 AM on 31 May 2011
       Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
       TSI is one thing, but Direct and Indirect Solar forcing Mechanisms on the Climate System Are another thing completely. The Whole argument "TSI has been decreasing since 1980" really is not even relevant because its assuming that overall "equilibrium" is reached immediately after changes in TSI occur. In this case of "rapid equilibrium", TSI energy changes from the Sun are the only way the sun can modulate the climate. But that is assumption. TSI basically covers changes in total energies from the Sun itself, but not how the climate system responds to these changes, whether it be long term changes in Cloud Cover, Effects on the Ozone layer changing the amount of UV rays that can enter the atmosphere/oceans etc... I could go on and on. If we were to look at low clouds, for example..none of our measurement systems are "state of the art", so to speak, in measuring them. Its for this reason though...as if to say that clouds will remain fairly constant unless inflenced by AGW (with no mechanism to boot), that Either Direct or Indirect solar influence cannot affect them. A change in total clouds of 3% would have a significant radiative impact to the Surface Heating, a 0.5W/m^2 Net Radiative Impact, and a change in low clouds only of 3% would apply a 1.8W/m^2 of increased energy. Even if those Values are incorrect, Changes in Low Clouds would act to ( -All caps usage snipped- ) through more incoming SW radiation....and that is exactly what we have seen thus far, Satellite measurements of the entire tropospere showing less warming overall that the surface measurements...AGW works the other way around. And the small Proposed effect from GCR's to cloud cover... if GCR's are excessively low for some time, may have a significant effect on Low Clouds Overtime. So Arguing for TSI in the first place, at least short term, is really a bunch of semantics.
       Response:

       [DB] Please familiarize yourself with the Skeptical Science Comments Policy and refrain from the use of All-Caps.  Thanks!

84226. rockytom at 11:49 AM on 31 May 2011
       Shaping Tomorrow's World After One Month
       Just visited the above site. I'm looking forward to reading additional posts. It looks like a winner! Tom
84227. Tim Curtin at 11:42 AM on 31 May 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
       Further to my last, I did NOT cherry pick Oxford & Eskdalemuir as I had no reason to believe in advance that they were cooling. The opportunity for cherry picking is with GISS, and BoM, both notorious for that as well as for adjusting historic temperature records downwards (eg Gistemp now has the 1998 anomaly about 0.07 down on the actual as first reported). The Giss system so well described in part 2 by Glen Tamblyn produces the following real anomalies for the ACT: using the 1200 km radius it gets the ACT's cooling in March 2011 down to -0.16 from -0.44 at 250 km. So that means it has no actual record of temperature in Canberra, for if it did it would use it and it would be the same in both data sets. Instead Hansen casts round for a warming spot not more than 1200 km away, say Bateman's Bay or Dubbo (bugger the different latitude and longitude, both warmer and warming). Using 250km, why not Wagga Wagga, generally warmer and more warming than the ACT. Perish the thought that GISS ever uses actual temperature data for any single location on earth, as its 250 and 1200 readings are always different - in my admittedly random spot checks. ( -Profanity snipped- ), only actual site records should be allowed for the global so aptly named "anomaly", as it is just that, a fictional deviation from the actuals.
       Response:

       [DB] Please acquaint yourself with the SkS Comments Policy.  Future comments with such profanity will be deleted in their entirety.

84228. apiratelooksat50 at 11:34 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp at 48 Thank you. And, finally some common ground.
84229. scaddenp at 11:22 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       @46 - well that is a viewpoint I can respect, even if I struggle with the basis of your skepticism on AGW.
84230. Yvan Dutil at 11:22 AM on 31 May 2011
       An Interactive History of Climate Science
       On a funny, and off topic note, I note that the applet gave a decent representation of the dynamic of granulate segregation. Hence, if you move slowly the slider circle land in a orderly way as the smaller one drop on each other first. But, if you move the slider fast, all circle fall at the same moment. Nevertheless, the smaller one end up in the core as expected from the granulate physical behaviour. Double dip science in progress.
84231. Harry Seaward at 11:10 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dhogaza at 45 The point is: if we don't identify the sources, then how do we address them?
84232. apiratelooksat50 at 11:00 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp at 42 Totally off the cuff: I think it is the responsibility of every human, every culture, every government, and every country on earth to reduce their dependence on natural resources, and to minimize the generation of waste (hazardous and non-hazardous). Alternative energy sources should be explored, developed, and utilized where applicable. And, by the way, I have had active roles in major industies in achieving the above ideals (goals were proposed to the regulators and accepted) to the extent the companies were awarded recognition from local, state and Federal governmental agencies in the US. The companies include BMW, Michelin, and AVX. I am currently consulting with Koyo Bearings at ICAR on their goals.
84233. dhogaza at 10:57 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Harry Seaward: "Assuming it is anthro GHGs, is that the sole cause in your opinion? If so, what does mankind do?" No one imagines that changes in GHGs result in the sole changes in forcing that causes climatatic conditions to change. For instance, recently we've seen that "it's the sun, stupid" - the current solar minimum is to some extent mitigating the positive change in forcing resulting from increased GHGs over the last decade or so. What is the point of such a question?
84234. Bern at 10:56 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Harry Seaward: that's where the "it's obviously more complex than that" bit comes in. Anthro GHGs aren't the only forcing pushing the climate away from quasi-equilibrium, but they're currently not only the biggest one, but the only significantly positive one. But you should really read the relevant article about it here on SkS. If you read & understand the Intermediate level explanation, you'll be in a good position w.r.t. the science. For your second question: I'm also interested to hear what you would propose, as scaddenp asks. For my part, I go with Hansen: phase out coal, completely, within 20 years. Oil is running out, and when the coal phase out demonstrates how things can be done cleaner, I suspect gas will be relegated to a feedstock for chemical processes. Yes, it'll be expensive. Not as expensive as doing nothing, though. Back on-topic: I note there are now over a hundred comments approved by the mods at the ABC, and they're only up to 7pm last night... gonna be a biggie!
84235. apiratelooksat50 at 10:52 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, My post had nothing to do with me backing any viewpoint. My post was concerning AT making a statement that either one agrees with immediate active mitigation, or you are a denier. And, I never even implied I was publishing in the climate science field. However, unlike you, I have actually been published and have been referenced by other scientists in my discipline. Nope, it's not climate science, but in aquaculture.
84236. Tom Curtis at 10:44 AM on 31 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Charlie A @66:

       "I started reading this thread of "Can We Trust Climate Models" with the expectation that there would be a discussion regarding the assessment of skill and the testing and validation of models. Unfortunately, this most important point was omitted."

       Annual variability of global mean surface temperatures are in a range of +/1 0.2 degrees C per annum (approximate 90% confidence range). Atmosphere Ocean Global Circulation Models predict temperature increases of around 4 degrees C by the end of this century with Business as Usual. Frankly, it is irrelevant whether that turns out in reality to be 3.8 degrees, or 4.2. What matters is, do the models get the overall trends right given the right forcings as imputs? And if they do, what can we do to ensure forcings are not such that AOGCM's would predict such large temperature increases given those forcings? Thanks to your excercise, we now know that given a feed in of forcings, the GISS-E model predicts long term trends to a accuracy not significantly less than a 1 year lag of actual temperature data. We also know that the GISS prediction pretty much always lies within 0.2 degrees of the actual temperature. You want to quibble about that 0.2 degrees. My concern is the four degrees which you are entirely neglecting. So, we know that the models are accurate enough that they cn predict long term trends given the forcings. What then can we do to ensure forcings are not such that the models will predict 4 degree plus temperature rises remains as the only significant question.
84237. scaddenp at 10:33 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       "If so, what does mankind do?" I asked you earlier the same question. What effective means of reducing GHGs is compatible with your political values? This isnt rhetoric either. I really want to know what conservative political opinion considers to be viable other than simply deny that the problem exists.
84238. Tom Curtis at 10:30 AM on 31 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Camburn @93, the rate of expansion of water with increasing temperature changes with increasing temperature. And increase from 0 to 5 degree C will cause the sea water to contract. Another 5 degree increase will result in a four times greater expansion. A further increase of 5 degrees will result in a further expansion at nearly four times the rate for the preceding 5 degrees. Consequently, increases in temperature in the cold depths cause a smaller increase in MSL for the same amount of heat when compared to the surface. So, a reduction in the rate of steric sea level rise may only be telling us that heat is moving from the surface to the depths faster than it is accumulating at the surface.
84239. scaddenp at 10:27 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Well Apirate, you seem to having trouble backing your skeptic viewpoint with published science. If you are sufficient informed in the field to be publishing yourself, then a contrary opinion would be interesting and presumably published, but so far your skepticism seems be based on blog postings and opinion. This doesnt smack of science to me.
84240. Harry Seaward at 10:21 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Bern @ 38 Thanks for you answer. I am truly not trying to put words in your mouth when I ask this. Assuming it is anthro GHGs, is that the sole cause in your opinion? If so, what does mankind do?
84241. scaddenp at 10:19 AM on 31 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       "Your interpretation transforms PaulFP's statement of "Even climate skeptics use models but, for many, the model is simply that next year will be the same as last year." into the statement that the climate skeptic model is "the temperature is forever the same." Well how else do you parse it? If B=A,C=B,D=C ==> A=D. For the detail on how models are really evaluated, that would be all of chapter 8, AR4, WG1
84242. apiratelooksat50 at 10:09 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       AT @ 34 Whoa there, hoss! So, I either need to agree to active mitigation, or if I don't then I am a denier. You don't leave much leeway. And, I have real trouble with your phrase "pro-science". I am a scientist and believe in science (educated in science, teaching in science, certified in science, degreed in science, working in science, etc...). You are stating that if I don't fall in lock-step with your views, then my view is of no interest to you. Well, AT, you are demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea of what science is. The one thing you stated correctly is, "I suffer from a little "brilliant in his own mind" syndrome." Do you mind sharing with me your science background?
84243. Chemware at 10:04 AM on 31 May 2011
       An Interactive History of Climate Science
       Any chance of uploading your full database to Zotero ? And creating a guest account with read-only privileges ?
84244. Bern at 10:02 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Harry Seaward: in a nutshell? Changes in climate forcing. The obvious follow-on is then: "what changes in forcing have happened recently?" The simple answer to that one is: "Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions", although it's obviously more complex than that.
84245. Camburn at 10:00 AM on 31 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       The reason for the slowing or the rate of rise seems to be this: "The reason seems to be that ocean heat storage decreased in the past five years reducing thermal expansion." So, that also tells us that the OHC of the ocean is going down. I have tried to show that to no avail, but at least the Univisity seems to understand this.
84246. Tom Curtis at 09:55 AM on 31 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Charlie A @63, forcings are not temperatures, and nor is it an easy matter to derive temperatures from forcings alone, as the GISS-E run demonstrates. Nor where the forcings for a given year applied in determining the temperature for prior years. Consequently making use of each years annual data for the "skeptic model" does constitute a loaded test @64, yes, annual variability affects both models, but not equally. Specifically, the "skeptic model" has a negative mean (based on eyeball mk 1) from 1970 on showing that it does not predict the temperature trend. In contrast, the GISS-E model underestimates temperatures around 1910, and over estimates them in the 1940s but is otherwise superior to the "skeptic model". (If you could post a plot of the 11 year running averages it would be easier to see the relative performance over different periods.)
84247. Charlie A at 09:54 AM on 31 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       @65 Scaddenp "His assertion would have the corollary that there would be no [long] term temperature trend." [I assume you omitted "long"] Your interpretation transforms PaulFP's statement of "Even climate skeptics use models but, for many, the model is simply that next year will be the same as last year." into the statement that the climate skeptic model is "the temperature is forever the same." If we compare the GISS-E AOGCM to a forever fixed, constant temperature, then it does indeed have some skill. If we compare GISS-E hindcast (with full knowlege of both past and future forcings) to the naive model of assuming that the yearly global average temperature will be the same as the prior year, then GISS-E loses. There is an interesting progression in model skill. My default guess for tomorrow's weather is "same as today"; but I prefer to look at a weather forecast because they have great skill in predicting weather for the next 2 or 3 days, and reasonably good skill out to a week or 10 days. For seasonal forecasts, the skill of models goes down. I assume that somewhere there has been a formal skill assessment of seasonal models done somewhere, but am not familiar with the literature. I assume, but am not positive, that seasonal forecasts have more skill than a simple naive climatological history or the Farmer's Almanac. I started reading this thread of "Can We Trust Climate Models" with the expectation that there would be a discussion regarding the assessment of skill and the testing and validation of models. Unfortunately, this most important point was omitted.
84248. Bern at 09:54 AM on 31 May 2011
       An Interactive History of Climate Science
       Oooh, that's a good idea, Tor B. Perhaps add a red circle to the bundle when papers are refuted by subsequent research? That'd be interesting to see where all the red dots ended up, and how big they were.
84249. Camburn at 09:53 AM on 31 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Skywatcher: From the link so graciously given by Albatross: "Greenland and Antarctica have begun to melt faster in the past few years, as shown on Ice Sheet Disintegration page, yet sea level rise slowed slightly in the past few years." So, someone else seems to think that the rate of sea level rise has slowed as well?
84250. actually thoughtful at 09:51 AM on 31 May 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Bad fingers! The crux of my last post should have read: The body of evidence in climate science REQUIRES an active mitigation response.

Prev  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  Next