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. Albatross at 02:33 AM on 29 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Tom @41 and KR @46, I thought I was missing something--t hat is what happens when you speed read and/or try and do too many things at once. Thanks for pointing that out and correcting me.
84502. tallbloke at 01:58 AM on 29 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       The first (and only, so far) customer review on the Amazon site is not very encouraging. "This book is an extremely one sided view of the climate change controversy. It trots out conspiracy theories as if they are fact. It attacks the integrity of scientists whose research does not support the theory of AGW and explicitly says they are paid off by "Big Oil" without offering proof. As far as examining what creates "denialism", this book could have balanced that by examing what creates alarmism. The book is fairly well-written, but really fails to make a point."
       Response:

       [dana1981] Thanks for pointing that out.  I added my review (having read most of the book).  Definitely worth 5 stars!

84503. KR at 01:34 AM on 29 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Albatross - I have to agree with Tom Curtis; it's a compounding 10%. That came directly from his statements of a logarithmic effect of increasing CO2, and his CO2 doubling sensitivity is stated at 2.4 C. But definitely - it's a fantastic paper, especially for the time.
84504. Tom Curtis at 01:19 AM on 29 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       gallopingcamel @44: From wikipedia: "According to the Los Angeles Times, The Pirate Bay is "one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" and "the most visible member of a burgeoning international anti-copyright or pro-piracy movement"." So you wish to use Skeptical Science to incite people to illegal activity? I highly recomend, based on that, that your post be deleted and serious consideration be given to revocation of your posting rights.
       Response:

       [DB] I have snipped the relevant portions from GC's comment.  He may not have been aware of the status of the linked website.

84505. gallopingcamel at 01:04 AM on 29 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       scaddenp @30 & 31, You disappoint me. Writing off the TV presentation without even bothering to watch it. You ask "What is the relevance?". If you had watched the program you would understand the relevance; the end of the MWP came suddenly and the recovery from the LIA came rapidly too. Climatologists ( -Snip- ) are still trying to identify the smoking gun or guns. A major reason for doubting the predictions based on GCMs is their inability to model these abrupt climate change events that occurred during historic times. At least there is widespread agreement that the coldest period of the LIA occurred during the Maunder minimum leading to the hypothesis that solar activity might be a factor. ( -SNIP- ) Incidentally, you could not classify that History Channel program as "Denialist". It mentions some of the major hypotheses advanced by climatologists without getting judgmental.
       Response:

       [DB] I watched the program (I have it on disc as well).  There is ongoing discussion over the THC, but most agree (as stated in the program) that the GW currently underweigh is sufficient to overwhelm the cooling forcings now in play.  Implications of dishonesty and link to website of illicit activity snipped.

84506. WheelsOC at 00:51 AM on 29 May 2011
       Humlum is at it again
       "The AGW theory does not pretend that natural factors cannot affect the global climate." It's incredibly frustrating when I run into people arguing energetically that "climate changed without us before!" in order to rebuff the idea that we're a major driver of climate change now. What is so hard to understand about this? It boggles the mind.
84507. otter17 at 00:16 AM on 29 May 2011
       The Climate Show Episode 13: James Hansen and The Critical Decade
       This was a great level-headed discussion on the politics with Dr. Hansen. I didn't watch it all, but this is obviously an awesome show. I ought to make some more time to watch the rest. If only this type of stuff displaced the right-wing hot air on the USA airwaves.
84508. Camburn at 23:46 PM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Ken: What you have written are the current observations.
84509. LazyTeenager at 23:33 PM on 28 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Ubrew12 says --------- Happer has every right to publish his opinion on this important topic. And we have every right to treat his opinion as uninformed as might be expected of a spin-polarization physicist. --------- Thats quite true. But we have every right to point out that there is an inconsitency between Happer representing his views as those developed by an esteemed scientist and the views themselves which breach the standards expected of an esteemed scientist. Namely: 1. Lack of objectivity 2. Partisan support of poorly supported debating points while ignoring well known counter arguments. 3. Not considering the evidence 4. Misrepresenting other peoples views 5. Repeating lies made up to discredit climate scientists so that he can justify ignoring the evidence collected by others. 6. Logically fallacious arguments. E.g. Stawman
84510. Ken Lambert at 23:31 PM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Why don't we take a hard look at the latest report from Messrs Flannery, Steffan and Karoly et al - three vocal advocates for the AGW position with a lot of professional skin in the game: "1) The average air temperature at the Earth’s surface continues on an upward trajectory at a rate of 0.17°C per decade over the past three decades." Note that they don't mention the last decade, where the warming has flattened by all measures. "2) The temperature of the upper 700 meters of the ocean continues to increase, with most of the excess heat generated by the growing energy imbalance at the Earth’s surface stored in this compartment of the system." "A growing energy imbalance at the surface stored in this compartment of the system." A carefully compartmentalized description indeed. What about the flattening OHC for the last 7-8 years in the top 0-700m and the overall TOA imbalance? "3) The alkalinity of the ocean is decreasing steadily as a result of acidification by anthropogenic CO2 emissions." It seems that the latest argument is that heat is transported to the 700-2000m depths by a yet undescribed short term deep mixing mechanism - but CO2 does not travel with it, otherwise the pH effect would be infinitesimal. "4) Recent observations confirm net loss of ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets; the extent of Arctic sea ice cover continues on a long-term downward trend. Most land-based glaciers and ice caps are in retreat." With 90% of the planet's ice in Antarctica, should not the vast majority in East Antarctica be mentioned? "5) 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." Last time I looked, Jason 1 and 2 were giving a 1.7-2.0mm/year SLR globally. If the ice melt is an increasing contribution then steric rise is a decreasing contribution, which fits with a flattening OHC increase. By far the greater energy is absorbed in a 1mm steric rise than a 1mm ice melt rise. "6) The biosphere is responding in a consistent way to a warming Earth, with observed changes in gene pools, species ranges, timing of biological patterns and ecosystem dynamics." Evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW. "7) The report notes that the past decade (2001-2010) was the hottest on record, 0.46°C above the 1961-1990 average." If warming has flattened and approached a plateau, this decade will be 'Hotter' than the last decade and the last decade 'Hotter' than the decade before that. Even if warming has stopped, this decade will remain the 'hottest on record'. And as a general comment, Jim Hansen (a major IPCC AR4 author and seminal AGW theorist) in his latest effort "Earth's Energy Imbalance and Inplications" suggests that the 2005-10 planetary imbalance has reduced from a pre-2005 estimate of 0.9W/sq.m to 0.59W/sq.m. His reasons are a prolonged Solar Minimum, largely underestimated Aerosol cooling, and a delayed rebound effect from Mt Pinitubo aerosols. While his reasons are debatable, he has abandoned the 'its there but be can't measure it' argument for maintaining the 0.9W/sq.m imbalance which in theory should be increasing since 2005 due to greater CO2GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and a growing induced positive WV and ice albedo feedback.
       Response:

       [dana1981] I don't have the time to respond to this entire Gish Gallop, but you're cherrypicking.  The last 30 years includes the last 10 years.

84511. LazyTeenager at 23:11 PM on 28 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:47 AM on 27 May, 2011 I think Happer is pretty qualified to speak on climate science considering he has studied the greenhouse effect intimately and the radiative chemistry of the physics aspect. --------- The phrasing of this tells me that Dr J does not have a physical sciences background. A bit of extrapolation says he does not have a PHD or is a friend of Happers.
84512. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 22:48 PM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Excellent review of the current Science. You could probably find similar documents produced by most developed nations especially those within the EU.
84513. skagedal at 22:22 PM on 28 May 2011
       How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
       John, did you eventually manage to convince your father-in-law?
84514. Ed Davies at 20:10 PM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Is the sentence starting "It's worth noting that while Hansen et al. find paleoclimate evidence..." about eventual near 6 °C sensitivity actually summarizing something in the report or is it additional commentary? I couldn't find it in the report looking just at the most obvious page from the context and searching for "6 °" or "6°". If it is an aside I think it's potentially misleading not to label it as such much more clearly.
       Response:

       [dana1981] That's my commentary (and it's true).  Everything in quotes or bullets is from the report.  Everything else is from me.

84515. Tom Curtis at 19:22 PM on 28 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       trunkmonkey @42, based on calculations by Schmidt et al 2010, removing all of the Earth's atmosphere's CO2 would reduce radiative forcing by 31 Watts/m^2, globally averaged. That represents a loss of energy of the order of 5*10^23 Joules per annum ignoring feedbacks. For comparison, according to the NODC the top 700 meters of the worlds oceans have gained around 15*10^22 Joules over the last 55 years, or less than a third of that which would be lost in a year with the complete removal of CO2. At that rate it would take just 12 years to lower a volume of water equal to the top 300 meters of the oceans surface from 14 degrees to 0 degrees. Of course, with feedbacks, the heat would escape at a faster rate initially, but then at a reducing rate while the planet cools. Perhaps you are being confused because you are not taking into account the logarithmic decline of forcing with increasing CO2 concentration. To obtain a reversed forcing of similar magnitude by increasing CO2 concentrations, we would need to instantly increase CO2 levels to around 90 thousand ppm. I assure you that if you modelled that scenario, temperature increases would be suitably rapid to satisfy you. Alternatively, if you merely halved the CO2 content instantly, cooling would closely match the rates of warming obtained for doubling CO2 levels.
84516. okatiniko at 18:30 PM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       sorry a sentence is incomplete : wouldn't be desirable to quantify the confidence level at which we can exclude that the current warming rate (approx 0.5 °C in 30 years) has occured in the past ?
84517. okatiniko at 18:10 PM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       the statement "Neither multi-decadal or century-scale patterns of natural variability, such as the Medieval Warm Period, nor shorter term patterns of variability, such as ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) or the North Atlantic Oscillation, can explain the globally coherent warming trend observed since the middle of the 20th century." seems to be rather firmly established. However the content of the report doesn't really confirm this strength. The only detailed argument presented in the report is "The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), a somewhat warmer period from about 1000 to about 1250 or 1300 AD, has sometimes been invoked to infer that the contemporary warming is nothing unusual in the Holocene and that it is thus likely due to natural variability. However, the bulk of evidence for the MCA comes from the northern hemisphere, which makes it difficult to determine whether the MCA was truly global in scale. Furthermore, a spatially explicit synthesis of all available temperature reconstructions around the globe suggests that the MCA was highly heterogeneous, even in the northern hemisphere, with globally averaged warming much below that observed over the last century (Mann et al. 2009; Figure 9). Thus, the MCA is different in magnitude and extent from contemporary warming (Figure 10)." I don't really see how strong this argument is. IPCC has defined a scale of "likelihood" with confidence intervals : wouldn't be desirable to quantify the confidence level at which we can exclude that the current warming rate (approx 0.5 °C in 30 years) ? is it at 90 % ? at 99 % ? what is the accuracy of globally averaged warming 1000 years ago ?
84518. Paul D at 17:36 PM on 28 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       Impressive that Murray Gell-Mann was a participant.
84519. trunkmonkey at 16:30 PM on 28 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       I'm still stuck on the Hansen 2010 thing about pulling all the CO2 out of the GISS and having GMAT drop 6 degrees C in ONE YEAR, and dropping to snowball earth level in a decade. I suspect we all agree that the glaciers to support this could not possibly form this fast. And the thermal inertia of the Oceans? If CO2 is only in the models as radiative forcing, how is it that it's removal (unforcing?)is 7 times more powerful than it's forcing?
84520. alan_marshall at 15:59 PM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       "There is a very large body of internally consistent observations, experiments, analyses, and physical theory". Indeed, and it is just this internal consistency that is lacking from the sceptic's arguments!
84521. Eric (skeptic) at 14:42 PM on 28 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       I will look forward to reading that. Crook is interesting, he analyzes and simulates two cases: 1) "This convergence line developed as a cold air surge, forced by previous convection over the Rocky Mountains, propagated eastward, and encountered the low-level southeasterlies over the Plains." 2) Around 1550 LT, several convective storms developed as a low level wind surge moved up from the south and strengthened the convergence line." But then he had difficulty initiating convection in his simulations. He blames measurement and initial conditions to deflect the blame from where it properly lies, the fidelity, scale and even chaotic physics of his model. He seems quite willing to downplay the horizontal forcing that he acknowledged and focus only on vertical forcing perhaps triggered with a few well placed horizontal temperature anomalies. His simulation results are not very convincing.
84522. Tom Curtis at 14:14 PM on 28 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Albatross @40, I assumed that it is a compounding 10%, not a fixed value. On that basis, 1.1^7.28 =~= 2, so the climate sensitivity he uses is 7.28*0.3 =~= 2.2 degrees C per doubling, which is quite close to the 2.4 figure he discusses in the last complete paragraph of the first column on page 461.
84523. Albatross at 13:41 PM on 28 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Tom @38, I may be reading/interpreting this incorrectly, but the footnote to Broecker's Table 1 says: "Assumes a 0.3 C global temperature increase for each 10% rise in the atmospheric CO2 content". Wow, scientists ahead of their time.
84524. scaddenp at 13:04 PM on 28 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       The Manabe and Wetherald paper is here
84525. Albatross at 13:01 PM on 28 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       Eric @30, Sorry, while I agree with some of what you are saying. A careful review of the papers I provided at 27 and 29 and the literature on severe storms (something that I happen to be very familiar with) is not consistent with what you are saying in your post. I am busy now, but will post on this as soon as possible.
84526. Eric (skeptic) at 12:12 PM on 28 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       My citeseer link above seems to be incomplete (uses cookies maybe?) Try this instead http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/publications/leibensperger2008.pdf (see fig 4 and note that the surface cyclones are quite often reflected from the upper lows and should have similar trends.
84527. GFW at 11:56 AM on 28 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       I got my PhD from Princeton ... and in fact it was while I was there that Happer returned from Washington. (Aside: Lucky for the younger prof also in atomic spin-polarized physics, he'd pressed for early tenure review and got it shortly before Happer's return - but that's not part of this story.) Anyway, back then I didn't know much about climate or AGW (I was naturally focused on my area of research). But I distinctly recall Happer grousing about his dismissal, and I asked him what the issue had been. He didn't say anything about climate or AGW, and instead implied it was a disagreement over whether high voltage power lines cause illnesses. In retrospect, that's fascinating, because if the true issue was AGW, then this dissembling was because speaking to another physicist (even if only a grad student) he felt safer using another controversy where the "alarmist" viewpoint probably was alarmist so he could sound reasonable and principled.
84528. Eric (skeptic) at 11:47 AM on 28 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       Albatross, those models for the end of this century (lots of unknowns) are mildly interesting but even their elevated CAPE don't hold a candle to the dynamics in the weather models of today. For example, here's the discussion before the Oklahoma outbreak this past Monday http://www.wxforum.net/index.php?topic=11669.0 The dynamic factors they talk about have nothing whatsoever to do with "a 1 g/kg in low-level atmospheric moisture has significant implication for thunderstorms", but in this case the opposite: "unlike the last 2 days when limited areal coverage precluded more than a slight risk...we may have the opposite problem today with storms becoming too numerous and updraft competition limiting the chances of any one storm to maintain dominance" The primary dynamic factor in this particular discussion was the "very potent negative-tilt upper trough" There are a number of interesting and somewhat conflicting trends in that type of activity. This paper http://stratus.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/key-chan_cyclones_grl1999.pdf shows an increase in upper low frequency in spring in midlatitudes worldwide, but it varies by location as shown here http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.290&rep=rep1&type=pdf with a small downward trend in surface cyclone frequency over the N central and NE US from 1980 to 2006 An trend resulting from the increase in low level moisture that you mentioned is most likely to show up as an increase in rainfall intensity : http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JHM1229.1 rather than violent weather which has other more important factors behind it.
84529. Tom Curtis at 11:06 AM on 28 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Albatross @36, I'm either looking at the wrong article or I simply cannot find that table. Broecker's Climactic Change: Are we on the brink of pronounced global warming?" (1975) discusses work by Wanabe and Wetherald, and by Rasool and Scneider, and concludes that climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 lies between 2 and 4 degrees, but he employs a value of just under 2.4 degrees per doubling (0.32 per 10%, compared to the 0.3 per 10% he used). Using this value, and making no allowance for aerosols or (so far as I can see) thermal inertia he calculates a temperature increase relative to approximately 1850 of 1.1 degrees C. HadCRUT3v gives a 0.9, which very close considering the limitations of his methods. As the prediction was made while global temperatures where falling, it puts the lie to one of Happer's claims, but that is the subject of another thread.
84530. scaddenp at 10:22 AM on 28 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Manabe's model is a marvel of what could be done at the time but the man it was primitive. Its worth thinking back to what else was going on at time. First ice core was bring drilled. d18 thermometry on benthic forams was really setting Milankovich in concrete. Four years later I would be doing my first finite element modelling on rock deformation - card stack at 2am in morning on a Burroughs main frame. The substantial lesson I think though is that the basics of climate arent that complicated. It puts a lie to the idea that climate modelling is somehow curve fitting.
84531. Albatross at 09:37 AM on 28 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Scaddenp @35, I just had a quick read of Broecker's 1975 paper. Absolutely incredible how well his projections are working out, not only for CO2 but the global SAT as well. But I should not be surprised, as you say, pure physics, and that solid foundation has been understood for a very long time. I'd like to see a comparison between Broecker, Hansen and Lindzen. Broecker's seminal work really does need highlighting more. And look at the 3 C warming for doubling CO2 that is shown in one of Broecker's Tables.....amazing. Did Manabe's model runs from 1991/1992 produce an estimate of global SAT? I can't recall seeing that in the paper, but I have not looked at it in a while.
84532. scaddenp at 07:32 AM on 28 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Aerosol distribution may also have been factor in SH. Model design is primarily about accurately representing physics but this is a complex task. That the models work for paleoclimate validation is at least a sign that they are not radically wrong. So indeed the future would tell - but how much future prediction do you think it needs? The incredibly primitive model that was the basis of Wally Broecker's 1975 prediction still allowed him to predict 2010 temperature pretty well. Okay, CO2 isnt has high as he thought it would be and Manabe's model had sensitivity too low, but note that this prediction was made before GISS existed, before any millennial paleoclimate temperature record was around. In short, pure physics. In 10 years time, after another solar cycle to test the Argo temperatures will people still be saying that models are unproven and lets see if they can predict the future?
84533. Kevin C at 07:31 AM on 28 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Sigh. I got the most important equation wrong. It should of course read: T(t) = Sum_s ( F(t-s) R(s) ) + c
84534. Kevin C at 07:25 AM on 28 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       #29 Thanks for the description Charlie. I've actually just coded it up in python, 'cos that's what I know. Here's what I get using a two-box model with unmodified forcings. I optimise 5 parameters: the equilibrium temperature, the scales and the periods of the two exponentials. That looks pretty much identical to Hansen's "Green's function" version in his figure 8b - the difference being that his response function is determined from running a step function in ModelE, and mine is from fitting the 20th century climate with a 2-box model. The formula of the response function is as follows: R(t) = 0.0434*exp(-t/1.493) + 0.0215*exp(-t/24.8) (where t is in years). The temperature as a function of year is then given by the equation: T(t) = Sum_s ( F(t-s) R(t) ) + c where F(t) is the forcing and c is -0.0764641223, which is a constant which fits the equilibrium temperature. The next step is to see if there is enough data to do a realistic cross-validation, and if so to play with different parameterisations of the response function. I'm not sure whether to include an ENSO term like Arthur did (which gives a much better fit at the cost of adding another parameter - that's bad given that overfitting is a concern), or work with an ENSO-removed temperature series. What was the point of all this? It demonstrates my point¹ in #1 that if you just want global temperatures, you don't need a complex climate model. You just need the forcings. 20th century climate provides enough of a constraint on the system behaviour that you can then predict then next few decades with a single equation. So, one answer to the question in the title of this article, "Can we trust climate models?" is "It doesn't matter". We can deduce what will happen to global temperatures over the next few decades for any given set of forcings empirically by looking at the 20th century. Of course if you want to go beyond a few decades, or if you want to know about anything other than temperature, or if you want to know what will happen at a regional or smaller scale, or if the behaviour of the system changes drastically, then you need a climate model. ¹ Well, not really my point. Hansen and Held and Tamino and Arthur and Lucia and probably others did it before me.
84535. David Horton at 06:59 AM on 28 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Eric the Red "I seriously doubt anyone would believe that Greenland was "green" during the Viking colonization". I think you will find that is exactly what they do believe - Greenland was called Greenland because it was green I think is the phrase. That is they literally believe that three was no ice cap and all the ice has "reformed" during the last 500 years or so. And when they say "England was exporting wine from grapes" (can't find the quote) they literally believe that England had turned into a sort of northern Italy perhaps, where vineyards blossomed on every hill and happy peasants in light summer clothing, brows sweaty, toiled to get the grapes in and begin stamping on them in vats. Because most of the contributors to SkS are rational human beings we tend to underestimate the extent to which Happer and his friend (among a number of others here and elsewhere) are not. They do hold ideas which bear no relation to reality and base their response to global warming on them.
84536. arch stanton at 06:59 AM on 28 May 2011
       It's cosmic rays
       Philippe - I was hoping you would notice this since we had this discussion on another thread a few weeks ago. You were right. ;-)
84537. sustainable07 at 06:54 AM on 28 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       pirate @ 60 Do you understand the qualifications of the National Research Council and that their members are selected the leaders of the American Academies of Sciences? Do you really want to equate their findings and recommendations to any blog, no matter how careful and science-based? Do you understand the peer-review process and how it develops and shapes science, using the scientific method? The peer-reviewed literature is cited extensively in the following report, linked by Prof. Mandia: Advancing the Science of Climate Change (2010) "As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs. Increasing temperatures and GHG concentrations are driving a multitude of related and interacting changes in the Earth system, including decreases in the amounts of ice stored in mountain glaciers and polar regions, increases in sea level, changes in ocean chemistry, and changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation events, and droughts. These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems." (p. 19) http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=19 "…In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities." (p. 21-22) On its website, the National Academies describe the origins of the NRC as follows: "In 1916 the Academy established the National Research Council at the request of President Wilson to recruit specialists from the larger scientific and technological communities to participate in that work. Recognizing the value of scientific advice to the nation in times of peace as well as war, Wilson issued an executive order at the close of World War I asking the Academy of perpetuate the National Research Council. Subsequent executive orders, by President Eisenhower in 1956 and President Bush in 1993, have affirmed the importance of the National Research Council and further broadened its charter." http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/history.html
84538. dana1981 at 06:30 AM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       MattJ - again, that's a direct quote from the report (all bullets are taken straight from the report). I suppose you're right that some people have doubts, but not informed, rational people. The report likely refers to no doubt amongst the climate science community.
84539. MattJ at 06:21 AM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       The article says, "There is no doubt about this statement." Actually, there is a lot of doubt about it, as you can see by looking at today's Huffington Post (and many other similar source). Now to be sure, all that doubt is irrational, even highly irrational. But it still dominates public perception, so it is even more irrational to deny its very existence. So I suggest the author amend to article to read, "There is no rational doubt about this statement". For that is clearly true.
84540. Stephen Baines at 05:48 AM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Based on their wording, my guess is that they are trying to avoid the whole "it can't be acidification of the ocean's pH is >7" nonesense. "Less alkaline" gets around that, but they said "less alkalinity" instead by mistake. The proper opposite to acidity is basicity, which almost noone uses.
84541. bbickmore at 05:21 AM on 28 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       Arkadiusz @43, I'm not going to go hunting down papers that some random poster references inadequately. (Titles? Journal names? Volume and page numbers?) The oldest trick in the book is for some ignoramus to say, "What about these 50 papers?" as if that constituted an argument. No, you need to explain what you think is so compelling about each of those papers and give full references. Maybe I would feel motivated to go look them up, then. In any case, I still don't understand the rest of your argument. I think maybe we're hitting a language barrier here.
84542. ubrew12 at 05:11 AM on 28 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Happer's speciality is spin-polarized physics. From his Princeton website: "In most of our work we use circularly polarized laser photons to pump angular momentum into electron spins, and we use hyperfine interactions to transfer angular momentum from the polarized electrons to the nuclei." In reading this article, and the comments, I had a feeling this was the same person I'd run across before (i.e. that guy also worked in spin-polarized physics). I think my earlier comment to a skeptic who quoted Happer was: 'you're the sort of person who would hire a plumber to fix his car.' Happer has every right to publish his opinion on this important topic. And we have every right to treat his opinion as uninformed as might be expected of a spin-polarization physicist. A lot of these guys work 80 hr work-weeks trying to be the best in their field. That, sadly, makes them LESS informed than the general public about topics of a more general nature, that don't intersect with their speciality. Many of the comments here express amazement that a Princeton professor could hold such easily refuted falsehoods about AGW. I'm not amazed at all. Subatomic physicists are held in a little too much acclaim by the general public. These are not supermen and most of them know their limits.
84543. boba10960 at 04:42 AM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Yes, I just checked the original document and the error is repeated on pages 6, 8 and 27. Alkalinity is a difficult concept to master quantitatively, so it is not surprising that the authors of the report would have trouble with it.
84544. Albatross at 04:31 AM on 28 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       BP @203, Try reading the thread every now and then. It was KR quoting Braganza et al 2004, who said "observed diurnal temperature range (DTR) changes are actually much larger than predicted by models". It's a pity it was fabricated." Actually BP, you need to read very carefully what you wrote @191. I know what Braganza found, and KR's reading of the paper @186 is correct. Braganza (2004): "Observed DTR over land shows a large negative trend of 0.4C over the last 50 years that is very unlikely to have occurred due to internal variability. This trend is due to larger increases in minimum temperatures (0.9C) than maximum temperatures (0.6C) over the same period." Inconvenient for you and Watts is that Fall et al's work brings the models into closer agreement with the observations. Watts loses again. Also, the models did not predict a statistically significant decline over much of the contiguous USA between 1950 and 1999, consistent with the findings of Fall et al. (see Fig. 3 in Zhou et al. 2010). Watts loses again. What was fabricated? By whom? The only things that was possibly fabricated was the following claim made by you @191 when you said: "Or, alternately, you can insist the temperature record is reliable, but the fast increasing DTR is inconsistent with model predictions." Do you see that word "increasing" that you typed? Perhaps you meant to say was something like "the rate of decrease in observed DTR is greater than that predicted by the models over the USA". Do you not read what you type before disparaging others? Again, if anything, Fall et al's work actually brings the models into closer agreement with the observations over the USA, and one of the paper's authors Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon agrees with that. Another "skeptic" bubble burst.... KR, @186 "The issues with day/night temperature range are quite different - you might profitably look at Braganza et al 2004, who note that observed diurnal temperature range (DTR) changes are actually much larger than predicted by models, most likely because of insufficient accounting for temperature driven cloud increases in those models."
84545. dana1981 at 04:30 AM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       The alkilinity statement is taken directly out of the report, so you'll have to take it up with the authors!
84546. Stephen Baines at 03:49 AM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       boba's right. Alkalinity has a very specific definition in chemical oceanography. The ocean is getting less alkaline, in that pH is declining, but alkalinity is not decreasing. Very confusing, I know. Wikipedia is actually pretty good on this point.
84547. David Lewis at 03:47 AM on 28 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       I see GE is making big news proclaiming how cheap solar power will be within a few years. Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html) has a story quoting GE's global research director, Mark Little: "If we can get solar at 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or lower, which I’m hopeful that we will do, you’re going to have a lot of people that are going to want to have solar at home,” Contrast that "coming real soon now" of 15 cents kWhr with your statement in "Climate Change Denial" that nuclear, at the price MIT said it could be produced for now, i.e. 6.7 cents kWhr, is "not cheap" and therefore we should not be putting any money into nuclear. You make statements about solar in your book that carefully avoid putting the cost into an understandable form, i.e. cost per kWhr now or at some date, you claim the problems with solar "have been largely solved", and you lump nuclear advocates with climate deniers together as opponents of solar who don't know what they are talking about, i.e. "this is contrary to the views expressed by nuclear and denial advocates". James Hansen is a nuclear advocate who happens not to be a climate science denier, or a solar opponent.
84548. boba10960 at 02:46 AM on 28 May 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       Excellent summary of information that is valuable to have at ready access! However there is an error in the statement: "The alkalinity of the ocean is decreasing steadily as a result of acidification by anthropogenic CO2 emissions." Rising atmospheric CO2 does not change the alkalinity of seawater. Rather, rising CO2 lowers the concentration ratio of carbonate ions to bicarbonate ions, while maintaining a constant alkalinity. It is the concentration of carbonate ion that is thought to most affect calcification by organisms.
84549. Philippe Chantreau at 02:38 AM on 28 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       If BP is refering to Anthony Watts' miserable operation, I stand by my statement. There is data analysis to substantiate.
84550. Philippe Chantreau at 02:31 AM on 28 May 2011
       It's cosmic rays
       THanks for that link Arch. The real problems with the GCR hypothesis are unresolved. The effect is weak at best, whatever particles are created are too small, and no possibility for a particle growth process has been put forth yet.

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