Recent Comments

Prev  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  Next

Comments 84701 to 84750:

84701. Bern at 15:30 PM on 27 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       Stevo: that's a good point - I haven't noticed any mention of this symposium in the MSM at all, only on RealClimate & here. The only MSM coverage of global warming here lately has been about what a great big new tax it'll be, and how much it'll cost, and how it'll ruin the entire economy if we wean ourselves off the fossil fuel addiction. Actually, two or three articles I read in today's newspapers seemed to take it as given that the only "solution" to CO2 emissions is to switch from coal to gas.
84702. Stevo at 14:06 PM on 27 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       Jeff T @ 16. I agree that, strictly speaking, this page may be off topic for this site, it might be worth keeping it here as a reminder to us that there is some activity happenning in the public sphere that is not following a 'skptical' adjenda. There is every chance that this symposium will produce decisions or ideas that will be relevant to spreading science based reasoning to the greater public (i.e. non-scientists like myself) and Its my hope that this site will report on them because I'm not very confident that the mainstream media will.
84703. Tom Curtis at 14:01 PM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Berényi Péter @206:

       "Come on. Until 1943 there was a single GHCN station south of 60S, BASE ORCADAS (-60.75 -44.72). Therefore the huge 1950-1980 positive temperature anomaly in the south (relative to 1919-1949) is entirely believable, isn't it?"

       We should also note that: 1)There was also a very large whaling fleet operating in Antarctic waters; and 2)With the exception of water near the West Antarctic Peninsular, and hence Orcadas Base, the anomaly south of about 60 degrees is not shown in the anomaly map you are objecting to. Your objection, therefore, is without substance.
84704. Tom Curtis at 13:50 PM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Berényi Péter @197, the diurnal temperature range data for Australia are taken from the Australian high-quality climate site network, which has been vetted for the quality of the stations, with stations rating poor(4) or very poor(5) on a five point scale having been removed from the network. I have seen some attempts by Australian deniers to question the network, and they are pathetic. Indicative of how desperate they are, they have argued that one outback site should be classified as urban because it is located near some graded runways, ie, because it is near (within 50 meters) of exposed dirt in an area which is 80% exposed dirt. is a discussion of another site they considered to be "urban". Had there been substantial issues to raise, I'm sure the deniers would have latched on to them. By inference, therefore, the genuine efforts of the Bureau of Meteorology to maintain high quality meteorological data have paid of. Further, aerosol optical depth is not well quantified, and indirect aerosol effects on cloud albedo are even less well quantified, but aerosol emissions are well known. Therefore, whatever the net aerosol forcing for a given aerosol load, we know that it increased from the 1950's through to the 1970's, decreased there after, and has been increasing again over the last decade:
84705. adelady at 13:43 PM on 27 May 2011
       If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
       I like the mall idea. My longstanding preference is for an image from a more innocent past is something like The Jetsons. The unstated technological marvel there was, of course, the 'too cheap to meter' promise of nuclear power. But the idea of clean skies (not necessarily including flying cars) and an abundant lifestyle is perfectly in accord with ideas of both modernity and clever use of resources.
84706. Tom Curtis at 12:53 PM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Dr Jay Cadbury, PhD, as you are so determined to defend Happer's pontifications, perhaps you could consider the following claim:

       "There have been many warmings and coolings in the past when the CO2 levels did not change. A well-known example is the medieval warming, about the year 1000, when the Vikings settled Greenland (when it was green) and wine was exported from England."

       (My emphasis) Given the authority you obviously attribute to Happer, perhaps you could point out whether you agree with him that: 1) That Greenland was green in the MWP (or at any time in human history); and 2) England exported wines in the MWP. As you are also Happer's friend, perhaps you can elicit from him his sources of this information. For my part, I believe that Greenland has been covered by an icecap for the entirety of human history, and that describing the MWP as the period when Greenland "was green" because at that time, as todady, a few square kilometers on the southern coast are green on a seasonal basis is misleading (to say the least). I also believe that while England had 42 vinyards at the time of the Domesday Book, that was partly because wine preservation was rudimentary so that the superior wines of France and Spain all to easily turned to vinegar when transported to England, and that consequently, there would be no export market for the inferior English wines transported the other way. Absent evidence to the contrary, it appears to me that Happer has simply embellished the well known reports of MWP English wines because, as is well known, there are over 300 commercial Engish vinyards today, not to mention Sweden, Scotland, and soon to be, Norway. Given knowledge of modern viniculture in England, 42 vineyards really isn't that impressive, but if they were exported, well, that's something you can base some spin on. So exported they were, for need trumps truth every time in spin. (Or so it seems to me.) Now, you appear to have been defending the right of Happer to make up his own facts because he has a PhD, and lectures at Princeton. If that is not your claim, then we can expect clear citations proving MWP wine exports from England.
84707. Jeff T at 11:58 AM on 27 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       Outside of introducing the interesting term "anthropocene" for those who missed it at Real Climate, this post seems off-topic for Skeptical Science. It doesn't present or discuss any evidence; it is just an appeal to authority. SkS usually does much better.
84708. Mike Lemonick at 11:28 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Rob@97 says: "Mike @ 95... Princeton can't screen how a tenured professor chooses to represent his credentials but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts there are some meetings going on at Princeton following Happer's piece that are very close to coming to fisticuffs. Happer has clearly chosen to make a public and highly politicized statement on behalf of the George C Marshall Institute BUT chosen to identify himself using his Princeton credentials (and curiously omitting his GMI connection). Princeton would have every right to be utterly furious about this kind of activity. It'll be curious to see if the university responds publicly in some manner." It won't. Happer's statements are the equivalent of someone who keeps passing gas at a party. It's embarrassing, and you'd be happier if they left, but you just politely ignore it. Happer's Princeton credentials are genuine, and he has every right to use them, even though it makes sensible people cringe. Really, you might as well give up on this, unless you like banging your head against a wall.
84709. Berényi Péter at 11:26 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       [DB] More cherries for BP Come on. Until 1943 there was a single GHCN station south of 60S, BASE ORCADAS (-60.75 -44.72). Therefore the huge 1950-1980 positive temperature anomaly in the south (relative to 1919-1949) is entirely believable, isn't it?
       Response:

       [DB] Curious, that the temperature records show an inexorable rise every single year, isn't it? ;)

       Let us not focus on the few cherry-flavored flat or declining spots lest we miss that overall rising signal in the noisy background:

       

       [Source]

84710. scaddenp at 11:12 AM on 27 May 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       The ice is not melted by conductive energy transfer so specific heat is irrelevant. Melting is from radiative energy transfer - ie the energy is the from sun and more of it is trapped because of the CO2. Perhaps you should do the math. What does an extra 1.5W/m2 (global annual average all forcing) give you? Also warmer water onlapping Antarctica increases calving which I believe remains the main source of ice loss in the Antarctic.
84711. adelady at 11:10 AM on 27 May 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       Rosco, sorry I hit the button too soon. Melting. The issue is that much of the ice does not melt in situ. It thins, weakens and breaks off and the ocean transports it away in the form of icebergs. These may not melt for quite a long time after they've subtracted their bulk from their source glacier.
84712. adelady at 11:06 AM on 27 May 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       Rosco, see the Intermediate version of this post. The land ice on Antarctica does not 'melt' by direct heating from air or insolation so much as it loses the balance it formerly had between gains and losses. The losses are (mainly) attributable to the heat now in the oceans, accumulated over the last couple of centuries. The ocean is taking more from the edges than the icecap and glaciers can accumulate at their centre/top.
84713. Berényi Péter at 10:45 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       #201 Philippe Chantreau at 10:04 AM on 27 May, 2011 The so-called "Surface Stations Project" is a pile of idiotic nonsense I see. Checking the quality of a measurement system is "a pile of idiotic nonsense" along with NOAA directive 10-1302 of course, Requirements and Standards for NWS Climate Observations. Is it some innovative new trend in science?
84714. KR at 10:42 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Berényi - Then you have clearly misread the information I provided. "...observed diurnal temperature range (DTR) changes are actually much larger than predicted by models" (emphasis added) And you then failed to read the quote about the data: "This trend is due to larger increases in minimum temperatures (0.9C) than maximum temperatures (0.6C) over the same period." The DTR has reduced over this period, BP - you've read into it what you wanted, and not encompassed the entire quote. Which means, apparently, that you did not read the paper, either.
84715. scaddenp at 10:39 AM on 27 May 2011
       How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
       Rosco - see water is the most important greenhouse gas And you think scientists havent done the maths then think again (or read the IPCC report and relevant linked papers). See also Schmidt et al for detailed attribution.
84716. Rosco at 10:35 AM on 27 May 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       Given that ice requires 334 joules per gram to melt where do you propose that energy is coming from over the land of antarctica ?? Do you propose that it coming from the 390 ppm CO2 with its specific heat of less than 1 joule per gram ? I havent done the maths on this because it seems unbelievable that it has the capacity to cause warming on the scale it is credited with.
84717. scaddenp at 10:29 AM on 27 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
       Jonicol - obviously needed to generate known forcing as you point out but trend analysis is also part of time series analysis and its trends that are robust predictions from climate models. Since you havent posted paper yet, I have no real idea on what you are proposing but some comments made me think you might be looking down same line as Postma. I hope not. I would hope your new physics can predict the lapse rate for a given atmospheric composition.
84718. Berényi Péter at 10:23 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       #200 Albatross at 09:21 AM on 27 May, 2011 Does your silence indicate that you implicitly agree that you fabricated the phrase "but the fast increasing DTR"? Please substantiate your claim or admit that you made it up. 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.
84719. Rosco at 10:20 AM on 27 May 2011
       How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
       Carbon Di-oxide Claims - "it was a bum rap - it was the Di-hydrogen oxide wot did it" The tropics are the place where the solar irradiance is strongest - can't argue with that one. The majority of the earth in the tropics is ocean. Approximately 2400 j/gram is required to evaporate good old H20. As vapour it has a specific heat of about 2.1 j/gram - insignificant but still double that of CO2. It evaporates and is carried by convection to the upper atmosphere and to the cooler regions of the earth where it releases this energy. I think we can't argue with this as it rained here not long ago. Consequently water vapour makes up approximately 2 % of the atmosphere. CO2 comprises less than 0.04% of the atmosphere and has a specific heat of less than 1 j/gram at ambient atmospheric temperatures. So, every gram of water vapour rising from most of the surface of the hottest parts of the globe carries with it enormous amounts of energy. Convection in both the atmosphere and the oceans swamp the radiative effects - the earth is simply not hot enough for this to not be true. This is not saying there is no radiative effect from the heated surface of the earth simply that the warm air and ocean currents move much more energy than is radiated at the surface. Doesn't the process of water vapour convection seem a much more powerful way of transferring energy than radiation forcing by a gas which is some 60 to 70 times less abundant and which has a thermal capacity some 2400 times less ? Note, this does not say there is no atmospheric effect keeping the earth warm - I didn't say greenhouse deliberately as that is associated with CO2 as a driver. And none of this implies that the earth is at its potential blackbody temperature but it does imply that there may be a possible exaggeration of the radiation imbalance. Radiation is a relatively poor method of transmitting energy in the atmosphere.
84720. Berényi Péter at 10:12 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       #199 dana1981 at 09:08 AM on 27 May, 2011 But the presence of a DTR trend from 1950-1980 somehow doesn't mean the warming during that period was caused by GHGs. WTF?? There was in fact no warming between 1950 and 1980. Especially since it requires ignoring all other anthropogenic fingerprints Whenever you do not know what to say, start talking about something else. After all that's the way science is done. Or was it politics?
       Response:

       [DB] "There was in fact no warming between 1950 and 1980"

       More cherries for BP:

       

       

       [Source]

       Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...

84721. Philippe Chantreau at 10:04 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       The so-called "Surface Stations Project" is a pile of idiotic nonsense that is of use only to those defined by Trenberth as "fools and charlatans." It has been proven irrelevant frome early on by the ones interested enough to follow up on it with real data analysis. It is not worth bothering with.
84722. Philippe Chantreau at 09:58 AM on 27 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       Please, DNFTT. Damorbel is the one who contradicted himself for the sake of argument on the 2nd law thread, in which he demonstrated, among other things, total confusion on Wien's law. It is not worth engaging, especially since the point he is trying to make here is both ill-defined and irrelevant.
84723. Chemware at 09:57 AM on 27 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       @6 e: Err, no. See Skeptic Argument #4. These guys (with one exception) fall into Doran's "Active Publishers" category, not "Climatologist" and related categories.
84724. Gareth at 09:36 AM on 27 May 2011
       The Climate Show Episode 13: James Hansen and The Critical Decade
       With my knees, I don't do "spring" any more. Think of it more as a slow tentacular movement that involved planning, and cooperation from the tremendous team at UC. ;-)
84725. jonicol at 09:29 AM on 27 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
       Scaddenp. I am not sure how time series analysis is useful in model validation against paleoclimte since again one could only look for cyclical or repetitive functions to match repeated changes, which is essentially what the Milanovich cycles do so well. I would be interested if you could eleborate a little. Perhaps you could point to the parts of the Postma's article you referred me to which you think I should avoid. Thanks again for your helpful comments and this reference. John
84726. Albatross at 09:21 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       And BP @196, to fill the vacuity of his argument elects to argue a strawman about equants. Did you miss the bolded text from Zhou et al. (2009) and Zhou et al. (2010). You are making a fool of yourself BP. I remind you again that John Nielsen-Gammon, an author of Fall et al., agrees with Zhou et al. (2010). Unlike you,these guys are experts in this field and do in fact know better. Also, please read my post @192 very carefully, and actually look at the Figs. 2 and 3 in Zhou et al. (2010), better yet read the paper. "No, I do not think that, I am not American." But apparently you do when you mistakenly think that certain data from the US support your preconceived ideas and/or beliefs. Does your silence indicate that you implicitly agree that you fabricated the phrase "but the fast increasing DTR"? Please substantiate your claim or admit that you made it up.
84727. dana1981 at 09:13 AM on 27 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       jonicol - as long as we're talking about costs, there are a whole lot of externalities not accounted for in the market price of coal power. It's actually an exceptionally expensive energy source - moreso than almost every source of renewable energy. But as long as the electricity bill is low, people tend to ignore those external costs. But if we're just talking jobs, renewable energy tends to beat out fossil fuels on that front too. So taking all costs into consideration, it's both cheaper and positive for employment.
84728. jonicol at 09:08 AM on 27 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Speaking of costs, I notice people are adding transport and fuel costs to those paid for coal produced power. Surely the cost of power from both government owned and privately owned genrating plants already includes thes components before sending out their bills to consumers. If the cost of building solar and wind power generators and their continuing operation were so competitive, why would we need a carbon tax to make the coal fired producers convert to solar etc? You do need to be care as to how you presentthese arguments I believe.
84729. dana1981 at 09:08 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       To be honest I don't usually pay a lot of attention to BP's comments (no offense intended - he just tends not to comment on posts I monitor the most). But I saw this comment and it just floored me. The lack of logic is staggering. In BP land, the lack of DTR trend from 1980-Present means the warming wasn't caused by GHGs. But the presence of a DTR trend from 1950-1980 somehow doesn't mean the warming during that period was caused by GHGs. WTF?? Of course as Tom Curtis notes in #195, DTR is influenced by other factors besides just GHGs (not to mention the world being larger than the USA), so concluding that the warming wasn't anthropogenic just because the DTR trend isn't evident during that period is, well, it's not very wise. Especially since it requires ignoring all other anthropogenic fingerprints, not to mention that pesky...what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, physics! Sorry BP, but you really need to think about what you're arguing here. It's patently absurd.
84730. KR at 08:57 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Berényi - Straws, grasping at, see here. You, of all people, know that regional data can give contradictory indications to full global data. Yeesh.
84731. Berényi Péter at 08:29 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       #195 Tom Curtis at 07:56 AM on 27 May, 2011 Even more bizzare, BP seems to think that the continental US is the Earth. If we check the data for Australia, which has a similar area to the continental US, we find a clear reduction in DTR with a trend of -0.05 degrees C per decade. No, I do not think that, I am not American. But as far as I know the SurfaceStations project is not a global one yet, specifically it is not extended to the surface stations of Australia. Therefore you can not tell us how much of the Australian trend is due to poor siting and how much of it is genuine. The aerosol card is also a convenient joker, for global atmospheric aerosol concentrations are not measured properly (and never were).
84732. Rob Honeycutt at 08:17 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Jay... You also might note that, as best as I can tell, Happer was on the steering committee as a JASON that produced a report on greenhouse gases in 1990. Over 20 years ago. That wouldn't make him an expert then or now.
       Response:

       [DB] Fixed text.

84733. Berényi Péter at 08:01 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       #192 Albatross at 06:26 AM on 27 May, 2011 What is critical to note is that without including anthro GHGs, the model projections in Zhou et al. (2010) were unable to produce the observed trends and patterns in both mean temperature and DTR What is critical to note is that without including equants, the model projections in Ptolemy (~150) were unable to produce the observed planetary orbits So what? Does that make equants real? Of course if you suppose the model is basically correct, you can prove (using observations) the equant can't be located at the center of the deferent circle (and neither one is colocated with the center of the Earth). Same logic.
84734. Riccardo at 07:58 AM on 27 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       damporbel #5 "Nobel Prizes in science are awarded for outstanding progress in science," Indeed! Progress, not denial. Anyway I was just saying that this memorandum is going to be ignored by skeptics, which your comment apparently confirms.
84735. Tom Curtis at 07:56 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       One bizzare aspect of Berényi Péter's campaign to retract the fingerprints article is that it assumes that only one effect can be influencing the climate at any one time. Specifically, increasing GHG concentrations and increasing aerosol load will both decrease the Diurnal Temperature Range, although the former warms the globe while the latter cools it. In contrast decreasing GHG concentrations and decreasing aerosol load will increase DTR, although the former cools the globe and the later warms it. As it happens, over the continental US, from the 1950s to 1980, both GHG concentrations and aerosol load were increasing, generating a significant reduction in DTR, but since the early 1980's, GHG concentrations have been increasing but aerosol load has been decreasing. Absent the effect of GHG, we would expect an increase in DTR over that period. That we do not see it is therefore evidence of GHG warming (although not the strongest evidence). Even more bizzare, BP seems to think that the continental US is the Earth. If we check the data for Australia, which has a similar area to the continental US, we find a clear reduction in DTR with a trend of -0.05 degrees C per decade. The annual fluctuations are, of course, very large, and dominated by variations in humidity. Australia is also not the Earth, but the clear difference shows it is foolish to draw a conclusion about global trends from a study of 1.8% of the world's surface area.
84736. Dave123 at 07:41 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Dr. Jay Cadbury, Ph.D. @96 The forcing effect of CO2 is different from the radiative effect. If Happer wants to play, the same rules apply to him as everyone else. Do the math. The radiative calculations are out there. Tell us why they're wrong. Qualifications don't matter if people don't put the skills they learned to use. Since you know him Jay, does this guy EVER get in an equal-to-equal discussion with anyone on this, or is he episystemically closed? I know some senior profs get that way. But I look at it this way: Earning a Ph.D. did not grant me the privilege of opining and it being respected because I had a Ph.D. It was a lifetime sentence to proving what I said was true. The Ph.D. part means people expect me ( and you and everyone else with a Ph.D.) to be able to do it. Getting tenure or a named chair at a University only raises that expectation. Happer has the ability to do the math, to challenge whatever he wants and instead he's quoting the classics in polemical way. Happer in my view is letting down the academic tradition by his fact-free opining. One last point: when you say- 'leads him to claim the possibility of extreme weather will be weaker than anticipated"...are you attempting to move the goal posts here? That is not the least of Happer's positions.
84737. scaddenp at 07:33 AM on 27 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       "Clearly some tweaking went on in an effort to make the hindcast similar to instrumental readings." Can you substantiate that please? Hindcast do have a problem in that proxies have to be used to estimate forcings, but this is fit to proxy not temperature on the whole. As to "not looking good so far" - we had hottest year on record in GISS despite deepest solar minimum since satellite measurements begun but agreed its not accelerating. Would you expect it to when compare forcings change in CO2 cf forcing from sun over same period. Do you seriously expect that temperatures are going to decline as solar cycle revives or are you expecting solar minimum to last till 2100?
84738. grypo at 07:32 AM on 27 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       This is about sustainability, of which climate is just a part, albeit, an important one. Whether or not they are all experts in climate science is irrelevant. It's an all encompassing look at humanity going into the future. Even scientists that are skeptical of the fat-tails on climate sensitivity don't dismiss the risk that these pose to human sustainability.
84739. les at 07:30 AM on 27 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       Do I not get an answer :(
84740. Rob Honeycutt at 07:25 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Mike @ 95... Princeton can't screen how a tenured professor chooses to represent his credentials but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts there are some meetings going on at Princeton following Happer's piece that are very close to coming to fisticuffs. Happer has clearly chosen to make a public and highly politicized statement on behalf of the George C Marshall Institute BUT chosen to identify himself using his Princeton credentials (and curiously omitting his GMI connection). Princeton would have every right to be utterly furious about this kind of activity. It'll be curious to see if the university responds publicly in some manner.
84741. damorbel at 06:57 AM on 27 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       Re Response to #5 It is not about what you said, The title of the event is "3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability" Yes V. Ramanathan has written extensively on climate related matters, but he is not a 'Nobel Laureate'. Just what is he there for, to guide the Symposium towards its conclusions?
       Response:

       [DB] Please read the original post then.  And then the materiel linked within it.  This is all information you could find out for yourself.

84742. Albatross at 06:53 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       More from Zhou et al. (2009) [with Vose a co author]: "In general, the magnitude of the downward trend of DTR and the warming trend of Tmin decreases with increasing precipitation amount, cloud cover, and LAI, i.e., with stronger DTR decreasing trends over drier regions. Such spatial dependence of Tmin and DTR trends on the climatological precipitation possibly reflects large-scale effects of increased global greenhouse gases and aerosols (and associated changes in cloudiness, soil moisture, and water vapor) during the later half of the twentieth century." So the decrease in DTR from elevated GHGs is (and should be) greatest where the signal is not swamped/muted by moisture-- that is in should be greatest in Arid and semi-arid areas. An interesting question is how changing atmospheric moisture, rainfall and cloud in response to AGW are affecting DTR. This is another reason why the seasonal fingerprint (winters warming faster than summers) is a more robust fingerprint. But it would be a huge mistake for the contrarians and those in denial to claim that issues with the DTR is a silver bullet that refutes the theory of AGW, or that is demonstrates that warming in the satellite era is not attributable to enhanced GHGs, especially if they choose to ignore/neglect the numerous other fingerprints in the process.
84743. damorbel at 06:50 AM on 27 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       Re #3 you wrote "This gathering had such heavy hitters in their fields" Very true. But I am a loss to know why the expertise of Werner Arber, awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine/Physiology in 1978 for the discovery of restriction enzymes and their application to problems of molecular genetics; should be put forward as a reccommendation. Surely he should be reccommended for his expertise in climate science. I think it is very demeaning, not to mention his relevant climate expertise; it might be thought he was some kind of interloper which is almost certainly not true.
84744. e at 06:48 AM on 27 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       damorbel, The panelists in this gathering are the ones who form the consensus in the first place. What point are you trying to make?
84745. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:47 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       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. I don't know if he is qualified to speak about weather patterns, sea level or other possible effects of climate change but since he is claiming that the forcing of co2 is weak, that leads him to claim that the possibility of extreme weather will be weaker than anticipated.
84746. damorbel at 06:38 AM on 27 May 2011
       The Stockholm Memorandum
       Re Response to #1 Ramanathan has not yet been awarded a Nobel Prize Re #4 Riccardo, you wrote "Skeptics that can not accept the scientific consensus of literally thousands of climate scientists." Which of the Nobel Prize winners taking part in the Symposium (or any other Nobel Prize winner for that matter) was awarded a Nobel Prize for, as you say: "accept[ing] the scientific consensus of literally thousands"? Nobel Prizes in science are awarded for outstanding progress in science, not for citing what is known already 'by the consensus of literally thousands'!
       Response:

       [DB] Strawman.  I never said Ramanathan was a Nobel Prize winner.  I gave you a participant list which identifies who the prize winners are and what their areas of note were.  I then made the observation that the esteemed Dr. Ramanathan was on the list.  Please do try and read more carefully.

84747. Albatross at 06:37 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       BP @191, Please substantiate this "but the fast increasing DTR is inconsistent with model predictions", in particular the reference to "fast increasing". Vose et al. (a extended conference abstract it appears) state that: "Both maximum and minimum temperature increases from 1979-2004 whereas the DTR is basically trendless." And "Given the similarity between maximum and minimum temperature, the trend in the DTR (-0.001 °C dec-1) is not statistically significant at the 5% level." No reference to increasing, so one has to wonder how you arrived at the conclusion that DTR is rapidly increasing. And please actually read Zhou et al. (2010).
84748. scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 27 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       GC "Will similar trends extend over the next 100 years? I would wager $10,000 that it will not but sadly I won't be around to collect my winnings." Well I would bet the temperatures will follow the total forcings whatever they actually are and base that bet on established science. You would be basing your bet on what? Hope? Good luck? Pity - my retirement savings could do with a boast. As to history channel - well firstly I am in NZ, dont have access to such a channel and frankly prefer to get my science from published papers, or even my colleague across the passage whose speciality this is, rather than the biases of some tv director. And what on earth is the relevence? The science so far agrees LIA was indeed global event (though far less pronounced in SH than NH), and the response of climate to the forcings of the time. Are you implying the same forcings have suddenly come (the deep solar minimum) which somehow overwhelm all the other forcings.?
84749. Albatross at 06:26 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       KR @186, Dana@187, It certainly is entertaining to watch those in denial about AGW and certain contrarians pounce on this finding by Fall et al. (2011) concerning the DTR over the US. John Nielsen-Gammon, one of the authors of Fall et al. agrees with the findings in Zhou et al. (2010). Also, as has been noted elsewhere, the findings by Fall et al. bring the model projections concerning DTR into closer alignment with observations, at least for the contiguous USA. The obfuscators should also look carefully at the Figures in Zhou et al. For example, Figs. 2 and 3 show that the observed and modeled decrease in DTR was not statistically significant over large portions of the contiguous US between 1950 and 1999. But step back and see what was observed and modeled for the globe, you now anthropogenic global warming. Zhou et al. say, "Evidently the ALL [natural and anthro forcing]simulations reproduce the global signal much better than the regional variations." What is critical to note is that without including anthro GHGs, the model projections in Zhou et al. (2010) were unable to produce the observed trends and patterns in both mean temperature and DTR (see their Fig. 5). A caveat though, Zhou et al. also conclude that: "The model simulated warming in Tmax and Tmin and the general decrease in DTR may reflect large-scale effects of enhanced global GHGs and direct effects of aerosols. The strong and persistent increase in DLW, which mainly reflects GHGs effects of a warmer and wetter atmosphere and to some extent of a warmer surface, is the dominant global forcing in explaining the simulated warming of Tmax and Tmin from 1950 to 1999, while its effect on DTR is very small. Decreases in DSW due to enhanced aerosols and PRW contribute most to the simulated decreases in DTR."
84750. Berényi Péter at 06:19 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       #186 KR at 04:52 AM on 27 May, 2011 observed diurnal temperature range (DTR) changes are actually much larger than predicted by models I see. You say the proposition "If global warming is caused by an increased greenhouse effect, then the planet should warm faster at night than during the day" is a false one. That's certainly a possibility. However, the fingerprint thing even in this case should be retracted. Because if A => B is false, the truth-value assigned to B should also be false. That false proposition reads "The planet is warming faster at night than during the day." In other words, you are claiming the temperature record is unreliable in this respect, which is exactly what Fall 2011 says. Or, alternately, you can insist the temperature record is reliable, but the fast increasing DTR is inconsistent with model predictions. In that case computational climate models (which, as you claim, indicate much smaller changes) are falsified.

Prev  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  Next