Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 Next
Comments 85001 to 85050:
-
Eric the Red at 01:31 AM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
Kevin, Much has been written in the blogosphere recenty about aerosols, probably a result of Hansen's recent paper. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf Hansen surmised that we have been underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and thereby overestimating the rate of heat uptake by the oceans, suggesting that the models need to be adjusted. His latest aerosol forcing is about half the GHG forcing, but with a rather large uncertainty. In fact, he states that many climate models only use the direct aerosol forcing, and ignore the indirect forcing which may be twice as much. -
Tom Curtis at 01:21 AM on 25 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
giniajim @177, yes! Go to each separate national meteorological agency that supplied the data to either the Hadley Center/CRU or NOAA and purchase the data of each such agency, or arrange access to the data on a research basis. That is what has been done by each of the major global temperature indices, and each is bound by contract to not release the individual data, which remains the commercial property of the particular national meteorological agency that supplied it. You may want to note, however, that every independent attempt to determine the mean global temperature, whether based on thermometer or satellite data, has come up with effectively the same trend, including Muller's BEST project, and most recently (for US data only) Anthony Watt's team. The chance of finding significant error, therefore, seems remote. -
DSL at 01:14 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
RobH: Ugh. Bad logic. All humanities graduates are not journalists. Indeed, few are. I work in the humanities, and I've encountered probably five students in the last five years who aren't concerned about/don't believe the warming planet. Many of the students who are concerned couldn't explain the physics of radiative transfer (they'd think that GHGs "trap" "heat" rather than lengthening the path of OLR), but then 95% of the students in general at my university couldn't explain the physics, and this is a highly-selective university. "You wouldn't believe the naive bloopers that come out on public and commercial radio from the mouths of out arts graduated journalists - the newspapers are just as bad." I would believe, but you wouldn't believe how many smart journalism graduates I know who don't have jobs in journalism. Question: does Fox News hire the best journalists? Does CNN? Do the major media outlets publish the best in investigative journalism? Was CNN focused on Mel Bloody Gibson the other night while a massive tornado mowed down Joplin, MO (USA)? Media owners, their editors, and their managers are much more to blame than even their selected journalists for what gets published and what gets hyped. "Sadly, 90% of Australians, probably better educated than the US lot, aren't that interested in science to tune in." Everyone in the U.S. is interested in science, but many are only to the extent that either A) the results coincide with their existing beliefs, B) the results are sensational but not threatening (robots connected to Facebook but not robots that take your job), or C) the results can be used to generate profit. No one wants to hear that their way of life is responsible for the destruction of their way of life. For most people, science is an explanation for things that already are or have been. Science cannot explain to people what those people have not yet experienced. These people will have to experience global warming. After all, how much energy and time does it take to convince people that a particular God exists? Even after 15-20 years of daily teaching during the most impressionable time, there is still doubt--and often rejection. Why? No direct evidence/experience for the theory, and plenty of evidence/experience against. My lower middle-class, hard-working mother-in-law, when confronted with the idea of a warmer future, will say "it doesn't feel warmer to me." No evidence. We can teach students to think critically about the information they encounter--teach them to understand the experience and evidence of others--, but we can't teach them to have the time to process the information to the degree that it needs to be processed over the course of their lives (and certainly my mother-in-law does not have the time to explore the evidential basis of AGW). For the past fifty years and for the foreseeable future, people have had to--and will have to--choose how to spend their time thinking about the world. The complexity of the modern world descends upon us like a giant blanket, threatening to suffocate, and we flop about trying to find an edge--some place to catch a breath and make sense out of things. If we had enough leisure time to engage in lifelong education, we would, but we don't. Most of the people in this world at this time are trying to keep jobs within an economic mode that only demands more and more of their time and energy. Are they stupid? When time becomes available, basic de-stressing is needed (not heaping more stress by trying to find out where the world is headed). The people who do regularly have the time (including students, business owners, well-paid managers, and professional educators (excepting K-12)) are mostly dependent in a variety of ways on the people who don't have the time, and so they, the former, are interested in keeping the latter in their current positions. Solution: fundamental change. Probability that solution will be self-authorized: .01%. Probability that solution will be forced: 99.99%. Percentage of people who will kick and scream in resistance to the change: 25%. Percentage of current world wealth these people control: 95%. By the way, I'd love to see an analysis of the economic positions of the people who post to the major climate blogs. Ugh. Huge post. -
Eric the Red at 01:11 AM on 25 May 2011UQ Physics Colloquium this Friday: Communicating Climate Science and Countering Disinformation
Well, I guess we just have to disagree on the validity of the survey, and yes the actual spelling is Yooper, sometimes abbreviated as UPer. It was not meant to be taken seriously anyway.Response: [JC] Let's not forget there are two separate surveys using completely different methodologies, both finding a 97% consensus. The Doran et al 2009 interview directly asks Earth scientists "are humans significantly changing global temperature?" The Anderegg et al 2010 survey examines publicly signed declarations by climate scientists to see whether then agree with the tenets of AGW. Two independent approaches arriving at the same conclusion. -
giniajim at 01:07 AM on 25 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
Does anyone understand how to get to the raw data (i.e. the actual individual temperature measurements)? All I can find on line is various averages. -
adelady at 01:04 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Eric, the big problem for relating climate events in Australia to climate change lies with the concept expressed so neatly in a famous poem, the land of "droughts and flooding rains". The simple fact is that we've had much, much more of both than historical averages. Lake Eyre has filled 3 years in a row, that's unheard of. The first time it filled there were huge contingents of people who went to see the water and the wildlife because they never expected to see it again in their lifetimes. Now it's almost expected as an annual event. As for smarts. Just try getting people to explain why we have seasons. There's a very good reason why old-fashioned classrooms had a globe on the shelf. It's not just for the geography of the continents. It's a constant image of axial tilt. Add atmosphere and hey, presto! we have a liveable climate with identifiable growing seasons in the temperate zones and a couple of nice neat icecaps at the poles to provide much needed albedo. -
Kevin C at 00:30 AM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
Is it worth reiterating at this point that you don't need a climate model if you just want to compute future temperature trends? All you need is an energy balance calculation or some kind of empirical model of it. Hansen point this out here, and numerous bloggers (including Tamino, Arthur Smith and Lucia) have reproduced the empirical calculation. The 20th century climate is enough to determine the parameters of the system (although not the climate sensitivity, which requires longer timescales but for that reason is irrelevant over the next few decades), allowing forecasts for the next few decades at least. The principal uncertainly according to Hansen is the values of the aerosol forcing. But even if this is wrong, the response function mops up the error to a large extent when tuning against the 20th century climate. -
JMurphy at 00:24 AM on 25 May 2011Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, why don't you wait until the papers are actually peer-reviewed and published, rather than pre-reviewed, when you can cite them directly ? -
Rob Painting at 00:22 AM on 25 May 2011Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
Arkadiusz Semczyszak- coral bleaching is a natural phenomenon, often found in colonies of corals - and often quickly reversible No. See comment at @ 32 and note the peer-reviewed studies provided. Coral bleaching that killed ancient atolls was natural. Earth was in a "greenhouse" phase then, and the equatorial regions not conducive to coral survival. No humans around back then. As discussed here- mass coral bleaching, a thread you have previously commented on, mass coral bleaching has only recently emerged, coincident with human-caused global warming. And note the lack of recovery of bleached coral reefs in the eastern tropical Pacific, especially the Galapagos Islands. As for Suggett & Smith (2010). So they're upset about media reports confusing all coral bleaching events with mortality. So what? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:55 PM on 24 May 2011Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
@JMurphy The first link is a figure cited by a number of websites - it’s from the pre-review paper. The next two figures originate (unchanged) also pre-reviewed the papers. I did not quote “a word” of comment to them - nor Idso or WUWT. My information comes only from work Suggett & Smith1, 2010.. They are workers: Coral Reef Research Unit, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, UK. Instead of looking for "conspiracy theories", we respond to their proposal: that even strongly coral bleaching is a natural phenomenon, often found in colonies of corals - and often quickly reversible. It is worth to discuss their work in detail but we can not ignore. -
Ken Lambert at 23:41 PM on 24 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
BP #130 I have often thought that the geothermal heating from the ocean floor (reputedly 0.1W/sq.m) globally must have a confusing effect on OHC measurement. Squirting heat from vents driectly into bottom water and conduction from a warm immersed bottom would be much more efficent heat transfer mechanisms than radiant heating of the surface. With a 0.1W/sq.m flux constantly rising from the bottom through the column toward the surface - some effect on mixing and other transport mechanisms would be expected. -
Chemware at 23:37 PM on 24 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
@9 Alexandre It will look exactly like the attacks on Jewish Physics in the 1920s and 30s. Albert Einstein said it best: This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation. Albert Einstein, 1920 -
Kevin C at 23:28 PM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Or to put it more simply: Let's define a new plot, which is the step-function response curve scaled by the sensitivity. Paleoclimate gives us the height of the plateau at the end of this plot (the fast feedback sensitivity). Recent climate gives us the slope at the beginning. The curve in the middle is ambiguous. A wrong estimate of aerosol forcing means that we have the gradient at the beginning wrong, and thus the time to reach the plateau is out too. -
MarkR at 23:26 PM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
#2: I don't see that the 'jobs created' figure should always be directly proportional to cost. Market coal prices are generally cheaper than, say, wind (especially once you include backup or storage). So going wind likely adds to the cost of energy (and also labour use I suspect) Higher energy costs can impact other sectors and it's not necessarily linear. Maybe the higher cost of doing industry means other companies shut down. But on the other hand, coal power plants cause damage to people's health and the environment. In some studies a very large amount and this could translate to a significant employment effect (thousands of people unable to work properly because of health problems, say) So I suspect it's not just as simple as cost = some constant x labour use and then relating direct labour changes to cost. -
The Skeptical Chymist at 23:24 PM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Macoles @ 11 I see what you are saying there but I disagree with part of your conclusion. The Álvarez "study" is trying to argue that investment in renewables causes net job losses, but as you point out the investment in the Navarre region helped lead to lower unemployment. So this does help rebut Álvarez claims. -
Ken Lambert at 23:23 PM on 24 May 2011Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
Sphaerica, Riccardo Thank you Sphaerica for your generous defence. I am simply saying that the Earth has a natural cycle of warming and cooling and it is never at equilibrium, but cycles around some mid point. Excluding CBD's orbital forcing over 100Ky time scales, Solar irradiance variation prior to AD1750 is the driver. Increase the TSI and the Earth receives more incoming energy, warms up until temperature rise increased S-B outgoing energy and the warming is arrested and temperature stabilizes at a higher level. Drop TSI at this higher temperature level and the S-B outgoing exceeds the incoming and the Earth temperature cools. It seems to me that this underlying cycle has an amplitude of natural temperature range and that will follow the natural TSI variation over centuries (excluding the 11 year sun spot ripple). To tell how much Solar irradiance is warming or cooling the Earth we need to know the point we are at in this natural cycle - and that supposes an 'equilibrium' TSI or an average TSI over the cycle. -
Kevin C at 23:20 PM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
That Hansen article is very interesting though - I'm glad it's been highlighted. I'm struggling with some of the terminology. But if I understand correctly, his argument is as follows:- The fast feedback sensitivity sff is the equilibrium sensitivity excluding some very slow terms like changes in ice sheets.
- Hansen claims that sff is well determined by paleoclimatology. Here's a counterintuitive point. How come the ice ages tell us about the fast feedback sensitivity, rather than the slow sensitivity? I think the answer is that Hansen is feeding in the additional feedbacks (e.g. ice sheets) as forcings on the basis of known data, rather than allowing them to be included in the sensitivity.
- The transient response is constrained by recent climate. Thus any model (e.g. GCM, two box, or Arthur's non-physical deconvolution) complex enough to represent at least 2 transient timescales will produce a similar hindcast for the last century, and as a result will also produce a similar forecast for the next century.
- However, this doesn't nail down the fast feedback sensitivity. What is nails down is the product of sff and the response function over the first few decades. Turning this into a sensitivity does indeed involve the length of the long tail of the response function, and thus is poorly determined from the instrumental record alone.
- Thus if we are interested in the next few decades, the sensitivity is actually irrelevant. It is the product of the sensitivity and response function which matters. The sensitivity will only come into play over much longer timescales.
- Hansen claims that how much longer is confused by the GCM response being too slow. The main focus of the paper is to justify this claim.
- Changes in response when varying the aerosol feedback is hard to distinguish from changes when varying ocean mixing, which causes the slowness of current models. Increasing the aerosol feedback requires faster response.
- Hansen suggests that the planetary energy imbalance be used to resolve this ambiguity. A higher (more negative) aerosol feedback, coupled with slower ocean mixing (thus faster response), makes the apparent energy imbalance go away. In doing so, he resolves 'Trenberth's travesty'.
- Having done so, he concludes that the human forcing is lower than previously estimated, but that the response is faster: 75% in 100 years. Thus his claim is that the current GCM response (figure 8a posted above) is actually wrong.
- Another implication of the change is to explain why the IPCC underestimates sea level rise.
-
Papy at 23:11 PM on 24 May 2011French translation of the Scientific Guide to 'Skeptics Handbook'
Here is an additional website called "Climobs.fr", a great new french resource for climate change data and graphics. Blogs coming soon... -
Tom Curtis at 23:04 PM on 24 May 2011How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
Mike Williams @38: In the words of John Cook:"To claim that humidity is decreasing requires you ignore a multitude of independent reanalyses that all show increasing humidity. It requires you accept a flawed reanalysis that even its own authors express caution about. It fails to explain how we can have short-term positive feedback and long-term negative feedback. In short, to insist that humidity is decreasing is to neglect the full body of evidence."
-
Ken Lambert at 23:00 PM on 24 May 2011Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
CBD #18 #23 You are right about orbital tilt cycles being another 'natural' forcing - however these are on 90,000 - 110,000 year time scales. I was talking about the period since AD1750, which forcings appear in Fig 2.4 of AR4. Going back to AD1750 when fossil fuelled industrialization began - the only radiative forcing is Solar irradiance. A couple of factors need to be held constant - the Earth's albedo and the WV & Ice Albedo feedbacks - but since these are at pre-industrial 'natural' levels and not influenced by human released GHG - the assumption seems reasonable. -
Mighty Drunken at 22:47 PM on 24 May 2011Humlum is at it again
I do think that Dr. Humlum et al may be correct on the problems of assigning a quantitative value for the probability of AGW. I think this is more a problem for the science of complex systems, not a massive flaw in "AGW theory". Some things are just too complex for us to assign definite values for. What really irks me in the opinion piece is this part; "The CO2-hypothesis as it is formulated right now does not even fulfills the requirements of science, so we are miles away from being able to calculate a meaningful certainty on it. The reason for its lack of scientific foundation is the lack of ability for the CO2-hypothesis to come with forecasts that can be checked now or within a couple of years' time." They seem to be trying to redefine science to exclude complex systems which take a long time to change, or are in the distant past. Things like cosmology, evolution and climate science. They take an extreme view of falsifiability which goes much further than Karl Popper's. Reading Popper talk about evolution in regard to falsifiability is quite enlightening, especially as his views change with time becoming more favourable to the idea that Darwin's theory is testable. -
Alexandre at 21:40 PM on 24 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Eli Rabbett had a special post to blame reporters on this. I prefer the message of grypo's post here, at least the way I understood it: the blame game is futile. It's everyone's job to get the truth out. Good science reporters would help, outspoken scientists would help, informed citizens would help too. I wonder what all this would look like as seen from 2050. -
Eric the Red at 21:37 PM on 24 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Rpauli, I think the reason that journalists do not include that line is because most scientists don't. While a change in climate will result in a change in weather patterns, extreme weather events (if indeed there is a rise) will not necessarily result. Also, the phrase once bite twice cautious may apply following the claims that hurricane seasons like 2005 will be the norm in a warming world. Five seasons later made those people look foolish, so that scientist are refraining from making such claims (without a scientist to quote, most journalists will back off). The current La Nina has been getting most of the blame (and press) for the recent outburts in the U.S. If adelady is reading, she may relate this to the flooding in Australia. I haven't watched CNN in years due to extreme bias in their reporting, although I am not sure that all the networks do not have biases. http://www.politicolnews.com/cnn-afraid-of-social-media-trust-factors/ If am actually surprised that 45% knew that CO2 trapped heat considering that in one survey 47% could not find India on a map. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591413/ns/us_news-education/t/young-americans-shaky-geographic-smarts/ -
Eric the Red at 21:00 PM on 24 May 2011UQ Physics Colloquium this Friday: Communicating Climate Science and Countering Disinformation
Bob, What do you take me for a fool? We both know that using that survey to support global warming is fruitless and open to ridicule. I have even seen one person (jokingly) state that half of the observed warming was due to urbanization and a recent survey showed that it was supported by 97% of climatologists. No, this was not on Pielke's website. You may use the results of this survey if you like, but be warned, it will seriously diminish your credibility in the ensuing argument. The conclusion in the survey is a huge stretch (to use your word) from the actual results. P.S. I grew up in lower Michigan, and have been called that by many a Uper.Response:[DB] The results of the survey Bob references still stand, handwaving and personal experiences aside. Natives of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan are referred to as Yoopers. And Bob referred to your comment, not to you.
-
neilrieck at 20:25 PM on 24 May 2011Video and podcast about confusing the hockey stick with the 'decline'
Not sure how many people saw this piece in the June 2011 issue of Scientific American. The good folks at Climate Progress will probably be able to host it a bit longer than SciAm (who usually keep "the free reading window" open for only 30 days) http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Muller.pdf -
RobH at 18:26 PM on 24 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
US Public understanding: I have heard on Australian Public radio that there is a huge underclass of Americans trapped in poverty - the working poor. At the base of this is the US education system funded by local authorities - poor neighbourhood, poor education. Why are so many Americans religious? Same answer. Consequently with a poor educational system, you cant expect people to understand even the fundamentals of global warming - they probably don't even know what CO2 is. Role of Journalists: Similar problem - In Australia at least, journalists are wall-to-wall humanities graduates. You wouldn't believe the naive bloopers that come out on public and commercial radio from the mouths of out arts graduated journalists - the newspapers are just as bad. But we do have the world's best science program - the ABC Science Show. Sadly, 90% of Australians, probably better educated than the US lot, aren't that interested in science to tune in. Secondly, the (commercial) media makes money from controversy. It is not in their interest to either educate or state the facts - even if they understood the facts. -
bartverheggen at 18:03 PM on 24 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Related: Science communication: Who is responsible (for its failing)?Moderator Response: [grypo] Thanks Bart. I recommend this to everyone interested in this subject. -
Paul D at 17:46 PM on 24 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Re. DH@3 Campaigns that suit them? Funny, I thought they were supposed to report news. Oops, nope, they have personal opinions and use their 'power' to project it. -
ranyl at 17:42 PM on 24 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
There is no trusted word for the public so no knows who beleive about what as all general information resources give bias representation. Can there even be a trusted nowadays? -
Paul D at 17:37 PM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Re: coal and labour requirements. Coal today maybe lower in labour costs, but that is due to over 100 years of technology development and improvements in engineering/science. Modern renewable energy technology is about half that age. Indeed, most of the developments that have made renewable energy practical have occurred in the last 10 to 20 years. Renewable energy has a lot more technology innovations to go and that includes cuts in labour which like coal and any other industry will be a strong driving force for innovation and working practices. -
Riccardo at 16:50 PM on 24 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
The Shadow #26 "the scientists who referee climate science papers are strongly pro-CAGW." What surprises so much The Shadow and many other fellow skeptics is what happens when a theory is widely accepted. Should I complain if I find the referees being strongly pro Catastrophic Quantum Mechanics or Catastrophic Evolution or Catastrophic Plate Tectonics? Yes, I know, they should be open to new ideas, but not any new idea. It's upon me to have a good one. -
David Horton at 16:30 PM on 24 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
"because the press doesn’t see that as their role" - journalists have some other planet to go to? This one's fate of no concern of their's? Anyway, it is nonsense, they will run campaigns on anything that suits them. Climate change doesn't. -
Bern at 16:23 PM on 24 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
grypo: thanks for an interesting article. It does help put into context the sometimes frustrating lack of "news" in the mainstream media about climate change. rpauli: that anecdote suggests that 'news' organisations in the US have stopped undertaking journalism, and are well and truly 'owned' by their advertisers. To hear that even an organisation such as CNN was cowed by the fossil fuel interests is depressing. I wonder what the response would have been if the management at CNN had been less focussed on short-term profits, and had stood up for journalistic integrity? -
barry1487 at 16:02 PM on 24 May 2011Humlum is at it again
dhogaza, I have to agree that your comments are nitpicking. 'AGW theory' is vernacular, but it neatly encapsulates the larger issue - that human activity is causing the planet to warm. This is the central pillar of these here debates, and responding to criticisms about this issue is the basis of this website. I also agree that it's not a precisely accurate acronym for the scientific basis. I (lightly) propose that, like common vilifying terms that have been appropriated by those maligned by them (nigger, quuer), common usage of this acronym might render it less effective as a pejorative. As to the skeptics - there's no hope for the vast majority, and it's not worth tapping a few more keys to try and win them over with a different nomenclature. That siad, I don't use the phrase much myself - but then I'm usually arguing these days with skeptics on finer points rather than the overall theory. I previously used the term more often when I used to think a holistic debating approach was more effective. -
barry1487 at 15:33 PM on 24 May 2011Humlum is at it again
"A theory is more vague than a hypothesis" 'Vague' doesn't come into it. A hypothesis is advanced, and, if it has a close fit to observations, survives scrutiny over time, provides reasonable predictions that are observed, and is corroborated by other scientists looking at the matter in different ways, it advances to a formal recognition of its potential validity - it becomes a theory. As in: chaos theory, gravity theory, the theory of relativity, evolution theory, etc etc etc. -
r.pauli at 15:25 PM on 24 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Journalist Ross Gelbspan writes: "Given the dramatic increase of extreme weather events – you would think that journalists, in covering these stories, would include the line: "Scientists associate this pattern of violent weather with global warming." They don’t." "A few years ago I asked a top editor at CNN why, given the increasing proportion of news budgets dedicated to extreme weather, they did not make this connection. He told me, "We did. Once." But it triggered a barrage of complaints from oil companies and automakers who threatened to withdraw all their ads from CNN if the network continued to connect weather extremes to global warming. Basically the industry intimidated CNN into dropping the one connection to which the average viewer could most easily relate." http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=7743&method=full -
mike williams at 15:16 PM on 24 May 2011How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 24 May, 2011 Thanks for that, was that where Sherwood combined radiosonde data and added it to wind shear.? What other fields is wind shear used for measuring temperature.? Tom Curtis at 13:51 PM on 24 May, 2011 In fact, it is directly caused by an increase of specific humidity. Thanks Tom. Wouldn`t that be directy linked to water vapour levels which appear to be dropping. http://www.cira.colostate.edu/cira/Climate/NVAP/satconf_2003_tv_poster.jpg Tom Curtis at 14:07 PM on 24 May, 2011 mike williams @34, as an addendum to my comment, I would like to refer you to Chris Colose's comments @11 and 15 above. Thanks Tom..without being obtuse..most of it went over my head. :) Mike -
jonicol at 14:49 PM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
1. Tom Curtis at 08:13 AM on 24 May, 2011 jonicol @40, I found my first encounter with your theories several years ago...... . He is so incompetent that his colleague, you, is still refuting a back radiation .......... without having realized after three years ...... is not the theory of the greenhouse used by climate scientists. 1. Thank you Tom for coming back on this. I realised after reading a number of physics and spectroscopy papers on the action of CO2 in the atmosphere, and in particular after carrying out my own basic quantum mechanical analysis, that mine was not the “physics” used by climatologists. I then spent the next three years asking the Australian climatologists, what is the theory of the green house used by them. None has been able to give me an answer beyond stating that there was a correlation between 1979 and 1998 and virtually that was it. If you have more details, I would be delighted to hear from you. You have my email address at bigpond from my paper so I will look forward to hearing from you with genuine interest. Kinninmonth demonstrably makes fundamental errors on a repeated basis, wether by design or through incompetence. 2. Could you give some examples of his errors? Your listing of Bill Kinninmonths qualifications are a pure appeal to authority....... 3. I was not intending to go through the background qualifications of anyone, since I believe that most scientists learn on the job. However, some one else mentioned Bill as being one of my colleagues and indicated that he, Bill was not qualified to make a contribution to climate discussions. It seemed appropriate to at least outline what I believe does give him very significant credibility in this field, even though he does not claim to be a “climatologist”. So, no, I am not appealing to authority as I did not make any comment on the results of Bill’s work. It would also be interesting to know for instance, whether Andy Pitman or Will Steffen for instance, are conversant with the required physics and mathematics which is used to set up an AOGCM climate model, the basis upon which the science of climatologists relies. Not that it is any concern if they cannot, but they do refer to themselves as climatologists. Nor am I not saying either that Hansen is insufficiently knowledgable even though I do not agree with his analysis of the behaviour of CO2 since he also uses assumptions based only on Arrhenius’ hypothesis with a bit of embellishment from Callendar, whose work is interesting, but I am sure would agree simplistic. As I included in a longer response in this thread, the main portion of which was snipped, the most significant error from the point if view of physics that Arrhenius and Callendar made, as perpetuated also in modern climatology, is that only the green house gases are responsible for the rise in temperature from 255 K to 288 K. While at low concentrations the green house gases will assist in warming the atmosphere, the major transfer of heat from the surface to air is via wind cooling over land and evaporation over water. The sea surface for instance in the tropics has not been known to rise to 100 C (373K) which would be required for it to radiate at the rate it receives heat from the sun. Similarly over land the surface exposed to the midday tropical sun does not reach more than about 60 C whwereas the radiation equilibrium temperature is 119 C. On the basis of these observations, it is not difficult to calculate the fraction of heat lost by radiation - < 20%, - and nothing will change that. Perhaps you could give me some references to the work by Rabbet, Colose and Tamino since in my limited knowledge of them they have seemed to be working more on the veracity or otherwise of temperature measurements and concentrations of carbon dioxide, rather than discussing the physical links between the two parameters. Nor, apparently, for all of Kinninmonths qualifications ...... radiative transfer is unphysical 4. I am wondering if you could be more specific in explaining why my model of the atmosphere is “unphysical”. I have had many comments on my paper over the years it has been on the web but none which described it as “non physical” As you would be aware, I have always given my email address and invited comments and in particular criticisms of the physics – but disappointingly none has been critical and many physicists have commended it – not that I am seeking commendation as it is just pure text book physics applied to the atmosphere and carbon dioxide in particular as an example of a green house gas. You say you want to "draw attention for the need to discuss the scientific aspacts of climate change". Nothing done by the moderators or participants in this forum have prevented you from doing so. 5. That isn’t quite correct as some years ago I added my two pennies worth as I did the other day and was pillaried for it. I wasn’t discouraged this time – just had the main part of my contribution removed from the site. I accept that it may have just now gone outside this particular thread but somewhere else on this I have been urged to stick to the science. You have just been required, like the rest of us, to post on topic discussions which are confined to the topic of the post being discussed. As all manner of climate science (and non-science by deniers) is discussed on this forum, finding a suitable topic should be no problem. Apparently, however, it is too much effort for you. You would rather hijack threads with long screeds devoted solely to your theories. However, this is not your site. Out of politeness to your host, you should obey the forum rules (see the comments policy). Your inability or unwillingness to do so is you only impediment -
Enginerd at 14:48 PM on 24 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Prof. Mandia: Thank you for sharing this post. And, more importantly, I commend Angela, Ryan, Nick, and Jason for sharing their papers. They all did excellent work, and I hope they continue to take a very critical look at skeptic arguments and formulate (and defend) their own opinions on the science. -
mcrainbird at 14:45 PM on 24 May 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
This looks like a fantastic resource for my Geography students - we have ordered our copy. At last something to counter all the BS in the media. Cheers. -
Albatross at 14:18 PM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Dana @27 and Barry @28, That is exactly what I was trying to communicate @24. Although I guess that I was not direct/clear enough. -
Tom Curtis at 14:07 PM on 24 May 2011How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
mike williams @34, as an addendum to my comment, I would like to refer you to Chris Colose's comments @11 and 15 above. -
Tom Curtis at 13:51 PM on 24 May 2011How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
mike williams @34, the sentence you quote is poorly phrased. As the current warming is predominantly due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, any tropospheric hotspot observed will also be due to that enhanced greenhouse effect. What is true is that the tropospheric hotspot is not uniquely caused by the greenhouse effect. In fact, it is directly caused by an increase of specific humidity. That increased humidity increases the efficiency of energy transport to the tropopause, with a resulting reduction in the lapse rate (the rate at which temperature falls with increasing altitude). If the increase in specific humidity where to extend to the tropopause, the reduced lapse rate would mean the high troposphere would have warmed more than the surface. IMO, the jury is still out on whether specific humidity above 5 km altitude has increased, and also on whether the hot spot exists. As the decreased lapse rate with increased humidity is a negative feedback, its absence is hardly cause for comfort to deniers. Anyway, as the hotspot is a consequence of the increased humidity, any mechanism that warms the atmosphere will generate a hotspot. Indeed, solar heating which is strongest in tropical regions should generate a more distinct hotspot than does the greenhouse effect (which results in a greater relative warming near the poles). -
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 24 May 2011How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
mike, my understanding is that warming from any forcing would produce the tropospheric hotspot, its not a particular fingerprint of GHG warming. The alleged missing hot spot (not) is an item because of supposed inconsistancy between models and observations. As has been pointed out though, it is detection that is the problem, though there could also be issues in the model detail. -
Charlie A at 13:18 PM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Here is the complete text of my comment #9. ( -Snip- )Response:[DB] A link will do. Interested parties, if any, are more than capable of reading upthread. Keep in mind the focus of this thread. You would have been better served, and less misunderstood, if you had simply asked your question(s) on a more relevant thread (that Search function thingy again).
-
Bob Lacatena at 13:16 PM on 24 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
30, scaddenp, Not to mention the fame. All those minutes spent on speaking tours and talk shows and Fox News. Oh, wait, that's the skeptics. And then there are the huge bucks from the book sales. Oh, wait, skeptics again. And then there are the babes. You know, those loose, buxom science groupies that faint at the sight of a pen protector and horn rimmed glasses. Just say the words "general circulation model" and they melt. There's nothing hotter than a climate scientist (T-shirt possibilities!). Of course, they're few and far between when you are spending most of your time hauling your butt around the Arctic or the Amazon or some other god-forsaken place a gazillion miles from civilization. But if you were near civilization, there'd be climate babes aplenty. -
Charlie A at 13:12 PM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
#30 is the closest to understanding my. I had no interest in the main thrust of this post, but because of some other stuff I'm looking at, the plot of Hansen's forcings and link caught my attention. Look at the comment history. I inquired about the forcings, without making comment on either Spencer's or Bickmore's arguments. What I thought would be my final comment, #9, was a simple observation that I did not find Spencer's calculation of sensitivity of 1.3C/doubling unusual as it was consistent with the the short term response sensitivity of many models. As far as Bickmore being disingenuous about the source of the forcing data, I asked for the source. He answered it. He left the main article ambiguous or misleading as to the source of the forcings, but it is a minor, somewhat tangential matter. One that I have an interest in, but not relevant to his analysis. "It sounds almost like he's saying there was no point in addressing Spencer's claims (and thus no point in reading Bickmore's post) because they actually agreed with mainstream climate science." -- that's a reasonable description of my attitude. A more accurate statement is that I am not sufficiently interested by the debate to analyze it in detail. I would fully expect that there are others which have much greater interest is this particular kerfluffle. I was rather surprised that my statements in comment #9 about the short term transient response of the GISS E model would be controversial and that others would claim them to be misrepresentations. I also described in comment #9 the short term (70 year) response of GFDL. That description was also attacked as being a misrepresentation, and two other posters claimed the I either misunderstood or misrepresented Held et al 2010. Hopefully, after this rather lengthy exchange of comments, any reasonably intelligent reader can see that properly described the GISS E short term sensitivity, the short term sensitivity or transient response of GFDL CM2.1, and properly interpreted Held et al 2010. -
mike williams at 13:11 PM on 24 May 2011How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
Great site you have here, load of reading for me.. Pardon the next question. I am just confused with terminology. This page states "The biggest misunderstanding about the tropospheric hot spot is the mistaken notion that it's caused by the greenhouse effect." I thought the greenhouse effect/greenhouse forcing was was 1/the same thing. 2/At the heart of AGWarming science. If its not, why is the ipcc using the term as well as the australian govt.? Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html Such “fingerprints of greenhouse gas forcing” include, for example, the observation that winters are warming more rapidly than summers and that overnight minimum temperatures have risen more rapidly than daytime maximum temperatures (IPCC 2007a)An apparent inconsistency between observations with greenhouse theory was the alleged failure to find a so-called “tropical hot spot”, a warming in the tropical atmosphere about 10-15 km above the Earth’s surface. In reality, there was no inconsistency between observed and modelled changes in tropical upper tropospheric temperatures, allowing for uncertainties in observations and large internal variability in temperature in the region. Furthermore, recent thermal wind calculations have indeed shown greater warming in the region (Allen and Sherwood 2008), confirming that there is no inconsistency and providing another fingerprint of enhanced greenhouse forcing. http://climatecommission.govspace.gov.au/files/2011/05/4108-CC-Science-Update-PRINT-CHANGES.pdf -
scaddenp at 12:35 PM on 24 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
Jimjim, sounds like comment policy violation to me, but for your interest, climate scientists get grants to investigate what we do not know about climate with no predetermined result in mind. All that money on climate science is largely spent on satellites. If you want to make money, then take a proposal to Koch or Cato, or Heartland for some anti-theory instead. If you can dream up something plausible, then I'll bet you can get more money personally than you would ever get through research grant channels. PS know any rich climate scientists? -
dana1981 at 12:35 PM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
macoles - fair enough, the same thought occurred to me. But I thought it was an example worth mentioning nonetheless.
Prev 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 Next
