Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 Next
Comments 84451 to 84500:
-
actually thoughtful at 13:45 PM on 31 May 2011Are 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! -
Camburn at 13:22 PM on 31 May 2011The 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.
-
J. Bob at 13:19 PM on 31 May 2011Are 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. -
scaddenp at 13:17 PM on 31 May 2011Climate'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. -
adelady at 13:13 PM on 31 May 2011Are 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. -
Albatross at 13:00 PM on 31 May 2011The 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. -
Ken Lambert at 12:56 PM on 31 May 2011The 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? -
Camburn at 12:34 PM on 31 May 2011The 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 -
actually thoughtful at 12:26 PM on 31 May 2011Are 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. -
PhillyWilly at 12:14 PM on 31 May 2011Climate'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. -
PhillyWilly at 11:59 AM on 31 May 2011Shapiro 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!
-
rockytom at 11:49 AM on 31 May 2011Shaping 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 -
Tim Curtin at 11:42 AM on 31 May 2011Of 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.
-
apiratelooksat50 at 11:34 AM on 31 May 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
scaddenp at 48 Thank you. And, finally some common ground. -
scaddenp at 11:22 AM on 31 May 2011Are 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. -
Yvan Dutil at 11:22 AM on 31 May 2011An 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. -
Harry Seaward at 11:10 AM on 31 May 2011Are 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? -
apiratelooksat50 at 11:00 AM on 31 May 2011Are 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. -
dhogaza at 10:57 AM on 31 May 2011Are 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? -
Bern at 10:56 AM on 31 May 2011Are 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! -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:52 AM on 31 May 2011Are 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. -
Tom Curtis at 10:44 AM on 31 May 2011Can 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. -
scaddenp at 10:33 AM on 31 May 2011Are 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. -
Tom Curtis at 10:30 AM on 31 May 2011The 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. -
scaddenp at 10:27 AM on 31 May 2011Are 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. -
Harry Seaward at 10:21 AM on 31 May 2011Are 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? -
scaddenp at 10:19 AM on 31 May 2011Can 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 -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:09 AM on 31 May 2011Are 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? -
Chemware at 10:04 AM on 31 May 2011An Interactive History of Climate Science
Any chance of uploading your full database to Zotero ? And creating a guest account with read-only privileges ? -
Bern at 10:02 AM on 31 May 2011Are 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. -
Camburn at 10:00 AM on 31 May 2011The 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. -
Tom Curtis at 09:55 AM on 31 May 2011Can 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.) -
Charlie A at 09:54 AM on 31 May 2011Can 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. -
Bern at 09:54 AM on 31 May 2011An 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. -
Camburn at 09:53 AM on 31 May 2011The 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? -
actually thoughtful at 09:51 AM on 31 May 2011Are 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. -
Harry Seaward at 09:49 AM on 31 May 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Before I label myself, can anyone say in a nutshell: 1. What the cause of climate change is? -
Composer99 at 09:44 AM on 31 May 2011Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
Damorbel: Please provide citations to literature to support your assertions. The bloggers posting to this site and the commenters adding their two bits (or responding to posters making contrary efforts, such as yourself) generally take the time and effort to do so. It would be a minimum courtesy to back up your claims with evidence of similar quality, rather than with snide insinuation. -
Bern at 09:44 AM on 31 May 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
I just went back to look at the comments thread on the article. Interesting to see what sort of comments the moderators are letting through... I can't recall exactly what I posted yesterday, but it obviously didn't make the cut. Perhaps I made the mistake of supporting your argument, rather than trotting out a long-debunked denialist argument, like so many of the comments do? :-) I tapped out a couple of quick replies to some of the comments there. I wonder if any of them will make it through moderation either? -
actually thoughtful at 09:32 AM on 31 May 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
I think an interesting point has been raised here - what is a denier? (OK sure - we have raised it thousands of times on this site). I think the answer is finally available (it does contain a value judgement, but anytime you call someone a denier vs a skeptic you have made a value judgement). The value judgement is: The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES and active mitigation response. If you agree with that statement you are pro-science. (Even as you wonder about the precise nature of sensitivity, how we can accurately measure OHC, precisely when the oceans will swamp low-lying cities, how global warming will affect the West Anarctic ice sheet, etc. etc.) If you disagree with that statement - you are a denier. The particular stripe of your denial is of great interest to you perhaps, but not to the rest of us. Does that satisfactorily encapsulate the issue for anyone else? I like it - but I suffer from a little "brilliant in his own mind" syndrome. And long time readers KNOW I have a strong bias towards action on this issue. -
Tom Curtis at 09:25 AM on 31 May 2011Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
Damorbel @16, a correlation of 0.5 is quite low. That is why the GISS method assigns a station a weighting to a station 1200km away of (1200-1200)/1200 = 0. A station 1199 km away will receive a weighting of (1200-1199)/1200 =~= 0.00083. In other words, it will have a significant influence on the GISS tempurature if there are very few, and very distant stations from that location. This, as with the rebuttal of all your other objections, was clearly explained in the article above. Nice piece of trolling about the ice ages, by the way. Transparently the lack of correlation of the existence of a continental ice sheet in the middle of the northern USA and the middle of the Antarctic Ocean has nothing what so ever to do with correlation of temperatures withing a 1200 km radius over land, but still you snuck it in there. As GISS (nor any other temperature index) does not use southern hemisphere temperatures at equivalent latitudes to determine northern hemisphere temperatures (except within 1200 km of the equator), your comments about the ice age are a complete red herring. Transparently so! Actually on topic, if you do not like GISS's 1200 km smooth, their website allows you to create anomaly maps with a 250 km smooth. It even computes the global anomaly for you using only the sub cells within 250 km of a surface station (over land). This is not a superior measure because, unlike the 1200 km smooth it de facto must assume that the temperature anomaly over land of any area more than 250 km from a surface station equals the global average. In effect, it does assume that the temperature anomaly in those isolated regions can be determined by measuring the temperature anomaly at arbitrary longitudes and latitudes in the opposite hemisphere. So I guess your red herring does have a point. It clearly demonstrates the superiority of using the 1200 km smooth over using a 250 km smooth. -
dhogaza at 09:15 AM on 31 May 2011Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
"The Patagonian Ice Sheet covered about 480,000sq km from around 41 deg S down to Cape Horn." 55 degrees south, the "thin finger" I mentioned above. The southern tip of africa is only about 35 degrees south, so it's not surprising it didn't get covered by ice sheets during various ice ages. Damorbel need to take more care that he doesn't fall off while galloping gish's horse. -
adelady at 09:11 AM on 31 May 2011The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
okatiniko. Land rising and coastlines? Remember that GIA includes downward as well as upward movements. Britain is the classic example. The 'advancing' sea in southern England coastal regions is really more like a leverage effect from the rising Scotland land mass. The sea is not advancing so much as the land, in some areas of England, is lowering. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that the rising/ lowering effects will be matched either in time or in extent. So the GIA numbers are calculated separately to be introduced into the SLR calculations. -
scaddenp at 09:11 AM on 31 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
Charlie A, "Do you have a better suggestion on how to test the hypothesis (or assertion) put forward by PaulFP". His assertion would have the corollary that there would be no term temperature trend. This is easily tested. By comparison, the robust prediction from climate models is the 30 year trend. Climate models make no pretense of being able to predict year to year temperatures or even decade to decade temperatures with current skill. -
skywatcher at 09:09 AM on 31 May 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
#66 As you know, there are many ways of measuring sensitivity, not just the one you cherry-picked (e.g. Knutti and Hegerl). It's rather hard to have ice ages with low sensitivity. Tom analogises your approach nicely. Actually, I think this thread illustrates very well some points in Haydn and John's book, including deniers using cherry picking, claims of science suppression, use of unsupported science, and diversion when inconvenient truths are pointed out. No denier is willing to evaluate the full gamut of evidence, including all the many different lines supporting each part of the science, and then come up with an hypothesis that both explains all that existing evidence and gives us a reason not to change our carbon-emitting ways. Such an hypothesis does not yet exist, and given the level of testing that climate science has survived over the past century and a half, is extremely unlikely to materialise. So what is left is that we must do something about our carbon-emitting ways. -
Tor B at 08:59 AM on 31 May 2011An Interactive History of Climate Science
This seems to be a great tool to look for certain types of historical papers, especially after including DaneelOlivaw's (#4) idea. To look at a particular year, I went to the previous year, then slid the bar to add one more year, and watched where the circle landed. I've read in Sks, Climate Progress and elsewhere that some scientific papers specifically skeptical about one or another AGW topic have been demonstrated in subsequently published papers to have serious errors, making the skeptical paper's existence (or at least part of it) moot. As I read into CBDunkerson's comment above (#9), all sorts of papers get left behind by developing science. I'm sure there are recently published pro AGW papers that have been effectively refuted by subsequent publications (undoubtedly also pro AGW papers). Could the database identify at least the most grievous of such subsequently refuted or "left behind" papers? Perhaps little circles showing publication years of subsequently refuted papers? Perhaps footnotes by the actual paper titles identifying "partially refuted by subsequent literature" or "substantially refuted by subsequent literature." I'm curious about the 1960 CO2 concentrations paper (pro AGW) Table 1 with some hand written numbers and checkmarks! -
skywatcher at 08:38 AM on 31 May 2011The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
Camburn, do you still assert that sea level rise is decelerating, having seen the graphs and sources presented by Albatross in #81 and #87? -
actually thoughtful at 08:29 AM on 31 May 2011An Interactive History of Climate Science
I don't understand what makes a paper neutral. I think this particular graphic is hampered by the large number of neutral. A skeptic will think "well all those neutrals are ACTUALLY skeptical" and all the pro-science people with think "well all those neutrals are ACTUALLY pro-AGW". I think a different metric is needed. Maybe "supports current understanding" or "supports climate myths". I am not saying it is easy. -
skywatcher at 08:15 AM on 31 May 2011Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
No point in arguing with someone who thinks they're in the business of educating us about the ice ages, or thinks that how you compile a temperature record depends on what you think changed the temperature record. But in case any lurker thinks that mid-latitude ice sheets did not grow in South America and New Zealand (the only land masses at mid-southern latitudes of 40-60S), here's a little info. The Patagonian Ice Sheet covered about 480,000sq km from around 41 deg S down to Cape Horn. Geomorphology is unequivocal on this, though many key references on mapping tend to predate the Internet era - the existence of this ice sheet is not exactly scientific news! A small fraction (~4%) of this ice sheet remains as the North and South Patagonian Ice Sheets. A similar linear ice sheet grew on the Southern Alps of New Zealand, covering ~25% of South Island. Ice sheets grew where they could, but ice sheets don't tend to grow in deep oceans! -
Charlie A at 08:00 AM on 31 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
Diran Marsupial @62 "the errors depicted in your graph are dominated by high-frequency annual variations, something that no model would claim to be able to predict." and "I am assuming that the GISS model E prediction is actually the mean of an ensemble of model runs (comparing the observations with a single model run would be an obviously unfair test). If this is the case, you appear ignorant of the fact that the models attempt only to predict the forced component of the climate. " The GISS-E model response is per the Hansen 2007 paper and data is available at Data.Giss:Climate Simulations for 1880-2003. These are ensembles of 5 runs, GISS-E, ocean C, Russell Ocean. My plot of this data appears to be identical to that of figure 6 of Hansen 2007. Yes, the largest component of the residuals is due to natural climate variability. However, both the naive model and GISS-E are on equal footing in regards to the effect on their errors. Do you have a better suggestion on how to test the hypothesis (or assertion) put forward by PaulFP in comment #59? His assertion is relatively straightforward: "Even climate skeptics use models but, for many, the model is simply that next year will be the same as last year. That sort of model is indeed unreliable. " In keeping with the "Can we trust models" topic of this thread, I think it is an interesting exercise to compare the performance of PaulFP/Skeptics naive model and the GISS-E model.
Prev 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 Next
