Recent Comments

Prev  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  Next

Comments 84501 to 84550:

84501. PaulFP at 11:41 AM on 30 May 2011
       Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
       Skeptics use a model too, but a completely unrealistic model because in their model human activity has no effect.
84502. GaryB at 11:19 AM on 30 May 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
       damorbel, I take it the following escaped your reading.

       "“The 1200-km limit is the distance at which the average correlation coefficient of temperature variations falls to 0.5 at middle and high latitudes and 0.33 at low latitudes."

84503. GaryB at 11:02 AM on 30 May 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
       Damorbel, I find it interesting you can't see what is meant by correct, which should be obvious if you read the post.
84504. Tom Curtis at 10:58 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       tallbloke @36, Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre's blog output are widely read by the denier community, and known by them to be widely read. Given that, it is ridiculous to defend them as being focussed on particular issues. And while they may occasionally mention their disagreement with more extreme deniers, McIntyre at least scrutinises the IPCC down to the level of detail of features of a graph that are not noticeable without magnification. Curry, in the meantime, swallows uncritically almost any slander of her colleagues while turning a blind eye to rebuttals. In fact, and contrary to Curry, McIntyre's criticisms have been taken apart and shown to be without basis by Deep Climate. So far as I know, there has been no retraction by either McIntyre or Curry. As other posters above have shown, this is not an isolated example. Their multiple slanders against Eric Steig last year provides another example. These examples coupled with their uncritical response to various denier howlers puts paid to any claim they have to be disinterested auditors of the science. Unless you can show me their retractions of their accusations against Briffa, Mann and Jones (and Steig) I can see no reason to revise my opinion.
84505. Camburn at 10:43 AM on 30 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Thanks DB. I am always willing to learn if the source documentation is credible. One thing concerning the current loss of ice from Greenland proper I would like all to look at is the current rate of loss verses the rate of loss in the 1938-1950 time frame.
       Response:

       [DB] Why the focus on the 1938-1950 time frame?  Those who have looked at that period have not done a good job of examining it.

84506. Tom Curtis at 10:27 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       NikfromNYC @42, it is rather hard to disagree with the claim that you can agree or disagree with statements from the book. After all, you can agree or disagree that two plus two equals four. The ability of people to agree or disagree has no bearing on the truth of the subject. What matters is are the statements true, and what is the evidence for that. a) “A sustainabl­e society will require fairness (equity) and justice locally and globally.” Here, the need for equity and justice follow straightforwardly from an ethical principle that is widely adhered to (or at least given lip service), that you should love your neighbour as yourself, or in its popular form, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you"; or as Kant puts it, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.", or more popularly, "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." More specifically, based on economic theory, if principles of justice to not apply, people can externalize the costs of their actions; and the richer and more powerful they are, the easier it is to do so. Given that people do externalize costs, they then receive the benefits without direct costs. From that, simple economic motivation encourages them to maximize their good, and ignore the costs which are not directly impacting on them. That, therefore, also forces costs towards a maximum. And that, is of course, not sustainable. b) “Preventin­g the collapse of human civilizati­on requires nothing less than a wholesale transforma­tion of dominant consumer culture.” Not sure I agree with this one. What is true, however, that to be sure of preventing the collapse of our civilization we need to reduce global CO2 emissions below 20% of current values by 2050, and it is very uncertain we can do so without radical changes to consumer culture. c) “Just because there a professor of something denying climate change does not mean it is not true, it is just that the professor is in denial. This is why one must make use of the prepondera­nce of evidence in science, the collective view.” As a general principle, the claim that "... it is just that the professor is in denial" is not true. But this statement is made within a book showing that, in fact, opposition to the IPCC consensus is almost exclusively based on denial. Therefore, in context it is an appropriate statement. tallbloke @49, the statement is not a statement about scientific method, it is advice for how to form opinions about science for those who do not wish to actually explore the science enough to truly understand it. Ideally the advise to such people would be: "Science only works by evidence and understanding, so if you do not wish to learn enough of the science to be able to understand the testing of it, you should have no opinion about it." Unfortunately, in the real world scientific knowledge impacts significantly on the appropriateness of policy choices in society. Therefore policy makers, which includes not only the members of parliament who must vote on the policy, but the electorate who decides who will be members of parliament, must form opinions about scientific matters. As it is unreasonable to expect all members of parliament, let alone all electors, to gain PhD level proficiency in every field which impacts on policy, the best we can advice them to do is to follow the advise of the consensus of those that have the relevant expertise, if such a consensus exists. In climate science, a relevant consensus does exist.
84507. scaddenp at 10:22 AM on 30 May 2011
       CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
       I am struggling to understand what you dont understand. This reference to "control knob" is I think a quote from R Alley? If you can point me to where he uses it, I might be able to explain further what is meant. To my mind, CO2 is simply a forcing among others - something like solar and aerosols that can be varied independently of temperature (unlike water vapour). All the forcing are control knobs for climate.
84508. scaddenp at 10:15 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Any of them published?
84509. trunkmonkey at 09:56 AM on 30 May 2011
       CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
       Moderator @ 2. The problem is organizing thoughts to fit the somewhat arbitrary threads. In 42. @ "How do we know CO2?" You replied that at the "top of the atmosphere" there isn't much H2O. I totally agree. I would like to know exactly what you meant by top of the atmosphere, but I wasn't quibbling. Here the same issue emerges in a different context, how CO2 controls water. A good place to evaluate that would be where they exist together in the trophosphere, no? I plead guilty to jumping around. I'm the monkey who eschews knee-jerk responses. Believe me, I read your links and think about your responses. I'm not here to waste my time or yours. Here it strikes me that you may be the one deflecting the issue by jumping to a different thread. Sure, CO2 raises temperature, temperature raises water vapor, water vapor raises temperature further; but temperature also raises CO2. I am holding your control knob, wondering exactly where to plug it in to this cycle, and exactly how it works.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] There are literally thousands of threads here at SkS and none are closed (and I'm not sure if anyone has counted them all).  Some may be dormant or currently inactive, but fresh comments posted anywhere will not be ignored. 

       Since you were directed to specific, more appropriate threads where your questions would be better placed, why not follow those pointers & get the reolution to your questions you seek?

       As for the Control Knob, have you watched this yet?

       [Dikran Marsupial] If you wanted to know what I meant by top of the atmosphere, a good place to have started would be to read the real climate article I linked for your benefit. It explains how the greenhouse effect actually operates, and most of us here would benefit from reading it (I know I did).

       Temperature does cause CO2 to rise (all things being otherwise equal) because a warm ocean can hold less CO2. However, in the current situation, all things are not equal; specifically anthropogenic emissions have cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise, and higher partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased absorbtion by the oceans (and by the biosphere - it is plant food). This dominates the increase in ocean emissions due to the warming of the oceans to date. The oceans are a net carbon sink, not a source.

84510. Camburn at 09:55 AM on 30 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       I think Hansen is still searching, which is what a good scientist does. He recognizes that the imbalance is not as he once thought and has started looking seriously at other factors. Like any other person, his search was somewhat in tunnel vision, but have now expanded. KL is showing what current observations show. I posted a paper on Greenland that seems to have disappeared. It showed that two glaciers were shrinking, and one was growing. The rate of ice loss in Greenland has yet to be resolved in a satisfactory manner. It is obvious from earlier periods of the Halocene when temperatures were warmer for 1,000's of years that it will continue to survive for 1,000's more years. This link will take you to course material that I would hope some can learn from. http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/sealevel/sealevel_lecture_new.html
       Response:

       [DB] You are welcome to pick one of the many Greenland threads (use the Search function to find the one most appropriate) & repost it there.  Quite frankly, your comment here about Greenland reveals an opportunity for you to learn much from those many Greenland threads.

84511. tallbloke at 09:50 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Alexandre@51, feel free to visit my blog, where there is free ranging discussion of several theories.
       Response:

       [DB] You do mean alternative hypothesis', don't you?

84512. Alexandre at 09:39 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       tallbloke Forget jurisprudence. Stick to the evidence. Come up with a theory that fits the evidence even better than AGW, and then you have something worth a debate. Until then, it's just empty rethoric to justify inaction.
84513. Riduna at 09:33 AM on 30 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Ken Lambert @ 48 would have us believe that SLR does not respond to decadal doubling in the rate of ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet, does not respond to growing loss of ice from WAIS and does not respond to water expansion as a result of ocean warming. Next he will be telling us that Polar ice loss is not occurring and that oceans are cooling. Hansen has a somewhat different view and one which is more credible than the those expressed by Ken Lambert. He appears to have only one mission in life, that of seeking to cast doubt on the views of those who are better informed than he is and who substantiate their views without cherrypicking – or am I being unduly harsh?
84514. JMurphy at 09:17 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       tallbloke wrote : "JMurphy@41 Perhaps instead of taking 'Deepclimate's word for what Curry actually said when I cheekily presented her with the T-shirt you ought to check for yourself. Isn't that what sceptical scientists do? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCjTRgHWTMs Now, for a start, she wasn't speaking 'for herself' but recapitulating Josh the cartoonists charicature of her." Well, I don't know how DeepClimate got into the discussion because I didn't link to him, and the link I provided for the video contains the youtube video you have given above. The exact same video that shows Curry receiving and looking at the T-shirt showing Climate Science in a dustbin, before proclaiming "My reaction to climate change". Who was she speaking for ? How do the words that can be heard on the video differ from what DeepClimate might have said she said ? And what could a "sceptical scientist" do, let alone have an opinion on this that is not based on speech that can be heard coming out of Curry's own mouth ?
84515. tallbloke at 09:16 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Tom@48, Hey Tom, it's Einstein who said it, not me. Popper never was my favourite philosopher of science. It's something of a moot point wrt AGW theory anyway, as no-one has yet devised a crucial experiment which can decide the issue. Instead we have the models, which generate 'scenarios'. So, do you go along with John on his jurisprudence type approach? Can you see any potential pitfalls in the rule of 'the collective view'?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Firstly, the models generate "projections" based on "scenarios". Secondly those projections are falsifiable predictions (contingent on the scenario) and hence we are currently engaged in an experiment that can decide the issue. If we see cooling over the next century in which the models predict significant warming, then the model and the theory are falsified. Please no more discussion of falsificationism. The topic has been done to death already; those who have a good grasp of scientific method know as Einstein that there can be no proof; but they also know that not all unfalsified theories are of equal value (some are more corroborated than others).
84516. Tom Dayton at 08:58 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       No, tallbloke, falsification is not the only criterion for evaluating theories. Your belief is called "naive falsificationism" for a reason.
84517. skywatcher at 08:51 AM on 30 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       #58 - it's an exercisse in observation, and I think others can do better with statistical assessment etc. The point is that if warming was decelerating, we would expect to see that appending the last decade's data onto the warming trend since the 1970s would result in a decrease of the trend slope. What we actually see is that the first decade of this century was even warmer than we would expect it to be, based on 1970 or 1980 to 2000 data. Hence the trend from 1980-2010 is steeper than the 1980-2000 trend. Use whichever endpoint you prefer, but appending the last decade of data onto the data up to 2000 does not decrease that trend. Year-to-year variations are not important, and record years don't happen every year, hence why you need to use a climatically-significant period of time when discussing whether the trend has decreased or increased.
84518. adelady at 08:41 AM on 30 May 2011
       If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
       KR, your optimistic group is probably the best approach. The Marshall Plan for Europe might be the best example of directed investment for explicit development and political goals. The development we're now interested in is rather in redirecting certain activities rather than recreating whole economies after wartime destruction. We're now not so concerned with any such investment having an explicit anti-communist political objective. The political objective now should be to maintain civil society where it now prevails and to try to establish it where it has so far failed to flourish. Jobs and education are the prime success mechanisms here. Of course, no single country is now in a position to do this in the same way the USA did back then. Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll were my generation's fun contrasts to the chronic fear of nuclear annihilation and the dreadful reality of Vietnam. A little dose of hope and optimism with a large defiant upward pointing finger to the society that created those 2 horrors.
84519. tallbloke at 08:31 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       “Just because there a professor of something denying climate change does not mean it is not true, it is just that the professor is in denial. This is why one must make use of the prepondera­nce of evidence in science, the collective view.” – John Cook (“Climate Change Denial”, 2011). This is an attempt to replace the principles of the scientific method with those of jurisprudence. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Albert Einstein-
84520. mike williams at 08:30 AM on 30 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       [ Snip ]
       Response:

       [dana1981] Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the site Comments Policy.  In particular "No off topic comments".  This topic has nothing to do with cap and trade or Flannery's correct comment that while we can slow global warming, we're not going to cause cooling.  If you would like to discuss Flannery's comments, take it to CO2 limits won't cool the planet

84521. drrocket at 08:27 AM on 30 May 2011
       Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
       Re John Cook, 6/26/10, Solar Cycle Length A five parameter, causal filer of the Wang, et al. (2005) solar radiation model predicts the entire 140-year HadCRUT3 record of annual surface temperature with one standard deviation of 0.11ºC. With three parameters, the fit is 0.13ºC. See SGW. The accuracy is within 10% (variance reduction ratio of 79.0% vs. 89.3%) of IPCC's non-causal, smoothed estimate for surface temperature. Published 3/27/10, rev. 4/17/10. Is there a comparable result in all of climatology?
84522. les at 08:11 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       44 - "You need to be a little more sceptical of people who have a personal axe to grind, and check 'facts' for yourself." Yes, indeedy.
84523. okatiniko at 08:09 AM on 30 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       skywatcher, I'm not sure of what you're really doing - just comparing two trends with some arbitrary end points ? with a noisy signal, I guess you can easily adjust the end point to get an increase of the trend. But that's not what is usually considered as a significant acceleration - you have to compare the difference with the statistical uncertainty, at least. DB : thanks for the plots, but my question wasn't about the projections, but their validation. I mean, it's easy to plot the result of models, but when do you expect that the acceleration will be clearly measurable ? concerning SLR, what does this GIA stuff really mean ? is the "real", observed, SLR described by the curve with, or without, the correction ? but anyway, since the correction seems to be taken as a constant, it shouldn't influence the acceleration. So what's the current acceleration rate, say for the smoothed 30 last years ?
       Response:

       [DB] SLR plots from UCAR/NCAR need to have the corrections applied to them to account for regional isostatic rebound effects and seasonal effects to be properly filtered out.  If using the unadjusted/improperly adjusted data, one risks writing posts on CO2 snow...

       

       And from Church and White, 2011:

       

       The Tamino posts I linked to were essentially validating the existent temperature records, not models or projections.  Since the future hasn't happened yet (some existentialists are sure to quibble on this point), I supplied you with 2 links discussing 2 recent temperature scenarios, one by MIT and the other by the Royal Society (IIRC).

       If you're asking for clues to recognize when shifts are occuring, then I would suggest monitoring the Mauna Loa CO2 monthly updates (you can also get CH4 updates there as well), the GISS temperature trends (updated monthly), droughts in the Amazon and the volume of Arctic Sea Ice lost each year relative to the mean and the trend.  Also watch for papers on evapotranspiration changes, desertification, arable land crop productivity, etc.

       CO2 and CH4 will give you some idea of temperature trends to come (30-40 year lags built-in to the system...we are currently experiencing the effects of the CO2 emissions of the 1970s now).  The others will give you an idea of how much the rate of change is itself changing.

       If the natural oceanic and land sinks decline in their ability to temporarily sequester anthropogenic GHG emissions (and there is some evidence that they already are), then that will be revealed in the Mauna Loa data.  But keep this in mind:  the past, while a guide, is no good indicator of future results WRT to climate and climate change.  Temperature change and climate change are multifactorial; the change to come, as evidenced in the MIT and RS papers, is expected to be non-linear.

       What to expect when?  This is about as good a guess as any:

       

84524. skywatcher at 07:38 AM on 30 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Camburn #56: You like cherries? especially extra(polated) juicy ones? Have you read Polyak et al 2010 and the attendant sources therein? You would see how picking a carefully-selected single site does not tell you about all the Arctic, and also a wealth of evidence pointing to Arctic sea ice being less extensive now than in several millennia. The graph from Kinnard et al 2008 would show you how ice extent would have to be ~1.5 million sq km (~18%) lower than in any other estimated extent from 1870-1960 in order to be comparable to the past few years. Much like individual logs of submarines surfacing in polynyas at the North Pole say nothing of overall extent, neither does a single log of a single journey in a single part of the Arctic.
       Response:

       [DB] To say nothing of logs detailing 12-15 meter thick ice...

84525. skywatcher at 07:22 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       This would be this Judith Curry or this Judith Curry? Sounds like she's plunked herself into a camp that doesn't require relying on hard evidence and science any more... Reading the RealClimate exchange where Judith Curry claims to support Montford's book with blog-like misinformation and outright falsehoods, then wonders why Gavin hammers her for her unfounded opinions, then claims she wasn't really having an opinion on the book, is both eye-opening and sad. She displays none of the expected critical academic traits in her treatment of climate science therein, and appears to fail to comprehend why the misinformation she presents is offensive to many. Sadly, she does indeed appear, through her very own words, to be a biased scientist.
84526. damorbel at 07:13 AM on 30 May 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
       I would like to echo post #1 To validate your procedure I suggest that you find what the actual correlation (in space and time) exists between the stations. At present the values for this parameter appear to be quite arbitrary.
84527. KR at 07:12 AM on 30 May 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       RW1 - You might be interested in Wylie 2005. They looked at various satellite measures of cloud cover over the last 20 years. The High Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) found no significant cloud trend, while the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), with slightly different instruments, found a slight decrease in cloudiness over that period. Keep in mind that while specific humidity (total amount of H2O) in the atmosphere may be rising with temperature, relative humidity (relative to the total amount air can hold at any temperature) may remain steady or even decrease. So - steady or decreasing clouds with rising temperatures, neutral or positive feedback to warming.
       Response:

       [DB] Fixed Link.

84528. damorbel at 07:06 AM on 30 May 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
       Re OP you wrote:- "Obviously both values don’t match what the correct value would be if station C were included, but the second method is much closer to the correct value." I am so glad you are able to say which is the 'correct' value for temperature; it seems fully in accordance with the principles of scientific climatology!
       Response:

       [DB] Glenn was using a specific simple example to illustrate the principles underlying the measurements of the temperature records.  If you were thanking him for the clarity of the illustration and the sense it made, then you're welcome.

       If, on the other hand, your had other, ideological, meanings for making your comment, then those ideological meanings and intimations have no place in the science-based dialogues here.

84529. tallbloke at 06:34 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       JMurphy@41 Perhaps instead of taking 'Deepclimate's word for what Curry actually said when I cheekily presented her with the T-shirt you ought to check for yourself. Isn't that what sceptical scientists do? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCjTRgHWTMs Now, for a start, she wasn't speaking 'for herself' but recapitulating Josh the cartoonists charicature of her. Being the good sport she is, she took the gift in good humour, and brightened everyone's evening by making a laugh out of it. People from both sides of the debate are sat either side of her. It brought us together in laughter, and helped us overcome our differences. The working groups next day were noticeably more able to consult and generate statements on common ground together. This was a positive result. To twist the true situation (and remember, I was there, 'Deepclimate' wasn't) into some kind of accusation that Judith Curry is a biased scientist, is about as far from the truth as you could stray. You need to be a little more sceptical of people who have a personal axe to grind, and check 'facts' for yourself.
84530. Camburn at 06:13 AM on 30 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Being the museum, owners of the log of the St Roch, won't allow it to be digitalized and more readily available, I can only suggest that people purchase the book. It is available on the Vancouver museum site. Capt Larson did not say there was no ice, but I can say that he was very surprised at areas that there was litteraly no ice, where he thought passage would be extremly difficult.
84531. Camburn at 06:09 AM on 30 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       In reference to the map: 1. The southerly route is used on an annual basis by the Canadian Coast Guard to replish supplies to the cities/outposts on the northern side of Canada. 2. The northerly deep sea route is much more desireable as a commercial route as the water is consistently deep. The area between Banks and Victoria Islands is somewhat treacherous. If the area to the north of Banks open to the Beaufort Sea, that would/could become the route of choice. The black carbon emissions from China/India etc are hastening the ice melt. When and IF the people wake up and demand cleaner skies and healthier lives, that source should become more of a marginal effect. The rate of growth in China of coal fired power plants with wide open smokestacks continues to boggle my mind, so within the next 10 years I don't see any decrease that will slow the melt of the Arctic. The black soot provides approx 4w/sq meter of loss of albedo. This is a huge amount. I don't know how to pressure China/India etc to clean up their acts. Only the people living there can do that. As far as other countries with a lot of charcol burning etc......that is extremely difficult as that is their main source of cooking and heating. This is an area that has only recently been studied, yet has been known about for a long time. The effects are devasting to say the least and the teck is here, proven, and veryyyyyyy benficial to overcome this. Not demanding and doing so is totally foolhardy.
84532. John Donovan at 06:09 AM on 30 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       I previously wrote to "apirate": But the phrase that struck me most of all in your response was the statement "The various science departments at that school are heavily slanted towards support of the AGW theory." I find that wording itself "heavily slanted". How can the faculty be "heavily slanted" if they agree with the current expert scientific consensus? Would we not expect that a science faculty agrees with current scientific expertise? Would you also describe the science faculty there as "heavily slanted" towards evolutionary theory? I find your wording most problematic. Please share the survey data with us as I would be most interested to understand why one college in your area (even considering it is in the southern US!) is noticeably outside the scientific mainstream on any field of science. I can't provide an opinion without more data. I have to add that I am disappointed that "apirate" has so far not only not shared his polling data, but neither has he named the two schools in question, which makes his claims undocumented at best and also without the possibility of being confirmed. But perhaps even more interestingly nor has he explained his "heavily slanted" wording quoted above.
84533. DSL at 05:59 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Nik: "I would like to point out to potential readers that your book contains certain political statements that they can either agree or disagree with" Thank you, Nik. I never would have realized it. Shocking suggestions, I must say. I certainly won't let children or some of my more idiotic friends read it. They'd immediately be turned into commies! Gasp! Sarcasm off. Since even the tiniest bit of cultural production has political content, your warning is akin to saying, "Be careful! The ocean is wet!" Garrrr . . .
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] italic tags fixed
84534. RW1 at 05:45 AM on 30 May 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       Sphaerica (RE: 159), "3. Your argument that models "assume" and require a positive cloud feedback is wrong." It's not really "my argument". The IPCC report specifically says this in the fine print, which I have posted here. "While clouds do represent a large area of uncertainty in the models, it is incorrect to think that the scientists who have done the modeling have not thought things through a little more carefully, and in more detail, than you have. You cast aspersions by generalizing their work into the word "assume," and yet provide no direct evidence (other than the general positive/negative thing) that their work is not well considered." No, I have not seen the evidence their work on the cloud feedback has been carefully considered at all, especially because it seems to ignore the basic physics of water vapor and clouds.
84535. RW1 at 05:33 AM on 30 May 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       Sphaerica (RE: 159), "2. Your theory is inconsistent with the observational evidence (Dessler 2010) that demonstrates a positive, not negative, feedback in response to short-term warming. While this cannot necessarily directly support a long-term positive effect, it directly refutes your "was negative before, so must be negative in the future" theory." Dessler 2010 is primarily just looking at TOA net fluxes and temperatures – he’s made little (if any) attempt to carefully discern cause and effect, and has not come up with any physical reasons or mechanisms behind his interpretation of the data. He admits in the paper at the beginning that the net effect of clouds in the current climate is to cool by about 20 W/m^2, yet doesn’t seem to ascribe much significance to this or express any curiosity as to why this is the case when clearly it needs to be explained. Furthermore, I notice that the SW component is also positive, which seems 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 from warming 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.
84536. NikFromNYC at 05:10 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       I would like to point out to potential readers that your book contains certain political statements that they can either agree or disagree with: “A sustainabl­e society will require fairness (equity) and justice locally and globally.” – John Cook (“Climate Change Denial”, 2011). “Preventin­g the collapse of human civilizati­on requires nothing less than a wholesale transforma­tion of dominant consumer culture.” – John Cook (“Climate Change Denial”, 2011). “Just because there a professor of something denying climate change does not mean it is not true, it is just that the professor is in denial. This is why one must make use of the prepondera­nce of evidence in science, the collective view.” – John Cook (“Climate Change Denial”, 2011).
84537. JMurphy at 04:58 AM on 30 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       With regard to the NorthWest Passage, you can compare the map given in the link provided by Tom Curtis : (4. ST. ROCH: Northern Deep-Water Route (East-West) 1944 [Yellow line]) With a more recent one giving the likely commercial opportunities opening up :
       Response:

       [DB] Fixed images

84538. Jeff T at 04:56 AM on 30 May 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
       Thank you for a clear description of the methods and the reasons for choosing them.
84539. trunkmonkey at 04:54 AM on 30 May 2011
       CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
       This site has very high standards requiring explicit physical mechanisms, yet in the notion that CO2 controls water I have heard nothing but metaphor. Described variously as a "skin", "skeleton", "relentless ratchet", and now designated driver (1.), this control knob implies something more than just a steady supply of radiative forcing. I can understand how CO2 mixed into the stratosphere could act as some sort of lid and as a backstop for escaping photons. It now appears ice and CO2 mix into the mesosphere (although how they get through the ozone inversion is problematic unless they leaked through the holes). 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. Whither the control?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You raised the point about the overlapping absorption bands of water vapour and CO2 here and I answered it for you here. This is not the first time (to say the least) you have received an answer to a question and ignored it and moved off onto another thread to start afresh. This does your credibility no good at all. Further discussion should return to the thread where the question was initially raised.

       As to CO2 controls water, it influences the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere because the warmer the air, the more water vapour it can hold. If you don't believe me, buy a hygrometer and watch relative humidity fall in winter and rise in summer.

84540. les at 04:41 AM on 30 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Fascinating. this graph is doing the "denyosphere" rounds, not least of all goddard showing sea level as being the lowest since 2004; but an overall rise of 0.76mm/year... It comes from aviso for Envisat without Glacial Isostatic Adjustments applied. With those corrections it would be 1.6mm/year (2004-2011). The site also allows you to view each altimeter individually, all on the same graph; with and without their various adjustments. In addition to 'just' showing Envisat - the oddest looking results and therefor the favorite of the "denyosphere" - you can see Jason-1 and Joson-2 individually - showing 2.75mm/year (2003-2011) and (a very wobbly) 2.44 mm/year (2009-2011). Their overall processing result is, as in 54, 3.25mm/year (1993-2011) as shown here. My point being that it's just childish to quote one or two numbers out of context and then claim 'fowl'. The data and tools out there are so good... why do people just quote a couple of numbers and 'eyeball' trend-lines. weird!
       Response:

       [DB] Les, it's all about adjusting the data to meet one's preconceived curve expectations...

84541. JMurphy at 04:35 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       tallbloke wrote : "Gavin Schmidt declined the invitation to join us, but he did prejudge us, like you just have." I don't think he prejudged you at all : he was very explicit in his reply to the invitation : The Invitation At this stage we are planning to have a workshop where the main scientific issues can be discussed, so that some clarity on points of agreement and disagreement might be reached. We would try to stay off the policy issues, and will also exclude personal arguments. The issues we have in mind are Medieval Warm Period, ice, climate sensitivity, and temperature data. We would hope to have smaller groups discussing these in some detail, hopefully with scientists who are very familiar with the technical issues to lead the discussion. The "Thanks, but no thanks" response Thanks for the invitation. However, I’m a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position. You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific ‘controversies’. tallbloke also wrote : "I find that kind of a priori thinking rarely goes together with even handedness, though you may disagree. I'm not sure who these 'opponents of climate science' you refer to are. Not Judith Curry for sure, since she is herself an eminent and well published climate scientist." Even handedness ? Like this : Tallbloke gave her a commemorative t-shirt with a Josh cartoon on it — the cartoon depicts a trash can labelled “Climate Science”. Curry quips “My reaction to climate change”. Say no more… Climate science being shown to be in a trash can is in agrrement with her "reaction to climate change" ? Yes, very even handed...not.
84542. Albatross at 04:29 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Yes Skywatcher @38, a pretty damning refutation of McIntyre's data manipulation.
84543. tallbloke at 04:24 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Albatross@35 Both McIntyre and Curry can verify that I challenge them on their scientific viewpoints as much as I do anyone else. I am my own sceptic. [reciprocal challenge snipped]
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can everybody exercise a bit more restraint and avoid making things personal. It is possible to discuss the causes and effects of denial without focussing on the individuals taking part.
84544. skywatcher at 04:18 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Sorry Albatross, hit send before I saw that. Sill, Deep Climate's expose of McIntyre is well worth a read.
84545. skywatcher at 04:16 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       #33 tallbloke. This would be the same Steve McIntyre who wrote a piece of code that created 10,000 sets of null proxy datasets, created an index of how much like a 'hockey stick' each proxy was, sorted the datasets in order of how much like a hockey stick they were, then selected 12 graphs from within those top 1% of red noise diagrams that looked most like a hockey stick. He then presents those 12 carefully selected graphs as a random pick from the original 10,000 and uses it to claim Mann's hockey stick was false. Now I have a lot of experience with writing computer code, and these falsehoods of McIntyre, as found by Deep Climate are not the sort of things you can do by accident. Unfortunately for you, a balanced and honest assessment of climate science, as done by John Cook, or by the many independent inquiries of last year, does not tend to read favourably for the opponents of science.
84546. tallbloke at 04:12 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Tom@34, you use the word 'so' to commence your final paragraph as if it somehow logically followed from the rest of your comment. McIntyre spends his time trying to replicate the results of the work which supports the IPCC consensus, in order to ensure it is properly carried out and verified scientific work. Curry is engaged in novel research of her own, and in blogging about the problem she sees as the inadequate scientific support the IPCC consensus position has. From what I can see, they both have disagreements of opinion with both IPCC consensus supporters and detractors. This is all in the rough and tumble of normal scientific discourse. Science has to be challenged, or it is dogma. Scientists who are confident of the correctness of their results welcome challenges, because it gives them the opportunity to show where the challenger is mistaken, and set their science on a more secure footing by honing their arguments and improving their supporting evidence. It is part of the essence of the scientific method and true scientific scepticism. How else can science progress?
84547. Albatross at 04:10 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Tom @34, Be wary of the poster you are engaging @33-- D-K alert. The person in question was involved in sharing Gavin Schmidt's private email with Fred Pearce and McIntyre. For some entertainment go to DeepClimate (see also Part 2) and Deltoid and SheWonk. As you have probably gathered by now, the person is an uncritical acolyte of Curry and McIntyre. Please folks, DNFTT.
84548. Albatross at 03:59 AM on 30 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Regarding the absolute nonsense being peddled @51 regarding the trend in global sea level. From the CSIRO sea-level page: [Source] Trend in global SL is 3.2 mm/yr.
84549. Tom Curtis at 03:27 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       tallbloke @33, as a "qualified historian and philosopher of science" you should be adverse to misusing terminology. Consequently you should be aware that to prejudge somebody I (and Schmidt) would have to judge them, not before meeting them, but before reading their works. As that is true in neither case, you are showing your prejudice in your choice of words. So also does your claim that Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre are "well balanced", which I do not doubt. But do you think that Schneider, or Hansen, or I are not? What does the ability of somebody to be more or less urbane, and more or less sane have to do with the quality of their intellectual work? The simple fact is that both Curry and McIntyre has shown a willingness to stitch up climate scientists and climate science (Curry's membership of the former group not-with-standing) on limited evidence that is capable of, and in some case inconsistent with anything other than a more charitable interpretation. At the same time they show themselves to be almost entirely uncritical of astonishing flaws from their fellow travellers. So, it is not properly carried out and verified scientific work that Curry, McIntyre, and as you include yourself in their club, you, are keen on; but only such work that be seen as challenging the IPCC consensus.
84550. tallbloke at 03:04 AM on 30 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Tom@31, I've met both Steve McIntyre and Judith Curry in person, and discussed climate science with them extensively. I found them both to be well balanced people with well developed specialist knowledge in the climate science field. Gavin Schmidt declined the invitation to join us, but he did prejudge us, like you just have. I find that kind of a priori thinking rarely goes together with even handedness, though you may disagree. I'm not sure who these 'opponents of climate science' you refer to are. Not Judith Curry for sure, since she is herself an eminent and well published climate scientist. And certainly not me. As a qualified historian and philosopher of science I stand in support of correctly carried out and properly verified scientific work. McIntyre seems keen on that too.

Prev  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  Next